--- In [email protected], Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > authfriend wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > > >> authfriend wrote: > >> > >>> --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> But wait! There's more: > >>>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=- > >>>> > > 3074561005024763960&hl=en > > > >>>> :) > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Very unconvincing. The first clip is a fake, staged > >>> by the filmmakers after the fact, with the Fox News > >>> logo and so on stripped in. There's nothing in the > >>> picture when the "witness" is on screen that pegs the > >>> clip to shortly after the buildings' collapse. > >>> > >>> > >> I'll look into that being a video editor for some time. > >> It has the Oakland FOX news stadio KTVU at the beginning. > >> That's a lot of work just for that. > >> > > > > But the first clip sets the whole thing up. The guy > > is so obviously fake, if you fall for its being a real > > clip of a plant, you're primed to be suspicious of the > > other two. That clip is key. > > > > Did you notice that the cutaways to the towers don't > > have the Fox logo and chyron? > > > There is nothing wrong with the authors using a cutaway > that was not part of the broadcast to show what the guy > was talking about.
We've all seen that film a million times; we know exactly what he's talking about. The focus of this clip was supposedly on the guy himself. Why cut away from him? If that had been a real Fox News clip from shortly after the attacks, *Fox News* would have shown that film as the guy was talking, and the logo and chyron would be on it. As you say, to strip in the logo is a lot of work. They apparently decided not to bother with the cutaways, figuring nobody would notice. That > doesn't prove anything to your thesis that it is a fake. It all adds up, Barry. <snip> > > Of course. All the conspiracy videos I've seen use > > clips from the networks and cable. > > > In fact many of the reports speak of it looking like a demolition. <duh> Non sequitur. > >>> Gonna have to do better than that. You're awfully > >>> gullible, Barry. > >>> > >> I never said these are the "truth" but posted them as > >> something more "to think about" which is what the film > >> makers said too. > > > > Fine, but they're using fake examples of what they > > want you "to think about." That's the sort of thing > > purveyors of *disinformation* would do. > > > But again you have no proof they are fake. You are just > proposing it. I am not saying anything either way but > posted it as a video of interest. It's of no interest if the first clip is a fake, which it clearly is. > If this was an "inside job" they would have a predicted what news > coverage would happen and plant ops in the field just for that. > That's a common tactical strategy. Right, which is why the filmmakers tried to make it seem that's what "they" had done. > >> I want to maintain an open mind on the issue > > > > Don't let your mind be so open your brains fall out! > > > Gee what a statement from someone who fancies themselves an > intellectual. Happens to be one of my father's favorite quips. He was the head of the German department at Harvard. It's actually a very valid point. > >> and not buy the government's. I never have > >> bought much of their stuff anyway even as a kid. I was > >> taught that they lie. > > > > Of course they lie. But that doesn't mean *everything* > > they say is a lie. In this case, there's no really > > good evidence they were lying about what happened on > > 9/11, at least about the main events. It just doesn't > > hold up under examination. > > > And I never said they lie all the time did I? Even if it > happened the way they said there would still be a fair > amount of cover-up because government agencies screwed up. Unquestionably. But the *real* screw-ups (and perhaps deliberate facilitation) get a lot less attention than the sexy controlled-demolition, Bush-did-it conspiracy theories. They distract attention from what we really ought to be looking at.
