authfriend wrote:
> --- 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?
>
>
To show what he is talking about. Video editing 101
> 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.
>
Nonesense. One could debunk a lot videos with such useless logic.
> That
>
>> doesn't prove anything to your thesis that it is a fake.
>>
>
> It all adds up, Barry.
>
I don't think so.
> <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.
>
>
Oh no, very much part of the topic. Your non sequitur is 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.
>
Not at all clearly a fake. Only to you who wants it to be one.
>
>> 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.
>
IOW, the masses shouldn't think. Sounds a bit arrogant to me.
>
>>>> 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.
BUT... what if a rogue organization other than Islamic terrorist did do
it? I think a lot of 9-11 truth folks are trying to solve a mystery.
Nothing wrong with that. Keep taking the blue pill if it helps...
