View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

September Clues... Take 2

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: September Clues... Take 2

Postby ProfWag » 31 May 2012, 02:22

NinjaPuppy wrote:
ProfWag wrote:It sure seems like a missed a lot over the past couple days!

That's what happens when you're off jet setting with the tennis crowd.


I'm not sure Little Rock qualifies for "jet setting." It's not like I was playing in the French Open or anything... :-)
NinjaPuppy wrote:I don't believe that anyone here (me and OP) agrees or disagrees with either set of issues at this point. We're merely picking apart both sides of an issue one claim/counterclaim at a time. OP has an interest in this and I'm willing to play the' home version' of this exercise with him.

And really, that's all I did with my post except I was picking apart only one side of the issue. You know I have an interest in it as well, but c'mon, it's been 11 years for chrissake. Don't you think someone, somewhere would be sitting in a corner and sheepishly say they were part of the US Government's conspiracy? People have put their lives on the line for a hell of a lot less.
If someone makes a claim, then all sides of that claim should be examined for an explanation. Personally, I think the claim that either no planes hit the buildings or that the US Government was involved or that missiles hit the Pentagon instead of a plane do not make any logical sense. Too many good, decent, law abiding people would have had to have been involved. Take me for example. Okay, I may not be straight as an arrow, but if I were asked by the POTUS to replace a plane with a missile or to go into the WTC and plant some thermite, I'd be like, whoa, wait just a minute here. Let me get on the phone first and see if this is cool. (dialing (212) 975-3247)-- Hello? Is this 60 Minutes?...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54






Re: September Clues... Take 2

Postby NinjaPuppy » 31 May 2012, 02:52

ProfWag wrote:You know I have an interest in it as well, but c'mon, it's been 11 years for chrissake. Don't you think someone, somewhere would be sitting in a corner and sheepishly say they were part of the US Government's conspiracy? People have put their lives on the line for a hell of a lot less.

And when we get to that part of the video about the events of 11 years ago, we can certainly discuss it.

ProfWag wrote:If someone makes a claim, then all sides of that claim should be examined for an explanation.

That's what I believe we are attempting to do here but we're doing it step by step, according to Heero's game plan. If the OP wants to examine a pile of laundry down to a single piece of butt lint, he is certainly welcomed to do so.

ProfWag wrote:Personally, I think the claim that either no planes hit the buildings or that the US Government was involved or that missiles hit the Pentagon instead of a plane do not make any logical sense.

Who said anything about this is logical? Here's Heero's original statement: "Even if all of them turn out to be bunk. I am in a good position right now to evaluate these claims:" So here we are evaluating the claims. I like to evaluate. It beats cleaning the house.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: September Clues... Take 2

Postby Heero_Yuy » 31 May 2012, 03:53

Ninjapupry and ProfWag

I wanted to analyze it this way because I have seen how other discussions on this subject turn out:

Someone mentions some "facts" that are "impossible to disprove." and "how can you skeptics exlain these?"
Then someone pipes in about how they're not facts at all.
Someone else makes a comment about "the loony truther nuts,"
Someone comes back to the original claims and tries to defend them...by making fun of the person that questioned them,"
Rinse and repeat. That is how one of the longest threads about 9/11, when Winston consulted for a debate on the radio, seemed to go.

That is why I wanted to do it this way. So it would be a little less confusing and insulting for everyone. However, I must not have read the forums thoroughly enough though, because I didn't see anywhere the footage of 9/11 itself was thoroughly called into question. The original September Clues videos only had a few replies, and most "truthers" and "skeptics" seem to accept the footage of the event as recording what actually occurred that morning. It seems that before we can debate what happened, then we have to make sure the footage of the event actually describes what happened.

I think though that I need to recap what has happened so far, so that we can tell where we are and continue with this discussion. Here goes:

We are looking at the first two scenes.

Part A Scene No. 1:

"The Clue/observation" is:
1) No one sees or mentions a plane
2) Screen blacks out on impact of the second plane
3) The reporters' microphone picked up on the ambient sound but not the explosion of the building itself, even though the reporter was right bellow the towers.

Questions:
1)"Why did no one see or mention the SECOND plane?"
2) "Why was there a blackout on impact?"
3) "Why would the microphone not pick up the explosion?"

POSSIBLE Explanations:
1)"No one was expecting it, so no one's attention was turned to the towers."
"The anchor and or newsroom were not focusing on the image, and the plane came in and all they saw was the explosion."
"This is one of several cases where this happens and there was no first plane"
2) "The network thought the footage was to violent and were trying to keep it from airing." "There was a brief natural outage of feed for 15 frames, due to the planes crashing into the trade center," "They wanted to censor a mistake in the footage that would have exposed them."
3)"The microphone might not have picked up the sound for a number of reasons. Sometimes microphones just don't pick up on what you would expect them to. Ninjapuppy gave an example of a microphone failing to pick up noise and picking up unexpected noise." "the event was staged and the reporter was never actually at the location he said that he was."

For 1) The natural explanation seems Much more likely.
For 2) The conspiracy seems more likely."
For 3) Not enough information/Not knowledgeable enough to make an informed choice.

That is where I am right now.

Heero


"
Last edited by Heero_Yuy on 31 May 2012, 05:18, edited 2 times in total.
Heero_Yuy
 
Posts: 41
Joined: 28 May 2012, 10:00

Re: September Clues... Take 2

Postby ProfWag » 31 May 2012, 04:25

Heero_Yuy wrote:"The Clue/observation" is:
1) No one sees or mentions a plane
2) Screen blacks out on impact of the second plane
3) The reporters' microphone picked up on the ambient sound but not the explosion of the building itself, even though the reporter was right bellow the towers.

Questions:
1)"Why did no one see or mention the first plane?"
2) "Why was there a blackout on impact?"
3) "Why would the microphone not pick up the explosion?"


"

See, here I am--lost--since I can't watch the video so I'll interject and you can ignore if I'm way off base.
1) Lots of people saw the first plane so not sure what they hell this statement is about. Of course, how many people who live in New York City spend all morning looking up at the WTCs? And how many people are filming a building that's just standing there? Not many--unless you'e Andy Warhol.
2) Was there a blackout on every channel or just one? Could the blackout have been the result of a temporary lapse in electricity due to the impact of the building?
3) See question 2.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: September Clues... Take 2

Postby NinjaPuppy » 31 May 2012, 04:42

HY wrote:"The Clue/observation" is:
1) No one sees or mentions a plane
2) Screen blacks out on impact of the second plane
3) The reporters' microphone picked up on the ambient sound but not the explosion of the building itself, even though the reporter was right bellow the towers.

Questions:
1)"Why did no one see or mention the first plane?"
2) "Why was there a blackout on impact?"
3) "Why would the microphone not pick up the explosion?"




ProfWag wrote:See, here I am--lost--since I can't watch the video...

May I ask you to clarify as to why?

ProfWag wrote:1) Lots of people saw the first plane so not sure what they hell this statement is about. Of course, how many people who live in New York City spend all morning looking up at the WTCs? And how many people are filming a building that's just standing there? Not many--

The tourists spend the entire day looking up. That's how you tell them from the regulars. However, it was early morning so probably not many tourists were in the area.

ProfWag wrote:2) Was there a blackout on every channel or just one? Could the blackout have been the result of a temporary lapse in electricity due to the impact of the building?
[/quote][/quote]
I believe the 'blackout' in question is the glitch in the footage shown in the video. I don't remember if the NY stations went down before or after the first hit. The other networks could not broadcast due to their antennas getting knocked out at some point. Here's where my memory gets fuzzy. I seem to recall that FOX had a mobile unit in the area that morning as the reason for their broadcast. However, I wouldn't want to swear on that information.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: September Clues... Take 2

Postby ProfWag » 31 May 2012, 04:46

Okay, I'm actually following along now and think I'm up to speed with you two. Even though I didn't know what the hell you wee talking about at the time, my comments in the last post still pretty much stand.
It appears that the producer of September Clueless is trying to present falacies as facts. Hopefully the readers of this will notice that right off.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: September Clues... Take 2

Postby Heero_Yuy » 31 May 2012, 04:48

Hi ProfWag,

This link might be helpful: http://truthaction.org/debunkingseptemberclues.pdf
It lists the claims made in the video along with a rebuttal. May I ask why you cannot see the videos?

1) We are not talking about what "Lots of people saw," we are talking about what the reporter on the scene under the tower saw. In the clip provided, he doesn't mention a second plane having hit the towers. Neither does the anchor. This despite the video feed showing that very thing happening.
Funny you should mention Andy Warhol, since he is mentioned later in the video in a reference to the strange appearance of some of the video of the tower.

2) CNN borrowed the footage courtesy of WABC and the News Chopper 7. There was a brief Blackout, then zoom in when the second plane hit. The Fox 5 chopper coverage also features a blackout around the time of the infamous, "nose out" scene, which was when the second plane hit. It could have been electrical failure, or it could be intentional.

Heero
Last edited by Heero_Yuy on 31 May 2012, 04:57, edited 3 times in total.
Heero_Yuy
 
Posts: 41
Joined: 28 May 2012, 10:00

Re: September Clues... Take 2

Postby Heero_Yuy » 31 May 2012, 04:49

All three online at once. Nice.
Heero_Yuy
 
Posts: 41
Joined: 28 May 2012, 10:00

Re: September Clues... Take 2

Postby NinjaPuppy » 31 May 2012, 05:03

Heero_Yuy wrote:All three online at once. Nice.

Wag took a powder. He'll be back. Probably went to put fresh ice in his... never 8-) mind. He's back. Remember, I can seeeeeeeeee you. :lol:
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: September Clues... Take 2

Postby Heero_Yuy » 31 May 2012, 05:15

It appears that the producer of September Clueless is trying to present falacies as facts. Hopefully the readers of this will notice that right off.


Be more specific if you can. Keep in mind that he Prefaces the statements as "observations," not facts. Which fallacy are you talking about, by the way?
Heero_Yuy
 
Posts: 41
Joined: 28 May 2012, 10:00

Re: September Clues... Take 2

Postby Heero_Yuy » 31 May 2012, 05:20

Remember, I can seeeeeeeeee you. :lol:


Oh no...

:shock: :!: :?:
Heero_Yuy
 
Posts: 41
Joined: 28 May 2012, 10:00

Re: September Clues... Take 2

Postby ProfWag » 31 May 2012, 05:23

Heero_Yuy wrote:Hi ProfWag,

It lists the claims made in the video along with a rebuttal. May I ask why you cannot see the videos?

1) We are not talking about what "Lots of people saw," we are talking about what the reporter on the scene under the tower saw. In the clip provided, he doesn't mention a second plane having hit the towers. Neither does the anchor. This despite the video feed showing that very thing happening.
Heero


Thank you for the link. I'm with you now.

I'm at work and if I played youtube videos with the sound up, the people that work for me would know I was screwing off instead of working. Plus, I do't usually put any stock into a youtube video for obvious reasons such as fakery, misleading information, and simply to get under Scepcop's skin a little bit.

I could watch videos from home I suppose, but once I get home, there's usually more important things going on such as I--have a beer, smoke a cigar, pet my dog, play grab ass with my wife, eat dinner, water the plants, leave a crap, watch the news, play a game of tennis, wash the car, feed the cats, read the paper, surf for porn, watch Wheel of Fortune, sweep the garage, get in a round of golf, take another shower and clean out my toe jam, answer stupid political poll phone calls, have another beer, fix the coffee for the next morning, wash the dishes, smell my flowers, take a walk, pull some weeds and get ready for bed--all the while trying to catch sneak peeks at the girls on the Spanish channel when my wife leaves the room for a moment. Anyway, that's my Monday night. Tuesday night, I'll have to... ;)

Getting back to your question/statement about the reporter not seeing the plane. Where was he/she? Outside or in the studeo? Under the tower or 3 miles away? Did the reporter have earplugs in and listening to what the producer was telling him? Have you ever been live on the air with people talking to you through an earpiece in the mass hysteria that was 9/11? Might you not have noticed anything but your camera crew as well? Just sayin' that the producer of this film appears to be throwing a lot of falacies at us.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: September Clues... Take 2

Postby ProfWag » 31 May 2012, 05:29

Heero_Yuy wrote:
It appears that the producer of September Clueless is trying to present falacies as facts. Hopefully the readers of this will notice that right off.


Be more specific if you can. Keep in mind that he Prefaces the statements as "observations," not facts. Which fallacy are you talking about, by the way?

The movie says"
“We can therefore establish that this ‘airplane’ was not a real airplane. Instead it was a graphic image of an airplane.”

No, we can't establish that it was not a real airplane. That's a falacy and a misleading claim. He's using the nose in/nose out images to make that statement appear as fact, but the nose in/out frames look much different to me and I don't see any evidence of anything other than an airplane hitting a building.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: September Clues... Take 2

Postby Heero_Yuy » 31 May 2012, 05:38

"No, we can't establish that it was not a real airplane."


Thanks for clarifying.
We're not there yet. We are covering the first Scene... Or Page 2 box 1 of the PDF. Also, the reporter was "there where the(FIRST) plane made contact." He wasn't three miles away.

Also for some reason he is using "better" footage than what Mr. Shack used on the nose in nose out scene, but we'll get there.

You should probably read my very first post as well...
Heero_Yuy
 
Posts: 41
Joined: 28 May 2012, 10:00

Re: September Clues... Take 2

Postby ProfWag » 01 Jun 2012, 02:12

Heero_Yuy wrote:We're not there yet. We are covering the first Scene... Or Page 2 box 1 of the PDF. Also, the reporter was "there where the(FIRST) plane made contact." He wasn't three miles away.

Also for some reason he is using "better" footage than what Mr. Shack used on the nose in nose out scene, but we'll get there.

You should probably read my very first post as well...

Sorry, now I'm confused again. The first scene on page 2 is actually the first scene of the movie on my .pdf. What exactly are you wanting us to discuss again? That there was no sound picked up by the reporter?
And if so, we're 4 pages into this discussion and we're still on the first scene? I'm afraid we'll have to go a little faster than that if that's the case.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 2 guests