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.
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?"
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.
Last edited by Heero_Yuy
on 31 May 2012, 05:18, edited 2 times in total.