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.
01 Jun 2012, 06:45
"Oh my. Welllllllll, I only meant the discussion on this guy's Clueless video should go fast. Most things in life that really matter should go quite slow for the most part."
Please read my posts, and it would be a good idea to skim the all the posts in this thread. ProfWag.
Please don't derail this conversation. You are obviously very intelligent, and we can have an honest discussion with out it degenerating.
04 Jun 2012, 11:36
I just want to let you guys know that I have not abandoned this discussion.
05 Jun 2012, 03:30
I think his first three claims are just that...clues. They are basically circumstantial evidence.
I would question the natural explanation especially in claim 2. The second plane struck the WTC 2. The antenna was on WTC 1. Wouldn't the backup feed have already started if the first plane had already struck. Why would the second plane cause such a blackout? And such a short one to.
05 Jun 2012, 07:53
I decided to check to see if the YouTube version of the debunking was available and here it is:
It pretty much debunks a few of the major claims.
05 Jun 2012, 09:23
It seems I have messed up pretty badly. Sorry about that guys.
I was doing the very first claim. The one with the fade to black, where the mic doesn't pick up on the explosion. And... the youtube video is not the same as the PDF. On the PDF it is the very first claim. I did summarize the FIRST CLAIM AND RESPONSE a few posts back, but I will be glad to do this again. For any readers of this thread... sorry for the confusion. I am a pretty new to forums, and it is really showing....
Winston Mitchell is on the north side of the building, near where the plane made contact. He confirms this.
Loop of Anchors voice saying "where the mi... the plane made contact."
The footage shown is courtesy of WABC.
Second plane hit is shown on the screen.
8?? frame blackout and zoom into towers.
Winston reports explosions.
The anchor reports " we've got an explosion inside." to the audience? Probably the audinece.
(on the original footage, not the documentary) about a minute and a half later, the anchor gets word from the producers that a second plane
"may have been involved, but we won't even speculate as to that.(paraphrase)"
"NO ONE sees nor mentions "plane""
"screen blacks out on impact (about 8 black frames)"
"Winston's mic/phone picks up ambient sound BUT NO EXPLOSION."
[‘Fade to black’ addressed at end of this episode.]
Perhaps the TV anchor wasn’t watching the TV monitor in the studio, and thus missed seeing the
Just because the on-site reporter’s phone didn’t pick up the impact sound, that does not mean that
the Tower did not get hit and did not explode! It simply means that the phone didn’t pick up the
impact sound! There could be many reasons for this. Therefore it does not constitute proof that any
act of fakery took place.
The maker of “September Clues” seems to be implying that because the phone did not pick up an
impact sound, nothing happened to the Tower! Clearly, this is absurd!"
FADE TO BLACK:
The “Fades to Black” could be caused by interference to the signal which is external to the TV
stations, thus affecting both networks simultaneously and in much the same way.
Another possibility, given that there was much TV broadcasting equipment on top of the Twin
Towers, is that the chopper signal, which may have been routed through equipment on top of the
Towers, was interrupted. This would likely have triggered a back-up, hence there was a moment of
signal loss when one signal dies and the switch was made to an alternative source. A huge surge of
TV signal interference could have been caused by the number of electrical circuits being ‘shorted
out’ by the crash and explosion.
Just like the “scenario” presented in “September Clues”, this is also just speculation. However, it
proves that there are reasonable alternative explanations for the “fades to black” which must be
investigated and ruled-out before we can begin to accept any notion that the “fades to black” were
deliberate acts of concealment. Especially when no evidence is offered to support the claim that
they were deliberate acts.
you have been more than patient with me.
I hope that this can get us on track once and for all.
My next post will be the problems that I find with the natural explanation that truth action and Nick Irving give for Scene One.
I again apologize for my ineptitude. Don't completely dismiss me for it...
05 Jun 2012, 18:44
Some of the problems with this type of investigation is that NOTHING can be "ruled out." There are plausable explanations for many things such as the reason there was no sound picked up and the fade to blacks is the loss of communication at impact between the impact and the next second when generators kicked in. Yes, those are plausable explanations and, in my mind, probably what happened. However, if you're looking for absolute proof so things can be ruled out, I'm afraid you'll be spinning your wheels.
What I do is take everything as a whole and then come up with an opinion based on everything. Just because one thing happened at 9/11 that can't be explained doesn't mean that as a whole, it was a government conspiracy. There could very easily be an explanation that just hadn't yet been found.
06 Jun 2012, 07:49
ProfWag, What would you accept as evidence of video tampering. Basically, what would we expect to see in the footage if it was actually tampered with? What would you look for?
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
phpBB Mobile / SEO by Artodia.