Mike DeWine Uses "Doctored" 9/11 Video in Attack Ad.
Mike DeWine decided to try on the "9/11 Halo" and it didn't work so well...
DeWine blunder adds fuel to controversial Sept. 11 ad
The controversial video of the burning World Trade Center towers in a television campaign ad for Ohio Sen. Mike DeWine is doctored, U.S. News has learned. The television spot, which has been lambasted by critics as a political exploitation of the Sept. 11, attacks Democrat challenger Rep. Sherrod Brown for being weak on national security.
On the air in major Ohio markets since last Friday, the ad shows the towers, with the south building billowing smoke, which gradually drifts upward. In the video, the north tower, which was struck first on September 11, is undamaged.
"This particular image is impossible," says W. Gene Corley, a stuctural engineer who led FEMA's building performance study on the World Trade Center after the 9/11 attacks. Corley reviewed the ad at www.brownvotes.com for U.S. News. "The north tower was hit first [so] the south tower could not be burning without the North Tower burning." Corley also says, "the smoke is all wrong." The day of the attacks, the plumes of ash were drifting to the southeast. "The smoke on 9/11 was never in a halo like that," Corley says.
You can view the video on DeWine's "Brown Votes" website. Gene Corley, of all people! You ever analyze any of those other videos, Gene?
Here is a 3mb .wmv of the commercial you can download.
- Login to post comments
Hey! Maybe Nico is right
Hey! Maybe Nico is right afterall!
jk... That smoke looks like shit. Pitiful CGI - funny that the senator who comissioned it couldn't tell it was fake.
Blasted for using
Blasted for using 9/11--looks like they forgot about Bush!
funny that the senator who
funny that the senator who comissioned it couldn't tell it was fake.
Anonymous | 07.19.06 - 10:34 pm | #
"He approved that message."
How come he didnt use the
How come he didnt use the newly released pentagon footage for his campaign? Because you can clearly tell its Flight 77 in the footage!:) Im surprised people aren't saying youre crazy for thinking that footage of the towers in the ad is fake.
They do what they want, and
They do what they want, and only a handful of thinking people call them out on it, but those people only get to do it on blogs that the masses never see...
This is the lousiest fake
This is the lousiest fake video.
Even planehuggers are able to detect this.
So what? They will still continue to claim that real planes hit the south tower on TV...
But they can yell and threaten as long as they want.
This week more 9/11 truthseekers chickened out against us and lost the argument:
Ken Jenkins, Barbara Honegger, Mark Bilk and Brian Douglas:.
All 4 finally agreed, that even if the evidence on 9/11 TV Fakery is true, it needs to be oppressed.
Almost a dozen of 9/11 scholars are listening to us and support us.
The solid evidence on the more important fakeries of 9/11 will continue (also during WW3-5), the latest update is here:
http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Google Earth comparison proves TV Fakery (07/19)
Compare with Video Screenshots:
One of the most opposed discrepancies ignored in debates with hardline "planehuggers" is the conflicting simulated flight path of the FOX5LOCAL live broadcast footage which clearly contradicts with the simulated flight path of the ABC7 live footage (which was synched live into the feed from FOXNEWS, CNN, NBC etc..)
Both screenshots of footage and google earth above clearly proves:
1) The unidentified helicopter for FOX5 filmed the Twin Towers next to each other
and the CGI came in from a straight right angle
2) The unidentified helicopter for ABC7/FOX NEWS filmed the Twin Towers covering each other but the CGI came in from the SAME straight right angle as well.
This is clearly impossible.
It is a violation of logical and mathematical rules.
(see footage at Uncropped long distance, (not-live) shown footage proves fakery (06/26) and Killtown's 2nd attack collection)
3) The positions from these helicopters, which zoomed into the towers at time of broadcast, remained at the same distances apprx. 6-8 miles away.
4) The unidentified helicopter camera operators furthermore ignored hypothetical real aircrafts by choosing not to select immediately an EWS (Extreme Wide Shot) or ECU (Extreme Close up) to identify these alleged objects with their detailed WESCAM multimedia settings. From that distance this appears very illogical.
If chosen, the aircraft would have looked like this:
As one can see in the video footage, there is no doubt about the identical simulated flight angles.
Logically one of the live broadcasts must have included no real aircraft.
Comparing these series with all other not-live footage, we're finding however many other geographical and forensic discrepancies.
These are widely ignored by 'junk scientists', who still claim that a real plane must have hit the South Tower though other footage showed authentic aircraft ("white elephant"), witnessed by Diane Sawyer and other witnesses, also filmed by Camera Planet and CNN, which passed (!) the crime scene and did not hit at all the South Tower.
Ex- 9/11 scholar Reynolds Dixon who analysed the "white elephant" and called it '3rd plane' was threatened after he released his paper and resigned from the scholars.
So far, the main spokespersons from 9/11 Scholars continued to ignore the solid evidence on 9/11 TV Fakery (extended analysis will continue ASAP at 911closeup.com)...
Addendum
As military radar photos prove (see also team8plus.org), potential stand-in plane for UA175 (officially hitting South Tower) was 9.6 miles away at time of 'second attack'
So who's going to hand out
So who's going to hand out flyers and DVDs during "WORLD TRADE CENTER"?
I plan on bringing at least 50 with me and passing them out in the theatres, as well as printing out flyers.
Nico your research is a
Nico your research is a joke. The planes fly in the same direction on video because they were traveling exactly horizontal to the ground. The relative speed to the camera may change, but the planes would naturally 'appear' to be moving in the same direction from different vantage points. There are no conflicting trajectories - you just assume the evidence is too abstract for people to actually look at it themselves. And a few Google Earth screenshots should never be referred to as 'proof'.
Other 'evidence' of yours I've seen debunked - The local TV station here in Lexington has a WESCAM camera mount. They are way smaller than any NYC station, so to call the stuff 'military technology' is bogus.
Nowhere have you ever explained how someone could have taken the millions and millions of lines of code in AfterEffects or any compositing program and figured out how to make that run real time. Imagine the success of 9/11 depending on 2000 Dells all linked together processing in unison, with everyone just hoping one won't crash... Sorry, but the technology is just not there to pull such a stunt reliably. If it was - even if developed by the Pentagon - nobody could resist the millions of dollars that could be made from selling such a system commercially. The incentive for the technology isn't great enough for the Pentagon to devote millions of programmer man- hours to creating it.
Plus William Rodriguez said you're wrong. Please just shut up now, or at least research something less stupid...
nico-if you could put
nico-if you could put together a presentation of your beliefs that could be understood by the average moron,(like loose change) you just might furthur your cause
I wonder often why Nico
I wonder often why Nico chooses this to be his research.
Anonymous is talking
Anonymous is talking nonsense.
If we take one of the live footage for serious, you clearly see from the different position of the towers, that also the aircraft silhoutte MUST have come from a different direction.
You try to confuse the readership and hiding behind "anonymous".
How credible is this?
And as already pointed out, this isn't the only discrepancy.
Sizes of other CGIs do not change, though camera operators did use zoom.
Behavior of CGIs do not change, though camera is jumping.
CGIs which suddenly rotate, though this is impossible for real planes.
CGIs which do not become bigger, though coming closer to the object.
CGIs which aren't logically bigger compared to other front view footage, though the towers are clearly bigger etc....
The point on WESCAM was furthermore that it is a military product, NOT that the military does use it exclusively. I also never concluded, IF the ABC7 chopper was either from nWABC7 (ABC 7 wrote on their website that they only used 2 during 2001 though) or one of the 16-18 mil choppers which are visibly documented on the Siegel footage.
I also don't know what you tried to say with your 2000 DELL computers, you basically need just the software which was linked to not more than 2 confirmed LIVE Broadcasts and that's it.
Why you imply that an upload of an aircraft silhouette is different from a logo, is also a mystery for me.
It's the same amount of data, in this case even lousier, because 1D-2D and just a black blurb.
What i research or not is not of your business, and if you are aware of my research bio, i researched almost everything on 9/11 and more at team8plus.
The reason why this focus appears so omnipresent for you is that it is the only one which is still oppressed most and everything else well covered.
"...tthe technology is just not there to pull such a stunt reliably...
An clearly lies. The technology was there during 2001 and is meanwhile even 100times more solid and improved, even already outdated. Noone is using vector-keying anymore and the next hip thing won't be isolated CGIs but AR/VR:
Total Immersions Augmented Reality Demo
http://911cgiwatch.blogspot.com/
The evidence of 911tvfakery.blogspot.com is solid, including the forensic evidence on physical violations plus various other discrepancies, with or without anonymous' silly remarks.
huh wrote: "...nico-if you
huh wrote:
"...nico-if you could put together a presentation of your beliefs that could be understood by the average moron,(like loose change) you just might furthur your cause..."
Already done. I am waiting for 2 approvals in public since weeks, but one of it will come pretty soon.
Btw, i don't know what an average "moron" is, but basically i convinced tons of supporters, no matter of their social background or IQ.
It's too bad, Nico used to
It's too bad, Nico used to seem like an honest researcher, as featured in this one clip:
http://www.jonhs.com/911/911_file_unsolved1.htm
Nico cannot explain how so many parts would have bene planted, how plane shaping charges could be placed on so many floors to make the shape of a plane, what could make the sound of a roaring plane to make everyone look up, or how non camera planet/non mainstream aired amatuer footage ALSO shows the planes.
What gives no planers away is the fact they mostly now focus on this.
theres a few no planers I respect, because their work in OTHER areas of 9/11 research is unparralelled and uncanny. For instance, Killtown has some of the most comprehensive nitty gritty detective work online.
The evidence of
The evidence of 911tvfakery.blogspot.com is solid, including the forensic evidence on physical violations plus various other discrepancies, with or without anonymous' silly remarks.
Nico Haupt aka ewing2001 | 07.20.06 - 1:23 am | #
You make shit up then pretend like it means something - i.e. 'vector keying' (software used when shooting in a bluescreen studio). Someone else has brought up the rotoscoping and motion tracking that would be required to blend in the planes with live footage - this is where the cumbersome and slow compositing software like AE is required. Just think, zooming in on the plane requires tracking multiple individual points in the source footage and determining the exact rate of zoom, so that the plane insert is scaled accordingly. This is very hard to do in a reasonable period of time, requires manual input (cannot be automated), and it is simply impossible to accomplish in real- time. I've watched the crash footage many times and cannot pick up any discrepancies. Sorry dude... but acting like faking live plane crashes is as simple as compositing a logo over a news broadcast shows just how ignorant you are.
Trust me, when they've
Trust me, when they've exhausted the "no plane" crap, next will come the "no towers" bullshit...just wait:)
How can the burning WTC
How can the burning WTC possibly be used as an argumend for Republicans and against Democrats? It happened with Bush in the White House! (or in a first grader class room rather, which is where Dubya belongs).
I believe the guy
I believe the guy interviewed who was on the 87th floor of the South tower. He looked up and saw a PLANE HEADED STRAIGHT TOWARDS HIM.
Hold on to your hats people; you'll see this interview shortly.
Why is anonymous still
Why is anonymous still hiding?
Dz should better track him because HE is the shill.
"...tracking multiple individual points in the source footage and determining the exact rate of zoom, so that the plane insert is scaled accordingly..."
The stupidity of anon's aversion technique is even helpful to make my point:
I was talking about the only available 2(!) LIVE BROADCAST clips and in these clips show pre-positioned (and apperently 'terror drilled' and programmed cameras), which was the easiest way to scale the inserts accordingly.
The ABC7 and FOX5 clip is available at Killtown's second attack section:
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html
(SERIES 1, SERIES 10, cropped)
As everyone can see there was only a small cropped window for a minimal sum of points.
It was furthermore a graphic silhouette which was inserted,
not a photo-realistic plane. Simple.
No rocket science. Via control monitor.
All other footage WASN'T shown live and there was indeed a lot of screw up AS WE POINTED OUT severals time:
"the exact rate of zoom" of particular amateur footage WAS ignored , so that the plane insert WASN'T scaled accordingly and behaves irrational.
see
Sunday, June 11, 2006
The unshrinking antizoom CGI (06/11)
http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_911tvfakery_archive.html
Keep it civil folks, seems
Keep it civil folks, seems to be a little bit of respect is being shown between people with differing opinions, please keep it up.
Plus this looks like a good idea:
So who's going to hand out flyers and DVDs during "WORLD TRADE CENTER"?
I plan on bringing at least 50 with me and passing them out in the theatres, as well as printing out flyers.
DHS
On the "10" series (FOX5
On the "10" series (FOX5 LOCAL) also killtown correctly points out, that "the logo obscures the plane coming in, a "nosecone" appears to exit the building, and then the video shuts off then back on after the "nosecone" exits..."
Maybe I spoke too soon,
Maybe I spoke too soon, please show some respect...
Nico, why wouldn't it be
Nico, why wouldn't it be easier & less risky for them to have used real drones at the WTC? Drones & imposter passengers were going to be used 44 years ago in Operation Northwoods.
Pockypot lies several times
Pockypot lies several times in his statement:
"...Nico cannot explain how so many parts would have bene planted...
This is not the focus of "911tvfakery", but the focus of the forensic research of the "no planers".
Plane parts had been planted like the perps did in Shanksville and Pentagon.
All these questions had been covered at WTC Planehugger Therapy -Top 30 FAQ
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/FAQ_planehuggers.html
"...how plane shaping charges could be placed on so many floors to make the shape of a plane..."
The shape charges looked also identical with the North Tower, therefore this coincidence can be explained with an exact pre-positioned explosives system.
The hole was btw. still too small for a Boeing 767.
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/FAQ_planehuggers.html
"...what could make the sound of a roaring plane to make everyone look up..."
Pockypot also lied here, though it was pointed out over and over again.
There was NO street sound in the only LIVE AVAILABLE BROADCAST from ABC7 and FOX5.
Furthermore the ABC7 feed was commented by Don Dahler, who actually was in front of the South Tower and didn't hear or see anything coming in.
9/11 WTC Aircraft 'Witnesses'
http://911closeup.com/nico/witness_contradictions.html
Dahler:
...i didn't see any plane going in...that...that's just exploded...i...
Gibson:
We just saw another plane coming in from the side.
Dahler:
You did?? I...that was ..was...out of my view...
Gibson:
That was a second explosion.
You can see the plane come in just from the right hand side of the screen...
(=> Dahler's witness report 'overruled' by a TV monitor)
This is also backed up by many other amateur footage, which had no plane in it.
"...or how non camera planet/non mainstream aired amatuer footage ALSO shows the planes..."
Already pointed out. There is interestingly also amateur footage which doesn't show any incoming plane at time of explosion and fireball.
The amateur footage at Camera Planet was doctored and has the most unprofessional inconsistencies in it.
Thanks to shill "anonymous" he also pointed correctly out, that the CGI behaves irrational and ignores the zoom. A very sloppy job.
Nico, do you really think it
Nico, do you really think it was helpful for you to have spoken nonsense like this for the New York Magazine article:
http://nymag.com/news/features/16464/index.html
Is it you goal to make truthers look foolish?
Perhaps you had too much
Perhaps you had too much schnapps und strudel that night?
"...Nico, why wouldn't it be
"...Nico, why wouldn't it be easier & less risky for them to have used real drones at the WTC? Drones & imposter passengers were going to be used 44 years ago in Operation Northwoods....
Anonymous is still hiding.
They apparently planned it.
But the risk factor was too high.
A real plane would have stucked outside of the building, the wing parts would realistically break apart, real kerosene wouldn't explode that rapidly the audience would have wondered why the building collapsed.
Also, the risk factor of a plane missing or not completely crashing into the building was too high.
There was no safe RC tech for a 767, but a smaller drone (like they're using in Iraq) would have been detected as well.
Another risk factor:
As pointed out at team8plus, the real planes had been landed somewhere else, i.e. Cleveland, nearby Albany , nearby Indian Lake airports etc....
Therefore an empty plane with no passengers would have been embarrissing for the perps.
The potential UA175 stand-in was 9./6 miles away at time of second hit, as military radar and FAA transcripts proves.
Again, anonymous distracts with aversion technique and his questions have nothing to do with the evidence on 9/11 TV fakery. It is about hypothesis.
Anonymous furthermore ignores, that there was indeed a real aircraft, either functionalizing as a decoy plane for the witnesses or a 'backup' plane in case they would not have run with CGIs.
They also possibly planned on last minute the direction of this insert, that's also why 16-18 US Military Helicopters protected the area at the same time, obviously part of yet another terror drill (maybe coming from Fort Drum)
Then the "elephant plane" didn't hit the Building either, as visibly proven on Camera Planet and CNN footage.
The very same plane was analysed by ex-9/11 scholar Reynolds Dixon who was threatened and resigned from the Scholars.
Strangely on the same weekend yet the story about Kevin Barrett seemed to distract from him.
Noone else looked into his "elephant plane" again, which was also confirmed by Diane Sawyer.
The more closer and structured our evidence on 9/11 CGI fakery becomes, the louder is the hostility and more "anonymous" shills try to intimidate the issue.
Hmmmm... If I were being
Hmmmm... If I were being interviewed by a major magazine, would I flip out, call people names, be "so emotional", etc...?
The answer to that question is NO.
I can't think of any reason in the world to act that way.
Not unless...
Why is Jon Albanese and his
Why is Jon Albanese and his fanclub of the "gang of 4" still using an anonymous?
"..Is it you goal to make truthers look foolish?.."
This was immediately explained at team8plus, in our MSM monitor section:
http://team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2178.10
"...The author is quoting two different conversations out of context.
The 1:1 interview with me about "aa77" and some other non-existing flights took place outside, while the emotional outrage was directed inside against Les Jamieson.
It was an 'insult' regarding the infiltration of ny911truth.org and their boycott of Greg Nixon's 9/11 March for the truth, which recently took place. Les decided then almost 8 weeks later to finally promote the event, 3 days before it took place...)..."
Furthermore are emotions not allowed in this movement? Possibly not since it is orwellianized anyway.
The 9/11 truthlings are so obsessed with mainstream media and generally do not care how they got presented only THAT they got presented.
But in my case it must be very wrong.
If you read the latest Salon article, it looks like the complete movement sounds foolish and that's the purpose of MSM who's playing this movement anyway.
Why is anonymous distracting with this which has nothing to do with 9/11TV Fakery? And if i work together with mainstream media, why do they never write about our findings??
Jon Gold wrote: "....If I
Jon Gold wrote:
"....If I were being interviewed by a major magazine, would I flip out, call people names, be "so emotional"..."
This silly remark is coming from a guy, who's putting attention on him by announcing to kill everyone who disagrees with him.
Flagwavers were just waiting for this, who can now declare the complete movement as criminal and dangerous.
Gold is not only irresponsible, his IQ cannot even reflect, what he's doing.
I wonder why so many people are still supportive of him.
Jonathan Gold, the "killer" is embarrasment NO.1 right now, does he really not realize that he's a potential psyOP victim (v for vendetta). You need some urgent therapy.
Not only this. Gold is also still pushing the most inane red herrings and limited hangouts like Sibel Edmonds, Able Danger or the 9/11-pakistan plotline distraction.
But this all helps not to answer any questions at all, isn't it Goldie??
"A real plane would have
"A real plane would have stucked outside of the building, the wing parts would realistically break apart, real kerosene wouldn't explode that rapidly the audience would have wondered why the building collapsed."
Are you really that stupid Nico? Please call me a shill again - it's funny.
Oh yeah, Nico, I also saw
Oh yeah, Nico, I also saw your 'WTC 7 Plane Impact' video - nice work there bro. Looks like a 4 year old made it on a Speak n' Spell...
If that's the best 'tv fakery' you can come up with in your spare time, I can't believe you would imply that the Government could do a flawless job in real time. Your total lack of technical skills just go to show that you have no idea WTF you're talking about.
We note for the record, that
We note for the record, that anonymous is still hiding and does not address any findings on 911tvfakery.blogspot.com
"...Your total lack of technical skills..."
I used the same sloppery, we identified in non-live footage, to make my point.
Footage which had worse inserts, did apparently impress the planehuggers since 5 years. There was no single second attack footage, which was in itself 100% professional.
The CNN "exclusive amateur footage" from the side (never shown live either) includes the most flaws, including a suddenly rotating aircraft silhouette.
I used btw. the same CGI from WABC7 and just mirrored it to the left side.
There was nothing special about it and my intention was not to let it look professional. The intention was to show that 'everyone' can do this lousy gig and that's why it also was labelled as satire.
But if you like something better, here it is:
http://911cgiwatch.blogspot.com/
CGI 2nd hit "fake" vs. "Satire remakes"
June 30, 2006
http://geobay.com/651607
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pmiXinq2O0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2F911cgiwatch...
Jon Gold wrote: "....If I
Jon Gold wrote:
"....If I were being interviewed by a major magazine, would I flip out, call people names, be "so emotional"..."
This silly remark is coming from a guy, who's putting attention on him by announcing to kill everyone who disagrees with him.
Lie. Same lie spewed from S. King and Terrence. I stated that anyone who helps this Administration get away with what they're doing deserve the same punishments for Treason as the Administration.
Flagwavers were just waiting for this, who can now declare the complete movement as criminal and dangerous.
Actually, it's not "Flagwavers", but anti-truthers, and supposed truthers such as yourself.
Gold is not only irresponsible, his IQ cannot even reflect, what he's doing.
I can tell when someone is lying about me.
I wonder why so many people are still supportive of him.
Because I bust my ass, and am a REAL American and a REAL truther as opposed to you, a faux truther.
Jonathan Gold, the "killer" is embarrasment NO.1 right now, does he really not realize that he's a potential psyOP victim (v for vendetta). You need some urgent therapy.
I agree, I probably could use talking to someone. Dealing with this Administration on a daily basis is enough to drive anyone into a deep depression. Dealing with faux truthers hurts even more.
Not only this. Gold is also still pushing the most inane red herrings and limited hangouts like Sibel Edmonds, Able Danger or the 9/11-pakistan plotline distraction.
At least it's better than saying no planes struck the towers. Planes which 100's, if not 1000's clearly saw.
But this all helps not to answer any questions at all, isn't it Goldie??
I would never ask you for an answer about anything. Even if my life depended on it. Not unless I wanted bullshit lies.
Anything else you'd like to
Anything else you'd like to lie about Nico "No planes hit the towers on 9/11" Haupt?
Hmmm... I wonder how many
Hmmm... I wonder how many people agree with my opinion. If you actively, aggressively, and consciously protect this Treasonous Administration, then you should be subject to the same penalties for Treason as they are.
Anyone disagree with that?
Hey Nico, if you're still
Hey Nico, if you're still around --
I just have a question. Maybe you've addressed it here, but I've never seen it, if so.
What goal are you trying to advance with your no-plane research? What do you want it to accomplish?
nico-if you could put
nico-if you could put together a presentation of your beliefs that could be understood by the average moron,(like loose change) you just might furthur your cause
huh | 07.20.06 - 1:12 am |
_______________---
here's an analysis by someone else:
a critique of the complete official version of the south tower hit
---
nico knows exactly what he is talking about - for most of you all to dismiss him out of hand simply because he challenges the "conventional wisdom" of "everyone saw the plane on TV" is foolish at best. wake up!
---
911closeup.com why they didn't use planes.
___________
casseia wrote: "...What goal
casseia wrote:
"...What goal are you trying to advance with your no-plane research? What do you want it to accomplish?..."
First of all you are still using the wrong notion. My blog is about "TV Fakery", which has its own solid evidence. Why are you still distracting with pseudo forensics, which is a completely different research? Since the planes had been faked on TV, that is enough case for a media crime.
I try to accomplish the same with what i did since 5 years. Getting the facts on evidence out.
I created an own research team, an own activist group (ny911truth.org), own meetups and thinktank (911InsideJobbers Yahoo) since then. We even have an own 'therapy' group at "planehuggers yahoo".
I don't get it why this is so much problem for you to understand.
Our research at team8plus is still picked up every week at Webster Tarpley's radio show, even inspired now a new website, falseflagnews
However there are people in this movement who are denying what i did in the past.
Furthermore without our group "9/11 Science and Justice Alliance" there wouldn't have been any evidence on controlled demolition and other scientific evidence on 9/11 inside job.
http://911closeup.com/nico/911bio.html
The evidence on 9/11 TV Fakery is still the most oppressed in this movement. But i push it in the same way how we did for 3-4 years with the controlled demolition- at the same time btw the findings on TV feed manipulations had been already opposed also. This is nothing new.
One of the most obvious sabotage acts had been planted with the "pod", and i even pointed out, who was really behind this : Scott Myers (NIST)
You are deceived by the very same orwellian truthlings who did their job and let others now doing their mindset manipulations for them.
Maybe take another look, who's really running the show in this movement until the GOV and (9/11-) media perps will take everything out, coz WW3-5 is now their priority:
The 9/11 Truthlings Community Guide (The Opposition of 9/11 TV Fakery)
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/911truthlings.html
"everyone saw the plane on
"everyone saw the plane on TV" does not include the 100's, if not 1000's of New Yorkers who saw it with their own eyes.
If you actively,
If you actively, aggressively, and consciously protect this Treasonous Administration, then you should be subject to the same penalties for Treason as they are.
i believe that if one is aware of the crimes and still actively supports the criminals then that one should be considered complicit, but there are plenty of unknowing supportive morons who are unaware of any crimes - i don't believe that a moron is necessarily a criminal.
_____----
Why the sudden change from
Why the sudden change from holograms to CGI fakery? Thats the part I don't understand. At first, if you weren't behind the hologram theory 110%, you were a shill and a fake activist.
Now, if you're not behind CGI 110%, you are a shill and a fake activist.
Which is it? I can't be 110% behind both can I? If I support holograms, and only holograms, am I now a shill?
"everyone saw the plane on
"everyone saw the plane on TV" does not include the 100's, if not 1000's of New Yorkers who saw it with their own eyes.
the point is not what any eyewitlesses saw in person or not - the point is that the images that we were shown on tv were false. even if there was a real plane that eyewitlesses really saw, it was covered up on the TV videos by an obvious cartoon image.
---
a hologram would entail a
a hologram would entail a flying object with a projector that cloaks itself with a different image as a camouflage. the eyewitlesses would actually see the camouflage. the technology does exist for that.
---
a cgi insert would be like a cartoon plane on a video of actual blue sky that would only be seen on TV. the technology for that exists as well, ie: the first-down line inserted onto a televised football game.
---
Jon wrote: ".."everyone saw
Jon wrote:
".."everyone saw the plane on TV" does not include the 100's, if not 1000's of New Yorkers who saw it with their own eyes..."
Jon didn't provide any sources for this claim. I ask back, what about the witnesses and amateur camera operators who didn't see, hear or film any plane at time of second attack?
http://911closeup.com/nico/witness_contradictions.html
somebigguy wrote:
"...Why the sudden change from holograms to CGI fakery?..."
I never changed from anything.
I believed in TV Fakery since Day 1, on that morning it was the CNN long shot, not shown life, which made me think, though i thought it was just a dramatization and all other footage included remote controlled planes.
I backed up from this thought and never wrote about this anyway, when
forensic evidence proved clearly the opposite.
Being aware from the attacks against the "no-planers", i created team8plus.org as a loyality to show that even some flights didn't exist and radar proves that they couldn't have entered NYC downtown in time.
It took me years to convince the hologram supporters, that their explanation wasn't obsolete, though this technique does exist as well
We debated it for months at 9/11 science and Justice Alliance until it was finally backed up from it during 2003/4. If there was a radical switch, then it came with the flight simulator recreation of the second butter-close uo attack, done by Marcus Icke.
Since then only URANTIA affiliate Dr. Stephen Grossman is promoting the holo hypothesis, but less aggressive than in the past and with ignorance on all other footage, which shows that particular cloaking was impossible.
I strongly disagree with Grossman.
Nico, thank you for your
Nico, thank you for your response. I used the expression "no plane" as a kind of shorthand for what I've seen you write about here. If you prefer "tv fakery" then fine, I'll use that.
I think you answered my question: what I got from your response is that your goal is "to get facts out," even if they're unpopular. Do you ever give thought to why they might be unpopular? Do you have any theories?
The tone of your response was unnecessarily defensive. You don't know me -- I don't think you know whether or not I've been deceived by "orwellian truthlings."
Thanks Nico, I appreciate
Thanks Nico, I appreciate the response. Like you mentioned there did appear to be a radical switch at one point in time. Seems like within the last 6 months or so, but I could be wrong, time flies.
Anyway, do you think most of the hologram supporters, aside from Grossman, did switch to CGI at this point in time?
Casseia, somebigguy, thanks
Casseia, somebigguy,
thanks also for the change of YOUR tone in your response.
I'm always cooperate in the argument, if the vibe isn't hostile or aversive.
That's why we created our science group (2002-2006), to keep it rational.
Casseia wrote:
"...Do you ever give thought to why they might be unpopular? Do you have any theories?..."
That's exactly what the orwellian infiltration is about. People at the top and former 'spokesperson' created the mindset for what has to be labelled 'unpopular' or not.
That's what Mike Ruppert, Kyle Hence and others did for years. They did that strongly against physical evidence on Pentagon, Shanksville, Cell phones, controlled demolition etc...
We debunked them early but apparently it didn't help much. Their mind deceptions are still around and clearly in this room. And then there is the clear cointel-pro infiltration of 911truth.org, which is dictacting how 'activism' should look like, who blocked several ideas from honest activists in the last few years and instead manipulating them with obscure cult associations of URANTIA and co.
I will refer to URANTIA at the end of this reply.
I wrote at planehuggers FAQ30:
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/FAQ_planehuggers.html
...
14. Does this not damage the 'movement'?
The meme, that particular research could hurt the movement, has existed since "Day 1" (=the commencement of the 9/11 research movement).
This weak kneed excuse was once used to to sabotage research regarding the alleged attack on the Pentagon, then to the controlled demolition, then to cell phone analysis, then to the video research in general.
Actually during 2002, this meme was planted by Kyle Hence (9/11 Citizen's Watch), a former sailor** closely associated to Jonathan and George Soros.
Hence also coined his most famous quote:
"America isn't ready for the truth yet."
somebigguy wrote:
"...Like you mentioned there did appear to be a radical switch at one point in time. Seems like within the last 6 months or so, but I could be wrong, time flies.
Anyway, do you think most of the hologram supporters, aside from Grossman, did switch to CGI at this point in time?...
The radical switch was 2004.
Until then i was the only one who spoke out on TV Fakery and i had a cooperative supporter who listened to me. That was Gerard Holmgren. Then Rosalee Grable followed...
I still appreciate her skills and patience as well. She was under intense attacks and couldn't find time to sort out new findings.
"...most of the hologram supporters, aside from Grossman, did switch to CGI..."
It was never more than outspoken 3-5 website supporters. Grable switched finally during 2004/05
Grossman never switched. Others allow the possibility of a combination.
I don't know anyone right now, who is still very loud on holo.
Actually other saboteurs around Vic Ashley (GF of NSA/NASA associate Jim Hoffman) confused CGI and holo on purpose, to water down our research.
We called them the "hologram dancers".
Since we were finally able to structure and improve our findings over the last 12-14 months, the holodancers became silent.
Final attempts to convince WING TV from our findings as well, who also knew the difference and did the "holo dance" on purpose, never worked out.
I forgot to post the
I forgot to post the background of URANTIA, which still works as the most successful cointel-pro front in this movement:
URANTIA- U.S. Intelligence Ties
=================================
1942: Jacques Weiss (URANTIA Book translator), OSS
1956 -1965: General Duane Faw (URANTIA Teaching
Mission -TeaM- channeling supporter), USMC/United
States Marine Corps, CIA
1969 -1992: Neal Waldrop (Future URANTIA Foundation
trustee), NSA, US Navy, U.S. Department of State
(1976)
1974 -1983: Professor Duane Faw (Chairman of the
URANTIA Brotherhood's Legal Committee), USMC
---
1999-2005: Les Jamieson , manipulated and sabotaged but not payrolled or directly active.
Manipulated by "EX-Intelligence" (Ray McGovern, Wayne Madsen, Robert Baer and others etc...)
"Jon didn't provide any
"Jon didn't provide any sources for this claim."
So you agree then that you are promoting "no planes"? Asking for a source for the "100's, if not 1000's" of New Yorkers who saw the planes hit, is a statement from someone OBVIOUSLY trying to promote "no planes" hitting the Towers, and not just "TV Fakery".
My source incidentally is the entire city of Manhattan, and surrounding burbs. Feel free to start going door to door to find what I've heard on several radio interviews, TV interviews, etc... you live there after all Nico. I don't think anyone who is serious about 9/11 Research would hesitate to take the time to do so. Especially someone supposedly serious about 9/11 research that is promoting "no planes" at the towers, and "TV Fakery".
I mean, wouldn't you need to interview at least a handful of people in NYC and surrounding burbs just to make your "no plane" point?
Where are those interviews Nico? There are several buildings surrounding the WTC. Have you gone door to door to ask any of the individuals who occupy those buildings as to what they saw?
Thanks Nico, I don't believe
Thanks Nico, I don't believe I have ever given you a "tone", however I do appreciate your insight.
You know... that's a pretty
You know... that's a pretty fair question. Have you, Nico Haupt, gone to the occupants of the surrounding WTC buildings to interview them to see whether or not they saw two planes hit the two towers, or have you, Nico Haupt, gone to the occupants of the surrounding WTC building to interview them to see whether or not they saw missiles strike the towers, which I've heard you promote on several occassions?
goal is "to get facts out,"
goal is "to get facts out," even if they're unpopular. Do you ever give thought to why they might be unpopular? Do you have any theories?
i can't speak for nico on this but IMO this issue is a giant can o worms - some no planers feel that since the mcmedia are obvious collaborators they (media) would have agents in the truth movement to try and distract from the issue of no planes. others feel that some plane huggers are simply morons who are afraid to actually examine the analyses of the actual videos of ua175. - regardless, the entire 911 scenario revolves around 4 highjacked planes, 3 of which were claimed to have struck buildings.
is there any real evidence of this?
1 video of blob11 hitting wtc1, and can anyone honestly say that blob11 resembles a 767? the hole that it made in wtc1 did not even align properly with the image of blob11 hitting wtc1.
there are over 30 images of a shadowy plane that we are told is ua175, but they don't all match as far as trajectories and pitch or even silhouettes are concerned.
4 of these ua175 images actually show the plane entering the tower, and when these 4 images are slowed down and inspected it is seen that the plane slips thru the side of wtc2 like a ghost, without any of it breaking off or the plane even slowing down in the slightest.
the holes in both towers are plane shaped outlines that are actually smaller than a 767, yet if an aluminum 767 (with a plastic nosecone no less) could actually make a hole in the side of wtc2 it would be a giant gaping maw of a hole, not a cartoon-like hole that yosemitesam would make as he runs thru a wall -
----
Jon wrote: "...So you agree
Jon wrote:
"...So you agree then that you are promoting "no planes"? ..."
I am representing both notions:
TV Fakery and "no planes".
But we never invented this label.
It was created from saboteurs for us, like Mark Bilk and others.
I actually describe myself what the other notion as a "Nothing + X".
It is still possible, that nothing hit the South Tower, but that's a completely different approach to figure out and not the focus on the evidence on manipulated footage of the second attack.
I also call myself a "limited digital hangouter" because it needs even more revisualizations of the fakery to stress, where discrepancies took place.
Once all first generation CGIs are recreated with flight simulators and identified as such, the absurdity of 16 different flight objects hitting in different behavior and coming from different directions and different speeds, also our evidence will be absolute.
".....My source incidentally is the entire city of Manhattan, and surrounding burbs...."
That's not a URL.
"...I mean, wouldn't you need to interview at least a handful of people in NYC and surrounding burbs just to make your "no plane" point?..."
I'm speaking daily with NYerz.
I still couldn't find anyone who saw any plane with own eyes and i converted many who watched the footage or visited the blog. They realized the discrepancies and that's it.
Many even believe in TV fakery without seeing the footage.
"...Where are those interviews Nico?.."
I gave you the links various times.
You ignored them.
http://911closeup.com/nico/witness_contradictions.html
1)
http://culhavoc.blogsome.com/2006/03/10/nicos-timeline-cnns-reality-tv-h...
"...I have witnessed a horrible history. I was supposed to go to NJ for a
seminar. I was on the BQE bridge going into Chinatown, Manhattan, when I saw
an explosion at exactly 8:48am on the first Twin Tower. The radio said that
it was a plane accident. I immediately called my sister in NJ, who normally
has to get to the World Trade Center station (she works for the Mayor's
office, 4 blocks away from WTC). I told her that there has been an accident
and told her to avoid that station. She said that my brother will drive her
to Manhattan instead. I then placed another phone call telling
my best friend to stay away from the area. My friend has jury duty and the
Supreme
Court is 3 blocks away. Suddenly, I saw a second explosion but did not see
the plane.
http://www.geocities.com/vnwomensforum/september11debate.html
(NOTE: BQE Bridge is local slang for Brooklyn Queens Express running over
the Williamsborough Bridhe)
2)
http://www.panix.com/userdirs/timothy/wtc.html
"...We all looked up at the WTC to see one tower on fire. There was a ring
of fire encircling the building one floor...near the top. The floors above
the ring were enshrouded in thick black upwardly rising waves. Every second
or two the fire crept lower--floor by floor---dripping like wax down a
candle.
The thought of those people...they're being incinerated..there's no way to
control that fire. Then a huge fireball--monstrous in size--shot out and
up---like some horribly visible dragon's breath.(this was the fireball from
the impact of the second jet--I didn't realize this until after viewing the
footage of the attack)..."
3)
http://www.asne.org/index.cfm?ID=4318
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0110/images/m04.jpg
"...Then out of nowhere came this noise. This loud, high-pitched roar that
seemed to come from all over, but from nowhere in particular. AND THE SECOND
TOWER JUST EXPLODED. It became amazingly obvious to anyone there that what
we all had hoped was a terrible accident was actually an overt act of
hostility. I DIDN'T SEE THE PLANE HIT,ALTHOUGH I WAS LOOKING AT THE TOWER AT
THE TIME. I have no recollection of pushing the button, hitting the shutter,
making the picture that appeared on Page 2 of the Daily News the next day, a
picture that was taken milliseconds after the second plane hit that tower..."
4)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/tyne/have_your_say/september_11.shtml
... Gemma McDonald, Houston, Texas: On the morning of September 11. I was
getting ready to go to school, when the news station broke in with breaking
news. They said a plane had hit the world trade center. They were in the
middle of broadcasting that story live, whenever a big fireball appeared out
of the other tower. In order to see what hit the tower. They had to replay
the tape in slow motion. We didn't know what had happened because we didn't
see the plane, because it was so fast. Whenever I did figure out what
happened I got this weird feeling across my body that I can't describe..."
5)
TV'"witness":
http://www.vegasgangonline.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7574&page=2
"...stood there watching the coverage in the airport until my flight was called.
I saw the explosion in the second tower and thought it was because of the
first tower burning as I didn't see the plane hit. My flight was called
about 9:20 and I boarded the plane, we all sat there until about 9:35 when
the pilot announced taht all flights were cancelled. After I got of the
plane I went back to the TV and saw what was going on.."
6)
Hispano amateur cameraman, who didn't see any object hitting south tower,
while filming both towers:
http://www.cruzate.com/nyhell/3.jpg
Compare with same geograpical position of towers aT Rosalee's site
(Antenna is in the back of second= north tower)
http://www.webfairy.org/2hit/blueplane.htm
http://www.cruzate.com/nyhell
"...When I was back in the roof I saw
just before my eyes the explosion on Tower 2.
I didn't see the plane, nor did any of the other
guys on the roof. We speculated for a few
minutes. The only thing we could imagine was
on of the wings of the first plane hitting the
other tower and provoking the explosion, but
that was very unlikely...."
7)
From an amateur camera clip, camera positioned on both towers:
"...we just saw another explosion (TV comment)...."
Person 1 in room: "...Another explosion Kate..."
Kate: "...i know, i know..." (noone of both refered to any plane)
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/day1-tower2-fireball-only.wmv
8)
Don Dahler vs. ABC
Dahler:
...i didn't see any plane going in...that...that's just exploded...i...
Gibson:
We just saw another plane coming in from the side.
Dahler:
You did?? I...that was ..was...out of my view...
Gibson:
That was a second explosion.
You can see the plane come in just from the right hand side of the screen...
(=> Dahler's witness report 'overruled' by a TV monitor)
http://thewebfairy.com/911/haarp/reporter.didnt.see.plane.wmv
9)
Witness Reporter Winston on NBC, which had same synched W-ABC clip:
the "building is exploding right now"
The studio host doesn't even see his monitor where the same W-ABC footage
shows same black flying object vanishing behind first tower, then followed by explosion and fireball (no sound).
The studio host agrees with street reporter (who didn't report any incoming 'plane', that this explosion must have been forced from 'parts of the first plane..."
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/msnbc_2ndCGIplane_wrongtower_touch.mpg
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/CGIplane_touches_northtower.jpg
(RENDERING UPLOAD MISTAKE)
10)
http://thewebfairy.com/911/bombs/
Witness: NO second plane, it was a bomb....
FOX clip
Reporter Rick Leventhal is whisking witness away: "we heard about tv reports..."
11)
Pilot Witness:
http://www.montclair.edu/pages/alumnilife/alumnilifewinter02/features4.html
"... I saw a flash and fireball from the top of the World Trade Center.
....Due to the angle and altitude of our flight, I have sometimes experienced the optical illusion of something appearing to hit a building.
We then flew south to the Battery to see if whatever had hit it had gone out the other side. We saw heavy damage on the south side of Tower 1, but saw nothing of substance on the ground or on Tower 2, so we decided to go back north again, all the while just on the water's edge on the Manhattan side at about 900 feet. Ninety seconds after leaving the Battery, in the spot where we had just been looking, the second plane hit the second tower. We never saw the plane, but I could see the flash of the impact from behind us.
12) More amateur tapes showing no planes at 2nd attack (06/02)
Dialogue between guy and his girlfriend:
Man: "...wtf**k. What was that?
Woman: "I don't know"
Man: "..they're f**in bombing it...
Must have been a rocket or something.."
13) Two dudes do not catch any plane
http://tinyurl.com/nhuu6
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2137200753344880184&q=9%2F11&pl=...
tower 1 on fire only filmed by amateur and his buddy, then unfortunately shortly edited and started filming again...
"...oh my god..." (amateur camera continues filming after 2nd attack on ST, but no comment on any plane....!!)
dialogue of two dudes continues:
guy 1:
"...that must have been a fukin terrorist attack. Probably that just explode.. that doesn't make any sense, that has...
interrupted by guy 2:
"...How did THAT ONE just catch on fire man?... see this stuff is falling out...
14)Bird "sees" no plane (check out blog below)
Check out updates and vlogs at 911tvfakery.blogspot
The April 2006 Emergency Phone Calls from "9/11"
Also the recent released transcripts from 9/11 (911-)emergency calls seem not to be very supportive for the planehugger's view, indeed it shows the opposite or at least dozens of contradictions.
It becomes clear, that most witness reports after 9/11 had been handpicked to support some particular bias and the myth on alleged commercial aircraft. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/31/AR200603...
11 PDF files
EMS1.pdf
64 pages
"Hey - Ø®£Z -,
"Hey - Ø®£Z -, please keep it civil.
somebigguy | Homepage | 07.20.06 - 3:04 pm | # "
Okay.
"Jonathan, what is your take
"Jonathan,
what is your take on the aircraft, labelled as "white elephant" in Reynolds Dixon's paper and can you imagine it as as a decoy/backup plane?"
My take is that it's possible considering the Wargames that were taking place that day, and the famed "live fly drills" that may have included actual planes.
I thought Dixon's piece was interesting. Which is why I posted it here when the news came out of the threats against him, and his children.
However, I haven't looked into it beyond reading his piece, so I'm probably not qualified to talk about it with confidence.
"I am representing both
"I am representing both notions:
TV Fakery and "no planes".
Ok Nico. I think the population of New York City is roughly 9,000,000 people. 9,000,000 people condensed into a small area. The percentages would dictate that at least SOME of those individuals saw what happened on 9/11. Have you put a call out within New York City asking for anyone who saw a missile, and not a plane which I've heard you promote on several occassions, to come to you, and give you a description of what they saw?
I also would like to know
I also would like to know what Jonathan Gold thinks about the only real aircraft which circulated the south tower and then passsed the crime scene at time of second hit.
Why doesn't he allow the possibility, that this was also the "5th avenue" witness plane and then later confused with the fake plane on TV?
Why does Gold think, was ex-9/11 scholar Reynolds Dixon threatened and removed himself from the 9/11 scholars? :
http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com/
Another "No plane" witness sees "White Plane" leaving (07/19)
Diane Sawyer confirms existance of Decoy Distraction Plane (07/13)
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
CPlanet "3rd" aircraft also visible on CNN footage
9/11 Scholar apparently resigned over "8:58 AM plane" (07/02/06)
9/11 Scholar apparently resigned over Sep11th "8:58 AM plane" (07/02/06)
July 2, 2006
"I also would like to know
"I also would like to know what Jonathan Gold thinks about the only real aircraft which circulated the south tower and then passsed the crime scene at time of second hit."
If you rephrase your statement to not include "only real aircraft", I might answer it.
"Hmmm... I wonder how many
"Hmmm... I wonder how many people agree with my opinion. If you actively, aggressively, and consciously protect this Treasonous Administration, then you should be subject to the same penalties for Treason as they are.
Anyone disagree with that?
Jon Gold | Homepage | 07.20.06 - 1:08 pm | # "
I would only disagree, if, said people honestly didn't know they were supporting/aiding and abetting the Treasonous Administration. As in, they honestly hadn't been presented with any evidence of the Administrations criminality; their IQ was below 100; they were living in a remote locale, with only 1 mainstream newspaper subscription and FAUX NEWS as the only channel they recieve. And, of course, if they had no internet access.
Otherwise, yes, I absolutely agree.
"...""no towers"
"...""no towers" bullshit
pockybot ..."
.
Pockypot can make his distractive jokes, it won't help him.
I never claimed any tower wasn't real, same to the (fireball) explosions and i will never do.
He's just another deceived truth globlin, who wants to save time to delay the evidence on 9/11 TV Fakery.
Jonathan Gold wrote:
"...Have you put a call out within New York City asking for anyone who saw a missile..."
You are confusing this with the North Tower. Many ear- and eye witnesses already confirmed that there was some missile hitting the North Tower.
But that's not my focus, since the footage from the Naudet Brothers doesn't include inserts. You have to check http://911foreknowledge.com
I just pointed out, that my current focus is TV Fakery. If you wanna figure out, if something else hit the South Towers, then welcome in the club of the "no-planers". That's not my job anymore and i don't need to do it.
The footage was faked and that's all what counts. ABC7 and FOX5 plus the WESCAM crew own us tons of explanations, but this movement doesn't care.
They even do not care who flew the 16-18 US Military Helicopters which surrounded the crime scene since almost 8:46 AM on that morning...
Rick Siegel's server was confiscated for years and also threats against him renewed in the last few weeks.
Everyone who speaks out about CGI is clearly an enemy for the 9/11 media perps but as long as they don't talk about it on their own manipulative TV shows, it's NOT a PROBLEM at all for them. And i have no activist group anymore behind me, so the perps do not care about me either.
But they took out Reynolds Dixon, who was accidentally too close. That should make you think, but apparently it doesn't...
Hey - Ø®£Z -,
Hey - Ø®£Z -, please keep it civil.
Jonathan wrote: "...If you
Jonathan wrote:
"...If you rephrase your statement to not include "only real aircraft", I might answer it..."
Jonathan,
what is your take on the aircraft, labelled as "white elephant" in Reynolds Dixon's paper and can you imagine it as as a decoy/backup plane?
"...If you actively,
"...If you actively, aggressively, and consciously protect this Treasonous Administration..."
I didn't protect them for one single day, that includes also the 9/11 media perps, who are PART of this "treasonous Administration".
I was the first one in NYC who created an own activist group, ny911truth.org in late 2003 and we protested every week at Ground Zero, until this group was hopelessly infiltrated with limited hangouters and government shills. I left them in spring 2004.
Many of the infiltrators, including Nic Levis forced us to change the message of the banners.
Before it was "The US GOV orchestrated 9/11", then Levis + Co. put a trip on us to change it to "support the 9/11 family members".
they also took out my best man, Mike Kane. He had charisma, was the most outspoken activist on controlled demolition and had an own hiphop group on this.
Ruppert turned him around and he sold out. Since then i know how cointel-pro works on the streets. They did it also with 911truth.org at their public events. The ex-spooks showed up in masses and sabotaged the findings on controlled demolition for years.
I also wrote on ABC's own message board about their fakery and they constantly removed it. I posted from different IPs and then they finally banned me.
Washington Post William Arkin knows, i posted several times on his blog (uncensored!) and he never wrote about it either, but trashcanned all other 9/11 truth movement elements.
That was all this year.
I also had 2000 views at UniversalPictures about the same findings. That was actually the most popular thread on their "United93" forum until they erased the complete forum.
There wasn't any single US article or US TV show, where anyone debated the findings on 9/11 TV Fakery openly.
It is a zero issue in MSM.
They will not destroy their slickest tool. It is too clean and perfect.
- Ø®£Z - i saw what
- Ø®£Z -
i saw what you said before it got scrubbed, and my reply to it was scrubbed as well - you said
"i can imagine the no-planes people say that the towers were holograms too" or some nonsense -
i say that it has been said a hundred times what is an image and what is not. why do you warp what has been said into some wacky nonsense of what you imagine has/will be said? that is true disinfo.
_____-
http://911tvfakery.blogspot.c
http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com/
Update Jul 20, 2006
DeWine ad uses faked footage of 9/11
US News
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1182774.php/DeWi...
CLEVELAND, OH, United States (UPI) -- U.S. Sen. Mike DeWine`s campaign has acknowledged using faked footage of the attack on the World Trade Center in a campaign commercial...
...DeWine is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee..."
CNN: DeWine pulls 9/11 ad
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/20/ohio.senate/
July 20, 2006 6:22 p.m. EDT
'Graphic represenation' will be replaced with real pictures
"...DeWine's campaign spokesman, Brian Seitchik, called the image in the original ad a "graphic representation," produced by the advertising production firm Stevens Reed Curcio & Potholm..."
It's time to pull all second attack footage from 9/11 as well, reveal all names of the WESCAM camera operators and helicopter pilots and show us the undoctored footage.
What evidence do you have
What evidence do you have that the footage wasn't just shot from an ABC helicopter with a common WESCAM camera mount?
NONE.
In fact, the white struts in the 'WESCAM' shot even prove that it was a normal civilian chopper (or possibly police - but not military). Also, camera operators are very rarely credited for news footage.
Also, some people didn't see the plane because they only could see the explosion erupting from the opposite side of the impact - common sense would suggest at least 25% of eyewitnesses were viewing the impact from such an angle.
I never concluded if the
I never concluded if the ABC7 feed was filmed with a ABC7 chopper (they had 2 in 2001) or one of the 16-18 US Military Choppers (as seen on Rick Siegel's footage) and confirmed on WINS.
It doesn't make much a difference for the fakery procedure but that's why we need the names.
The name of the camera operator of the helicopter for the FOX5 LOCAL feed remains unindentified as well.
They've changed the ad now.
They've changed the ad now.