"heads and teeth completely incincerated."
even subscribers to the planes theory must marvel at the extraordinarily good fortune of the mysterious naudet brothers.
http://www.911foreknowledge.com/staged.htm
"The people who are saying there were no airplanes, are trying to confuse the issue and make the 9/11 truthers look bad."
+1
They are simply there to prevent most people from being able to discuss the issue. Making it so outrageous that both sides get too angry to have a genuine helpful dialogue.
outrageous falsehoods are stock-in-trade for governments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGhGHxw0mSo
newson,
Eric Salter - A Critical Review of WTC "No Plane" Theories
Salter is a video professional who also believes that 9/11 was an inside job. In his review, he analyzes some of the anomalies in the video and photographic evidence that some people point to in support of a "no plane" theory. I will quote here his last two paragraphs, which sum up my position pretty well:
Eric Salter:Do Anomalies Constitute Proof of No-767 Hypotheses?The possibility that anomalies that defy easy explanation might exist in the visual record must be considered when analyzing the no-plane hypothesis. It may very well be that the explanation of some alleged anomalies might require a level of technical capacity far beyond any researchers in the 9/11 movement now dealing with this issue. For example, a professional 3D modeling of the plane's approach to the WTC with photo-realistic lighting combined with simulation of physics properties such as momentum or aerodynamics and using research into the exact location and lens type of the camera in question might be needed. But even if a confirmed anomaly in the visual record were someday found, it would not constitute proof that no 767s hit the towers: It would prove only that that particular video was faked, and the perpetrators of 9/11 could have distributed faked videos to encourage the no-plane hypothesis. Given that the perps couldn't have controlled all the cameras in New York on 9/11, and that absolutely no images showing something other than 767 impacts have surfaced, it is arguable that anomalous videos shouldn't even be considered compelling evidence, let alone proof, of no-767 claims.ConclusionThere are many solid pieces of visual evidence–video recordings and photos–that show 767's impacting the World Trade Center towers. If only one of these images is authentic, the entire no-plane hypothesis is invalidated. There are absolutely no images of anything else hitting the towers despite the attention the burning WTC1 tower was receiving from a city of millions. The attempts by the no-planers to create credibility for their hypothesis by citing purported anomalies in the visual record have been characterized by a high degree of technical incompetence and illogical thinking. Because an authentic visual anomaly would only prove that that particular image was faked, and would not prove that something besides 767s hit the towers, it is clear that there is no supporting physical evidence whatsoever for the no-plane hypothesis.
The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
i don't accept the premise that visual control of south manhattan was not possible. if the presumption be that it is an inside job, then it must be imagined that the military had the means to ensure only their "amateurs" captured the images.
http://www.septemberclues.info/visual_control.htm
this is all a balance-of-probabilities thing. i recommend you read the 911foresight piece i posted above on the what the odds would have been for the naudet brothers to get the only shot of the first plane without being fully informed of what was going to happen.
if salter could at least offer some physical evidence of the airplanes, such as one part (out of the three or so million parts per plane) with a serial number that could be checked against a service-log, then his case would be strengthened.
newson: ..... i recommend you read the 911foresight piece i posted above on the what the odds would have been for the naudet brothers to get the only shot of the first plane without being fully informed of what was going to happen.
..... i recommend you read the 911foresight piece i posted above on the what the odds would have been for the naudet brothers to get the only shot of the first plane without being fully informed of what was going to happen.
Have you considered the idea that the entire Naudet Bros. video is fake , from start to finish?
I'm not sure what the author of the 911foresight piece thinks.
I did not read the entire article, but from what I read I'm unable to tell if he/she believes the entire movie was faked from start to finish, or if they only think that the Naudets being there in advance is highly suspicious, but that the Naudet's still captured real events as they happened. an important distinction, I feel. From my perspective, everything points to the entire movie being pre-fabricated beforehand on computers .
If I recall correctly, one of the various "September Clues" movies has a good analysis of the various technical, audio,and visual impossibilities of the Naudet movie, and the forum there also has a thread devoted to analysis of the original Naudet footage, called "Naudet Original Footage" here: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=459&sid=df187c26d638d4a7743c7eca26253730
Regards,onebornfree.
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
the 911foresight piece posits that the naudets brothers enjoyed incredible "luck" in capturing the first explosion, but that only the plane and probably its soundtrack are digital add-ons. the rest is real footage with some bad acting and dishonest editing thrown in. this seems to me to satisfy occam's razor. (after all, digital manipulation is risky, otherwise we wouldn't be having this dialogue).
that's my preconception, anyway. i'm now going to watch the 2002 version on the site and see what i think about the all-digital proposition.
the rubble and site rehabilitation convinced me that something more than thermite or conventional explosives was used (combustants like kerosene and office furniture always seemed ridiculous, with plenty of unburnt paper around). there's a good picture of the aftermath here:
http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-content/Pages/HiRes.html
it's also interesting to note the conspicuous absence of weather warnings issued by the msm with the approach of hurricane erin (intensity similar to katrina) off the coast. especially as it ws being tracked by nasa and other agencies as part of the camdex-4 field research programme.
http://is.gd/CgZI87
http://is.gd/pfPgHK
the official conspiracy theory hasn't explained phenomena like this. i think this material transformation should be called the bin laden effect.