This
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw: This seems to be a pretty good refutation. The footage was not altered so much as edited.
This seems to be a pretty good refutation. The footage was not altered so much as edited.
Yes, I'm familiar with Mr Lawson's "refutation" .
What is there in particular about this video that do you find so convincing as a refutation of "September Clues"?
What do you mean when you say the footage was not altered as much as edited [ ie what/who's footage are you referring to?]
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
Spideynw: seems to be a pretty good refutation. The footage was not altered so much as edited.
seems to be a pretty good refutation. The footage was not altered so much as edited.
While we are on the subject of Anthony Lawson and his magic video which "disproves" video fakery at the national media level , [at least to those who already believe such fakery to be impossible to begin with! ], here is an interesting analysis/refutation, of another video Lawson has made [ by another "Austrian", no less - but not Morgan Reynolds] , in which he [Lawson] attempts to disprove certain observations made about the inexplicable differences in location of a flight 175 "puffball" cloud in two entirely different video sequences in two purported "amateur" videos of the exact same event - an inexplicable difference between the two which again points to massive video fakery by the two video authors concerned. [ completely separate from the issue of the physical and scientific impossibility of the main event depicted by both] .
To "prove" his case [ie no video fakery by the two 'amateur" video creators in question [Fairbanks and Hezarkhani] , Lawson conveniently blends footage from both videos in question into one, and then manages to exclude certain frames, instead of honestly including the entire, original raw footage sequence(s) , to achieve his masterful effect and thereby "win" his "no video fakery" argument .
There there, thank you Mr Lawson, we can all go back to sleep now- right?
It would not surprise me to learn that Mr Lawson is an employee of the British, or US government. Or both.
Personally speaking, I would not trust Mr Lawson as far as I could throw him - but then again, unlike some others here, I don't implicitly trust the government , _nor_ the [ largely defense contractor owned] , US corporate media networks who broadcast the original "live" video feeds [ie on their customary 10 second time delay no less!] that morning.
I hope you enjoy ["Austrian"] Ace Baker's analysis of Mr Lawson's "work"
More from "Austrian" Ace Baker [archived at Morgan Reynolds site] :"9/11 Studies as Austro-Libertarian Opportunity"
Juan:The thread was basically killed (because onebornfreeofreality) won't address any of my questions, because he can't. But then some clown had to go and bump it because he had nothing but trolling in mind. You wouldn't happen to be talking about me would you ? Anyway, here are some comments by Reynolds (who is published at LRC) on what proudcapitalist is saying (as if he knew what he's talking about...) http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes
The thread was basically killed (because onebornfreeofreality) won't address any of my questions, because he can't. But then some clown had to go and bump it because he had nothing but trolling in mind.
Thankyou for the link Juan. That article by Reynolds is devastating point by point rebuttal of almost every aspect of the official story, and includes plenty of solid evidence to support the inevitable conclusion that no planes hit either WTC1 +2, the Pentagon, or crashed into the ground in Shanksville.
An Austro-Libertarian Search For Truth?
In my opinion, Reynold's article deserves to be read by every "Austrian" or "libertarian" who is sincerely interested in a search for truth[ regardless of where it might lead them] , and in uncovering the true extent of the massive fraud perpetuated by the government and the media on 911, and who is not afraid of considering just how deep" the rabbit hole" really goes in this matter.
What Would Murray Rothbard Say/Do?
Of course, Rothbard himself would be all over this issue [ ie in complete agreement with M.Reynold's , Ace Baker and myself , etc.]
In the meantime, here is another great article from the Morgan Reynold's website: "9/11 Studies as Austro-Libertarian Opportunity"
Ignore it at your peril!
if you met somone who was related to someone on a flight that 'supposedly did not crash into a WTC', even though the relative suffered a 'delusion' that it had; what words would you have for them? how would you avoid being callous?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: "9/11 Studies as Austro-Libertarian Opportunity"
... to be easilly dismissed as loons and eliminate any possibility of becoming mainstream.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
laminustacitus: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: "9/11 Studies as Austro-Libertarian Opportunity" ... to be easilly dismissed as loons and eliminate any possibility of becoming mainstream.
You nailed it.
I understand your concerns.
In my opinion , in any and all groups attempting political influence, from "libertarian" to "marxist" or "fascist" and all between, there is a direct conflict between any individual within the groups' search for individual truth, and the group as a whole, which, in order to achieve the imagined political goals of the group as a whole, must suppress the individuals search. The larger the group, the greater the conflict between individual and group will be.
This conflict is natural/common to all groups [ie more than 1 person], of all persuasions and increases exponentially as a group attracts more individuals, and more individual "truth search" is deliberately compromised and suppressed by others within the group.
So your opinion on this matter is really no more than standard, cookie-cutter "group think" if you will.
I've seen it happen with the Libertarian Party [of which I was formerly a member], and within 911 truth movements such as "Loose Change" and "Prison Planet etc. all of whom ban from discussion anyone who regularly talks about "no-planes on 911", simply because they, like yourself, wish to suppress a search for truth in order to gain some sort of imagined mainstream political credibility, and view such searches as a direct threat to their image and credibility.
To survive, all groups must suppress an individuals own search for truth to some degree, or eject the offending member.
Never the less, it is sad, but in the end totally predictable [as it is just a naturally occurring phenomena common to _all_ social groups, private, public and quasi public ], to see this same phenomena consistently on display amongst a group of persons who freely throw around terms such as "anarchy" " anarcho-capitalism" etc., and frequently supposedly celebrate the spirit of Murray Rothbard and have quotes by Hoppe in their signature lines etc.
No, not sad, but amusing in its hypocrisy- but like I said, unavoidable and predictable, given that it is the way all groups must eventually function [given political goals, that is].
Trade -Offs for the "Greater Good"
Always, the trade off must be, suppression of a search for truth in order to achieve, for the good of the group[ and by extension the good of the world if the groups imagined goal is achieved] , greater credibility /acceptance by those outside the group.
Personally, and mainly for the reason given here [as well as others not listed], I do not believe in movements for "the good of the world", be they supposedly "Austrian", "anarchist" ,"libertarian" or with any other [ie of the more common] convenient label designations.
For myself, I must look for truth regardless of where it might eventually lead.
http://www.onebornfree.blogspot.com/
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:wish to suppress truth in order to gain some sort of imagined mainstream political credibility.
Or because people saw planes.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Truthers are worse than statists.
GilesStratton: Or because people saw planes.
Saw planes do what- effortlessly glide into/through 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings, like a hot knife through butter, without slowing down at "impact", without losing any parts, and leaving "cookie-cutter" holes to mark their passage through?
Granted, they might well have seen that on TV, but live?
So everyone lied?
scineram: Truthers are worse than statists.
It depends what you mean, so I'm not sure if I agree with you or not, but I will tell you this - in my experience the 911 "truth movement" is 99.99% statist- virtually every person I have talked to is head over heels in love with government- they just want to run it their way because - you know- 911 would never have happened if _their_ group had been running the show!
scineram: So everyone lied?
You tell me.
Carefully review LewRockwell.com contributer Morgan Reynolds piece: "We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories"
and also: "9/11 Studies as Austro-Libertarian Opportunity"
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: Granted, they might well have seen that on TV, but live?
Yes, they did see it live.
By the way, I'm curious, were images that were being broadcast live fake also?
GilesStratton: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: Granted, they might well have seen that on TV, but live? Yes, they did see it live. By the way, I'm curious, were images that were being broadcast live fake also?
"Yes, they did see it live".
Please carefully review Newton's 3rd Law of motion
If by "it" you mean they saw an event whereby airliners "effortlessly glide into/through 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings, like a hot knife through butter, without slowing down at "impact", without losing any parts, and leaving "cookie-cutter" holes to mark their passage", then any claimed "witnesses" interviewed "live" on the networks that day "witnessed" a scientifically impossible event- which means that they are all, to a man/woman - lying [or on heavy medication or street hallucinogens].
Deductive reasoning- the event was/is scientifically impossible [ ie it violates the known laws of physics - therefor anyone who claims to have seen such an event live, in real time, is a liar.
What you may not know: all of the supposed "witnesses" that claimed to have seen fl 175 flying intact inside WTC2 that morning and that were interviewed on TV that day have been researched and found to be actors and/or media insiders or relatives thereof, or professional videographers , and some were persons with IRS liens against them or their business and properties etc..[ie they were vulnerable and therefor subject to, standard governmental operating procedure, in other words].
Predictably, under questioning, and outside of some of the authors of the "amateur" videos themselves [ nearly all such "amateurs" are, in actual fact, professional videographers with 100's of 1000's of $'s of video editing equipment and facilities] , most claimed live witnesses to this event [fl 175] have since retreated to a "I saw it live on TV" position.
"By the way, I'm curious, were images that were being broadcast live fake also?"
I don't think you are [curious], but I'll humor you with an answer.
Very little of what you saw that morning was actually live.
Outside of 911, all "live" network TV [and radio] is routinely broadcast with at least a 10 second delay to try to avoid live glitches, bad language from interviewees etc.
Simon Shack, the maker of "September Clues" claims a delay of 17 seconds in all network feeds that morning- ample ime to inject computer generated imagery [CGI] of a plane into the "live" feeds .
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: "Yes, they did see it live". Please carefully review Newton's 3rd Law of motion If by "it" you mean they saw an event whereby airliners "effortlessly glide into/through 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings, like a hot knife through butter, without slowing down at "impact", without losing any parts, and leaving "cookie-cutter" holes to mark their passage", then any claimed "witnesses" interviewed "live" on the networks that day "witnessed" a scientifically impossible event- which means that they are all, to a man/woman - lying [or on heavy medication or street hallucinagens]. Deductive reasoning- the event was/is scientifically impossible [ ie it violates the known laws of physics - therefor anyone who claims to have seen such an event live, in real time, is a liar. What you may not know: all of the supposed "witnesses" that claimed to have seen fl 175 flying intact inside WTC2 that morning and that were interviewed on TV that day have been researched and found to be actors and/or media insiders or relatives thereof, and persons with IRS liens against them etc..
If by "it" you mean they saw an event whereby airliners "effortlessly glide into/through 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings, like a hot knife through butter, without slowing down at "impact", without losing any parts, and leaving "cookie-cutter" holes to mark their passage", then any claimed "witnesses" interviewed "live" on the networks that day "witnessed" a scientifically impossible event- which means that they are all, to a man/woman - lying [or on heavy medication or street hallucinagens].
What you may not know: all of the supposed "witnesses" that claimed to have seen fl 175 flying intact inside WTC2 that morning and that were interviewed on TV that day have been researched and found to be actors and/or media insiders or relatives thereof, and persons with IRS liens against them etc..
Slowing down on impact? I thought the plane was stopped at impact? Doesn't seem to violate any law of physics to me. Object in motion tend to stay in motion until they're acted upon.
This event is nothing more than a stand alone complex. There is no way the federal government could ochestrated such a complex and rational conspircy.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
kiba: Slowing down on impact? I thought the plane was stopped at impact? Doesn't seem to violate any law of physics to me. Object in motion tend to stay in motion until they're acted upon.
"Slowing down on impact? I thought the plane was stopped at impact?"
No video of fl 175 entering the south tower shows any slowing at impact whatsoever, let alone any stopping.
Please see: http://onebornfree.blogspot.com/2008/10/shortest-simplest-most-devastating-most.html
"Object in motion tend to stay in motion until they're acted upon." Exactly
I'm having a slightly difficult time following, 7 pages is a lot when it comes to conspiracy arguments...
onebornfree, are you saying that there was a cookie cutter outline of the plane left in the building, and that there shouldn't be, or are you saying that there was not and that there should be?
Righteous government, or the righteous lack thereof, is not the producer of a righteous society, it is the product of one.
You can't have my guns, but I'd be glad to give you my bullets...
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Deductive reasoning- the event was/is scientifically impossible [ ie it violates the known laws of physics - therefor anyone who claims to have seen such an event live, in real time, is a liar.
You mean, everybody who saw it is a liar? Here's the thing, even if that was, do you think the perpetrators of 9/11 would be willing to risk somebody getting a picture of whatever it was that hit the towers? Not likely, it would have taken a single photo to blow the whole thing.
The fact of the matter is that I'm fairly skeptical of the official story, I'm on the fence when it comes to whether or not the government was involved. But do I believe there were no planes? Not for second.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Simon Shack, the maker of "September Clues" claims a delay of 17 seconds in all network feeds that morning- ample ime to inject computer generated imagery [CGI] of a plane into the "live" feeds .
17 seconds to insert CGI of a plane into the live feeds? I don't know if it's possible, what I do know is that I doubt such CGI could have withstood the scrutiny it has received, moreover I don't think anybody would have been willing to risk that.
the idea that in new york city, the tallest building could start pouring flames out, and draw no eyes/attention, so that the collision of a second later aircraft goes completely unseen and unnoticed, beggars belief.
the fact is, if there had been 'no planes' hitting either WTC building, there would be litterally thousands of people saying, 'i watched the first building get damaged, i watched the second, (live, with my own eyes'), i saw no planes involved'.
quite the contrary,
the 'planes hit the towers story' is only criticised by incredulous people , who werent there, and dont even claim to have been looking live at the towers with their own eyes, when the shit went down, but are some kind of idiot-savante-physics-knowing-cgi-spotting-sawit2ndhandbyvideo folks.
GilesStratton:17 seconds to insert CGI of a plane into the live feeds? I don't know if it's possible, what I do know is that I doubt such CGI could have withstood the scrutiny it has received
nirgrahamUK:the idea that in new york city, the tallest building could start pouring flames out, and draw no eyes/attention, so that the collision of a second later aircraft goes completely unseen and unnoticed, beggars belief.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
thepaintballer45: I'm having a slightly difficult time following, 7 pages is a lot when it comes to conspiracy arguments... onebornfree, are you saying that there was a cookie cutter outline of the plane left in the building, and that there shouldn't be, or are you saying that there was not and that there should be?
There were "entry" holes in the 2 buildings, but for scientific reasons, [Newtons 3rd law of Motion] they could not have been made by a 757 airliner.
Juan: nirgrahamUK:the idea that in new york city, the tallest building could start pouring flames out, and draw no eyes/attention, so that the collision of a second later aircraft goes completely unseen and unnoticed, beggars belief. Maybe. Now, do you believe that the biggest and most paranoid military in the world let three hijacked airliners roam free for almost an hour and then cause a lot of damage ? Do you also believe in the tooth fairy ?
i dont believe that the worlds greatest superpowers military industrial complex is infallible/omniscienct/responsible/an efficient means of providing security/legitimate.
nor the toothfairy.
are you a no-planer juan?
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:There were "entry" holes in the 2 buildings, but for scientific reasons, [Newtons 3rd law of Motion] they could not have been made by a 757 airliner.
can you spell out what you would 'expect to have seen' as a result of an 'actual' airplane impact?
any example footage?
Juan: Maybe. Now, do you believe that the biggest and most paranoid military in the world let three hijacked airliners roam free for almost an hour and then cause a lot of damage ? Do you also believe in the tooth fairy ?
I can buy this, and this along with the advanced manoevres by the supposed hijacker make me question at the very least the identity of the hijacker. But to say that there were no planes?
To begin with what about everybody who was supposedly on those planes?
GilesStratton: You mean, everybody who saw it is a liar? Here's the thing, even if that was, do you think the perpetrators of 9/11 would be willing to risk somebody getting a picture of whatever it was that hit the towers? Not likely, it would have taken a single photo to blow the whole thing. The fact of the matter is that I'm fairly skeptical of the official story, I'm on the fence when it comes to whether or not the government was involved. But do I believe there were no planes? Not for second.
"You mean, everybody who saw it is a liar?"
No, anyone who claims to have witnessed that event live, as opposed to seeing it "live" on TV, is a liar.
"do you think the perpetrators of 9/11 would be willing to risk somebody getting a picture of whatever it was that hit the towers? Not likely, it would have taken a single photo to blow the whole thing."
Since there was nothing to photograph ,it did not matter what they tried to picture.
Even if a plane or a missile _had_ hit the tower, it would have been moving at around 800 ft. per sec. [or around 550 mph, which is, because of air density, in actuality an impossible speed for a jetliner at 600ft above sea level- but not a problem for a missile] , and therefor, either way [missile or plane] impossible to track with a handheld camera device, let alone capture on film with any clarity.
"do I believe there were no planes? Not for second."
That is your choice -for which you alone are responsible, just as I am for mine. I cannot persuade you of my "truth". All I can do is maybe to get you to look closely at the simple physics involved - where you choose to go with that information is your affair, ultimately.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:No, anyone who claims to have witnessed that event live, as opposed to seeing it "live" on TV, is a liar.
That's quite a few people you're calling liars there.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Even if a plane or a missile _had_ hit the tower, it would have been moving at around 800 ft. per sec. [or around 550 mph, which is, because of air density, in actuality an impossible speed for a jetliner at 600ft above sea level- but not a problem for a missile] , and therefor, either way [missile or plane] impossible to track with a handheld camera device, let alone capture on film with any clarity.
So please tell me what was captured then? What is a projection? And how about the people on those planes, government employees? Or are we going to find a mass grave with these people soon?
GilesStratton: 17 seconds to insert CGI of a plane into the live feeds? I don't know if it's possible, what I do know is that I doubt such CGI could have withstood the scrutiny it has received, moreover I don't think anybody would have been willing to risk that.
CGI technology is routinely used in live football broadcasts, where a yellow line is artificially inserted across the field so that it appears to have been painted on the grass [ don't ask me why- I do not follow football].
In the past [ie pre 911] ,there have been many instances of both the military announcing that it had such technology and would use it in future wars, and from media executives who were concerned about its use in their own broadcasts damaging their own credibility [ fat chance!].
"I don't know if it's possible, what I do know is that I doubt such CGI could have withstood the scrutiny it has received"
But it did _not_ receive any scrutiny at the time. All that was needed was to convince enough sheeple that America was under attack and to give Bush the political majority he needed in order to invade a country and pass the laws he and his pardners wanted passed - obviously it worked.
Maybe some[ myself included] exhibited a massive degree of doubt at the time- but there was very little scrutiny of the supposed evidence used to justify the governments subsequent actions.
The only scrutiny it _has_ received is occurring years after the event , in retrospect - thanks to the heroic efforts of independent lone researchers like Simon Shack.
do you have any credible witnesses that were looking at the side of the building that the 'government claims was hit by a plane' at the time that the government claim the plane was hit, that deny the presence of any plane?
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:CGI technology is routinely used in live football broadcasts, where a yellow line is artificially inserted across the field so that it appears to have been painted on the grass [ don't ask me why- I do not follow football].
Yellow line seems to be slightly easier than a plane moving however fast, no?
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:But it did _not_ receive any scrutiny at the time. All that was needed was to convince enough sheeple that America was under attack and to give Bush the political majority he needed in order to invade a country and pass the laws he and his pardners wanted passed - obviously it worked.
Yes, but, it wasn't necessary. Governments can benefit from things without causing them.
nirgrahamUK: i dont believe that the worlds greatest superpowers military industrial complex is infallible/omniscienct/responsible/an efficient means of providing security/legitimate.
GilesStratton:I can buy this, and this along with the advanced manoevres by the supposed hijacker make me question at the very least the identity of the hijacker. But to say that there were no planes?
banned: Michael S:Supply and demand doesn't apply to gold? I thought the more of something available like commodities the lower the price/cost. For an example: If there is a drought in an area where most of the corn was grown in a country and the farmer, lets say could only grow 1/3 of corn then he or she normally grows that would raise the price of corn not drop the price of corn. Would it not? I think you might be confusing low prices with low monetary value. Things will be priced low against something with high monetary value. If currency was backed by gold, gold would be worth much more than it is now since demand for it would be greater, and prices relative to it would diminish.
Michael S:Supply and demand doesn't apply to gold? I thought the more of something available like commodities the lower the price/cost. For an example: If there is a drought in an area where most of the corn was grown in a country and the farmer, lets say could only grow 1/3 of corn then he or she normally grows that would raise the price of corn not drop the price of corn. Would it not?
I think you might be confusing low prices with low monetary value. Things will be priced low against something with high monetary value. If currency was backed by gold, gold would be worth much more than it is now since demand for it would be greater, and prices relative to it would diminish.
Thanks for the info, I asked because I knew that I had a good chance of being wrong.
Juan: Well, are there any widely available copies of the 'original' videos ? Any link ? The thing is, the 'official' videos floating around seem to be very low quality -- hard to tell if they are fake or not.
HERE YOU CAN CHECK OUT ALL THE ORIGINAL NEWSCASTS OF 9/11 :HERE YOU CAN DOWNLOAD AND CHECK FOR YOURSELF HIGH-RESOLUTION TV BROADCASTS OF 9/11 :HERE YOU CAN READ ABOUT THE CRUX OF 9/11 : INFORMATION WARFAREHERE IS HOW SERIOUSLY IMAGERY IS MANAGED IN MODERN WARFAREHERE IS A PIECE OF HISTORY : HOW CNN "REPORTED" THE 1991 GULF WAR
ProudCapitalist: "Elvis-is-still-alive-but-only-kidnapped-by-aliens" theories.
"Elvis-is-still-alive-but-only-kidnapped-by-aliens" theories.
Hey wait a darn minute...Elvis really is alive and he was kidnapped by Reptilian aliens, it's all a government cover up!!!
HAHA just kidding
yes, i believe that planes hit buildings in new york. obviously if they had been intercepted they wouldnt have. so by logic they were not intercepted as perhaps they 'should have been'. where is this leading us?
i dont believe the whole story. this is not about the whole story. its about whether or not planes where involved. they were. end of.
Hey wait a darn minute...Elvis really is alive and he was kidnapped by Reptilian aliens, it's all a government cover up, OH Wait! it is because the people in the government are shape shifting reptilian aliens!!!.........
p.s. its not 'physically impossible' to fly a boeing 767 faster than 500mph at several hundred ft, its just very dangerous, and utterly stupid (and evil if you have passengers on board, and civilians in your crashzone)
sure, flying at reckless speeds that put the structural integrity in jeopardy, and make it difficult to vouch for the controllability of the jet would void your warranty. and you couldnt sue boeing for losing control of your jet if you flew it at ridiculous speeds at the wrong altitudes. but hey, your a terrorist (whether you a a muslim crazy or a government blackest-of-the-black-ops)
nirgrahamUK:your a terrorist
No you are.
i havent been able to cause much damage yet though. not trying hard enough.