TV Fakery: A Valuable Hypothesis

[ryans53]

I think one of the major themes woven into TV Fakery hypotheses that's often overlooked is the following:

The validity of television, as a source of genuine information, is a premise that desperately needs to be questioned, but rarely is.

Regardless of the ultimate "truth" of the TV Fakery hypotheses, the entertainment of such hypotheses is a worthwhile endeavor insofar as it entails a discussion about TV reliability in general.

Nine-eleven is an interesting event because it was so well televised. Much of the public's response to 9/11 was driven by what people think they "saw" on "live" TV. The unfortunate, and arguably dangerous, extension of this is that the public is liable to believe everything they "see" on TV. In fact, I would say that the problem of television's hypnotizing effects is an integral feature of David Icke's work.

I therefore encourage people who chastise "no planers" for their challenges to television's reliability rethink their assessments of no plane theories from this "broader" perspective. Television, at its base, is a "reality delivery system." Ask yourself, in the spirit of Rene Descartes, What mechanism ensures that what you see on TV actually correlates to something in reality?

Any good answers are most welcome.

[axel]

While I still believe that planes were used in the WTC attacks (now, who was ultimately driving them is what it comes down to), I totally agree with you. People are far too eager to believe what they hear and see on the television. I know too many people who hold the "I'll believe it when I see it" attitude, and I want to tell them that sometimes even that isn't enough.

There is more to believing than seeing. You have to look at all possible angles of something.

[ryans53]

I can appreciate why many prefer the "real planes" theories about 9/11--the footage in many ways looks just like an airplane striking a building. Even though I now prefer TV Fakery theories about 9/11, I have to admit that for many years I too bought the "real planes" theories. So I don't consider those who subscribe to real planes to be necessarily wrong-headed--their position IS rational given certain assumptions--but I think it is worth giving TV Fakery a fair shake, if for no other reason than to further scrutiny about television in general.

From many of the threads I've followed, there has been a substantial chasm between the two camps that has led to a lot of unnecessary hostility. As a result of this, the deeper message behind TV Fakery theories is getting lost in the shuffle. Maybe TV Fakery can be proven and maybe it can't; I don't know. But the idea that a whole "live" broadcast of a major disaster could possibly be faked is something to talk about.

For those familiar with the history of western philosophy, you might remember that the very same sort of scrutiny has been applied by prominent thinkers of the last 2000 years over how man can know anything at all about the exterior world. Questions have been raised, and continue to be raised, about the legitimacy and reliability of our own physical senses. In fact, much of this kind of debate is represented in Icke's own work when he makes reference to "The Matrix"--the illusory world. TV Fakery, in my opinion, is a natural extension of this tradition. Television appeals to our senses and captivates us just like the natural world can; but whether this captivation has any connection at all to "reality" is very much a great subject for debate.

Axel, I'm pleased to hear that even though you believe in real planes that you recognize that "seeing" is not enough to "believe." I think that concept is more on target than answering definitively whether real planes hit the towers or not (although the planes question is nevertheless incredibly interesting).

[dave52]

Good thread Ryan...!

All tv is suspect, there are agendas and conditioning all over it. Of course TV Fakery is possible, as is video fakery (footage that wasn't shown "live").

[cruise4]

I'll agree to that too. I cannot rule out NPT and think the concept is a sound one, but think it was probably easier to use real planes. But I have no belief's as such here. Time will tell and until then I'm not too bothered how they did it. I just know they did it.

[jalexander]

Thank you for posting this ryans53, maybe once people understand this aspect of TV Fakery they will understand at least somewhat where the NPT is coming from. The fact that the "News" is a business ought to in itself make you question what you see, and as a business profit is #1, as for truth who knows what # that comes in at.

[mynameis]

Gee I don't think hundreds in Manhattan were watching it on TV....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY5AUnmpaWY

Stuff on TV can be faked, but when there's thousands of eye witnesses to the event and many are credible, I think the whole TV thing in this case about NYC falls apart by reason and logic, among other mountains of available evidence.

[supertzar]

Those people are watching the aftermath of the impacts. How many reliable witnesses are there that actually saw the planes? How do we know they are "reliable," anyway? What does that mean? Is a police officer more "credible" than a homeless person? Why?

[axel]

For those familiar with the history of western philosophy, you might remember that the very same sort of scrutiny has been applied by prominent thinkers of the last 2000 years over how man can know anything at all about the exterior world. Questions have been raised, and continue to be raised, about the legitimacy and reliability of our own physical senses.

...

Axel, I'm pleased to hear that even though you believe in real planes that you recognize that "seeing" is not enough to "believe." I think that concept is more on target than answering definitively whether real planes hit the towers or not (although the planes question is nevertheless incredibly interesting).

I was a Philosophy major in university -- epistemology and logic were my two favourite branches!

Thank you for not insulting me! When I mention that I hold the opinion that planes were used for the WTC attacks, I usually get personally attacked. I really appreciate that you didn't do that.

I want to make clear that I don't at all discount the theory that no planes were used. I am open to learning more about it -- especially your theory, which I could get on board with -- and am totally willing to admit that my opinion, or any other opinion on these forums for that matter, could be completely wrong. I think the fact that we all are at least searching for the truth and recognize that the official 9/11 story is a lie is far more important than pinning down exactly what did go on. Though, of course, it is important to figure it out. It's also great fun and a fantastic learning experience!

[axel]

Is a police officer more "credible" than a homeless person? Why?

I've always wondered that myself. Why do persons of "authority" inherit along with their badges extra credibility? Especially when it's known that there is frequently corruption in the legal systems, and law officers have sometimes misused and abused their power and "authority".

What makes a credible witness? Why does it seem that having a university or college degree automatically makes your opinion of what happened more valid than, say, a high school drop-out?

It could be more government and media manipulation. Law officers and the like are likely to feel more patriotic than, say, a homeless person whom the system has failed. So go ask the policeman what he saw, and he'll tell you an attack on America, on Freedom, on Liberty. Ask a homeless person what he saw and he might tell you he saw an attack on civilians, on freedom, yes, but in a different way. The media and government can exploit this; who isn't going to believe a freedom-loving, safety-protecting police officer? Why, he's the poster child for American Freedom and Authority (an oxymoron?)! But who is going to believe a homeless person, a pan-handler on the street who probably ended up there because he took "took many drugs and probably molested children" (the media/government saying that, not me)? How very un-American! It saddens and enrages me, really.

Apologies for two posts in a row, but I didn't see the post to which I am replying when I was replying to the other post.

[mynameis]

Those people are watching the aftermath of the impacts. How many reliable witnesses are there that actually saw the planes? How do we know they are "reliable," anyway? What does that mean? Is a police officer more "credible" than a homeless person? Why?

I did not say a officer has more credibility than a homeless person. You are putting words into my mouth attributing them to me as I never stated. Now how do you know they didn't see the second plane impact?

[axel]

I did not say a officer has more credibility than a homeless person. You are putting words into my mouth attributing them to me as I never stated. Now how do you know they didn't see the second plane impact?

I don't think supertzar was putting words in your mouth, mynameis. I think he/she was simply asking if you subscribe to the idea (as many do) that police officers are more credible witnesses than homeless people, and if you thought so, why you thought so. It's obvious now that you don't feel that police officers are any more credible than a homeless person, though, so that's that :)

[redman]

Good thread, one thing that the NPT did open my eyes to is the concept that major NEWS networks could and would try this. My intuition sides with the theory that planes hit, but to be truthful I would not be surprised whats so ever if none did.

So the NPT did open my mind to the fact that TV fakery is definitely possible and we should all keep our eyes and minds open to that fact.


But all the bickering between people is a bit silly IMO.

[oiram]

I think one of the major themes woven into TV Fakery hypotheses that's often overlooked is the following:

The validity of television, as a source of genuine information, is a premise that desperately needs to be questioned, but rarely is.

Regardless of the ultimate "truth" of the TV Fakery hypotheses, the entertainment of such hypotheses is a worthwhile endeavor insofar as it entails a discussion about TV reliability in general.

Nine-eleven is an interesting event because it was so well televised. Much of the public's response to 9/11 was driven by what people think they "saw" on "live" TV. The unfortunate, and arguably dangerous, extension of this is that the public is liable to believe everything they "see" on TV. In fact, I would say that the problem of television's hypnotizing effects is an integral feature of David Icke's work.

I therefore encourage people who chastise "no planers" for their challenges to television's reliability rethink their assessments of no plane theories from this "broader" perspective. Television, at its base, is a "reality delivery system." Ask yourself, in the spirit of Rene Descartes, What mechanism ensures that what you see on TV actually correlates to something in reality?

Any good answers are most welcome.I don't even get into the argument about planes Or no planes! To many other things which logically don't fit into the reality story & picture!

TV Fakery = Yes! 100% possible!
Would they have motives to do it "Yes! 100%"
Is TV used to manipulate the peoples mind set "Yes! 100%"
Is the MSM mainly under monopoly control "Yes! 100%"
Are all TV commentators paid of puppets "Yes! 100%"
Are most of the people hypnotised by TV "Yes! 100%"
Do the People still believe that Osama is still alive because he still give a speech on TV "Yes! 75%" still do!
If the people in lets say 5 years would see on TV that they landed a man on Mars; would they believe it "Yes! 95%" (considering we would not have this awakening)

All people which play around with there computer; know very well what even a none expert can create & do with it!

I give TV Fakery on 9/11 a rating of 85%! I leave 15% because I don't know which part they did not Fake!
Did some Goverment and Military personal have there fingers in the 9/11 "Yes! 95%" I leave 5% because I don't know who did not have his fingers in-it & is guilty by association inclouding McCain & Obama!

Have we been fooled "Yes! 100%"

Will they get away with it in the end; No Way with the way the awakening progresses!

Will they just give up in the end; I don't know Satan this much; to evaluate how suicidal he really is!

.......................................Does Humanity needs the Military, Governments & Leaders? .................................................Y es!........http://www.davidicke.com/forum/images/icons/icon2.gif







http://www.davidicke.com/forum/images/icons/icon2.gif Like ................... a ....


...........http://www.davidicke.com/forum/images/icons/icon2.gif Hole ..................................... in .....


.............................the.................. .....................http://www.davidicke.com/forum/images/icons/icon2.gif .................................................. ....................................... Head!http://www.davidicke.com/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

[mynameis]

I don't even get into the argument about planes Or no planes! To many other things which logically don't fit into the reality story & picture!

TV Fakery = Yes! 100% possible!
Would they have motives to do it "Yes! 100%"
Is TV used to manipulate the peoples mind set "Yes! 100%"
Is the MSM mainly under monopoly control "Yes! 100%"
Are all TV commentators paid of puppets "Yes! 100%"
Are most of the people hypnotised by TV "Yes! 100%"
Do the People still believe that Osama is still alive because he still give a speech on TV "Yes! 75%" still do!
If the people in lets say 5 years would see on TV that they landed a man on Mars; would they believe it "Yes! 95%" (considering we would not have this awakening)

All people which play around with there computer; know very well what even a none expert can create & do with it!

I give TV Fakery on 9/11 a rating of 85%! I leave 15% because I don't know which part they did not Fake!
Did some Goverment and Military personal have there fingers in the 9/11 "Yes! 95%" I leave 5% because I don't know who did not have his fingers in-it & is guilty by association inclouding McCain & Obama!

Have we been fooled "Yes! 100%"

Will they get away with it in the end; No Way with the way the awakening progresses!

Will they just give up in the end; I don't know Satan this much; to evaluate how suicidal he really is!

Not being condescending here everything you said is correct except the being fooled and would they do it; I thought it reminded me of the 911 Southpark Conspiracy episode.

[oiram]

Not being condescending here everything you said is correct except the being fooled and would they do it; I thought it reminded me of the 911 Southpark Conspiracy episode.If I am honest I must say yes I was fooled for the first two days!
Then my logic kicked in and I collected more info!

[thematrix]

interesting thread! :)

I am *firmly* of the opinion that no TV fakery was used on 911. I am still open to the possibility - but I have yet to seen *any* convincng evidence from the NPTers - although i there is any then I would love to see some.

I think that perhaps ths was a "dry run" for some future event. TPTB want to see what kind of effect witnessing this kind of event will have on millions of people and in what ways they can shape and mould the opinion of those millions of people afterwards to push forward whatever grand plans they have.

Perhaps the orginal genesis of NPT was put out as deliberate dis-info by one or two peope who have long since slinked away into the background leaving the main advocates of NPT that are arguing the case now as complete believers, who are genuine and utterly convinced of that which they advocate and don't have a disinfo bone in their body.

Now that 911 NPT has set a precedent for the mainstream to lump "TV fakery" theories in with conspiracy theories to keep the majority of the people happy in their ignorance, they are much more able to use TV fakery for future events.

When they do that the people this time around arguing for NPT will jump up and down saying - see this one was tv fake as well because of this and this and this... and the rest of the world will laugh at such "ridiculous ideas" and they'll get away with it again...

TV is this centuries religion. The way that the "elite" dumb down and control the mass of the people. Today we have the cult of celebrity, people obsessed with looking a certain way, and people who won't or can't think for temselves because their free time is spent mostly watching TV.

[lightgiver]

i wonder of all the people that saw the planes did they notice any windows:confused:

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=jRC4lCQuBmc

these lot did not see any windows ;)

makes you think about the planes being fake and not american airline jets???

[acebaker]

For any who doubt that video compositing was used to insert airplanes into news footage, please read my book and offer any criticism you wish.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36557


Thanks.

[axel]

For any who doubt that video compositing was used to insert airplanes into news footage, please read my book and offer any criticism you wish.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36557


Thanks.

Hi Ace,

I'll definitely be reading your book when I get the chance, and if you don't mind, I'd love to discuss this with you. I love learning all sorts of angles on one particular event, and yours is an interesting one.

[ryans53]

It's sobering to see so far that there are a number of people on both sides of the planes/no-planes debate in this thread yet no one has hurled an ad hominem attack yet. Here's to hoping this continues!

It seems as though many are in agreement that the television is largely a nefarious instrument, and that it can be used for disinformation. I think a worthwhile question might then be to ask about the extent to which television can mislead its viewers. In other words, how drastically can television distort reality?

Sure, it can distort on the smaller end of the scale without much trouble. But seriously, what can television do on the larger end of the scale? What can television successfully fake? And how much can it affect what people think/believe?

Like a good chess player, I tend to assume my opponents are far wiser than they might actually be...just to be careful. I therefore assume that those who control television have the ability, know-how and will to distort reality well into the larger end of the scale. That is to say, I assume television could not only fake plane crashes, but it perhaps could also fake alien landings, hurricanes, biblical raptures, nuclear attacks, etc. In other words, television fakery is a powerful problem-reaction-solution tool for those who wish to control. The least we can do is try to understand it.

At this point, I'm not confident that I would be able to tell the difference between a real televised event and a fake one. I have followed Ace Baker and Morgan Reynolds' work with considerable interest and think that they have done some excellent work showing me how one might go about falsifying a piece of footage; but absent theirs and others' help, I don't think I could do that on my own. I simply don't have the expertise. So I see television fakery as a crucial subject that I need to come to terms with in order to stay on top of "the game," so to speak. So far, I don't know what else to do but axe the whole thing from my life altogether.

[jalexander]

Gee I don't think hundreds in Manhattan were watching it on TV....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY5AUnmpaWY

Stuff on TV can be faked, but when there's thousands of eye witnesses to the event and many are credible, I think the whole TV thing in this case about NYC falls apart by reason and logic, among other mountains of available evidence.

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=5049

[edov]

Excellent thread Ryans53!
Don't know if you followed yesterday's mammoth NPT debate, but we drew pretty much the same conclusion... well, i did anyway!

[mynameis]

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=5049

A post to forum 911 movement does not negate any of what these people saw. You have to interview each and every one. Neither does speculation that they didn't see what they think they saw.

[edov]

A post to forum 911 movement does not negate any of what these people saw. You have to interview each and every one. Neither does speculation that they didn't see what they think they saw.

Yeah, funny that isn't it? How the people that 'have' been interviewed are about as credible as *enter words of your choice*

Interview each and every one of them... I bet TPTB would love to know exactly who all those people were that were heard saying, "that was not a plane!", "it was a missile!"...

[mynameis]

Yeah, funny that isn't it? How the people that 'have' been interviewed are about as credible as *enter words of your choice*

Interview each and every one of them... I bet TPTB would love to know exactly who all those people were that were heard saying, "that was not a plane!", "it was a missile!"...

Well I can tell you that the people saying missile were probably further away than the people saying plane. This would suggest a link to the visual atmospheric discrepancy as well as a pattern associated with the necessary visual distance involved with seeing an error in eye witness judgment. Do not hold to hope that a pattern between distance and eye witness testimony will not create a pattern destroying or supporting planes. I think that the closer to the towers we find eye witnesses the more witnesses will say planes; depending on the numbers more witnesses further away will say they didn't see planes, but missiles and that is becaus*insert explaination of your choice here.* I'm excluding those who heard something, but did not see something close by the WTC for obvious reason. Alas this one photograph taken if valid is enough for me to suspect the aims of NPT:

A photograph of the plane before hitting the tower.
http://www.jumpcut.com/media/dyn/a9/77e4/f91c1f03707c3cfa876bda3f1e/view.jpg

[supertzar]

mynameis, I did not intend to put words in your mouth. I was questioning the concept of the credible witness. You spoke of thousands of witnesses, many of them credible, so I wondered what you mean by credible. Officers and the homeless were given as examples of types of people widely considered to be credible and not credible respectively.

In another thread you said Conjecture is not proof of actual reality, it is speculating on events of which you do not have a connection.


But here you say Well I can tell you that the people saying missile were probably further away than the people saying plane. This would suggest a link to the visual atmospheric discrepancy as well as a pattern associated with the necessary visual distance involved with seeing an error in eye witness judgment.

What gives?

[mynameis]

mynameis, I did not intend to put words in your mouth. I was questioning the concept of the credible witness. You spoke of thousands of witnesses, many of them credible, so I wondered what you mean by credible. Officers and the homeless were given as examples of types of people widely considered to be credible and not credible respectively.

Gee I don't think hundreds in Manhattan were watching it on TV....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY5AUnmpaWY

Stuff on TV can be faked, but when there's thousands of eye witnesses to the event and many are credible, I think the whole TV thing in this case about NYC falls apart by reason and logic, among other mountains of available evidence.

I don't know how many watched the 2nd plane hit in NYC. I don't claim too. What is credible by definition as it appears too hard to use a dictionary these days, I looked up the word for you.

cred·i·ble
/ˈkrɛdəbəl/

–adjective
1. capable of being believed; believable: a credible statement.
2. worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy: a credible witness.
[Origin: 1350–1400; ME (< MF) < L crédibilis, equiv. to créd(ere) to believe + -ibilis -ible]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/credible

[supertzar]

I am not asking the dictionary definition of credible. I am asking you personally what witnesses are credible to you and why. I edited my last post by the way. You may wish to respond to that.

[mynameis]

I am not asking the dictionary definition of credible. I am asking you personally what witnesses are credible to you and why. I edited my last post by the way. You may wish to respond to that.

Mine is the same as the dictionary equivalent.

[supertzar]

Contradictions abound! You said there's thousands of eye witnesses to the event *the event being the second plane hitting the tower, agreed?*

Then you said I don't know how many watched the 2nd plane hit in NYC. I don't claim too.

[mynameis]

Contradictions abound! You said *the event being the second plane hitting the tower, agreed?*

Then you said

How many people do you think work in Manhattan? How many police and firefighters do you think were available to watch? At least hundred, a thousand, ten thousand? NYC has 10 million people, do the math; even a fraction of that isn't speculation.

[supertzar]

Mine is the same as the dictionary equivalent.

So, you are saying that the credible witnesses of the event (the second plane hitting the tower; that is what we are speaking of, correct?) are the ones who are capable of being believed; believable: a credible statement.
2. worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy: a credible witness. That's your answer?

[mynameis]

Contradictions abound! You said *the event being the second plane hitting the tower, agreed?*

Then you said

How many people do you think work in Manhattan? How many police and firefighters do you think were available to watch? At least hundred, a thousand, ten thousand? NYC has 10+ million people - 8,274,527 by census, do the math; even a fraction of that isn't speculation.

[supertzar]

Being "available to watch" does not mean saw the plane hitting the tower. It's conjecture, something you scolded someone for in another thread.

[mynameis]

So, you are saying that the credible witnesses of the event (the second plane hitting the tower; that is what we are speaking of, correct?) are the ones who are capable of being believed; believable: a credible statement.
2. worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy: a credible witness. That's your answer?

I think that if you analyze all the witness statements you can gauge the distance from the event and then extrapolate the errors involved with positive identification of the event per eye-witness. As distance and atmospheric conditions exists so do errors to judgment call. This has nothing to do with credibility, but has everything to do with fact. The further out you see something the smaller and less recognizable that thing is and as such should be taken into consideration with the person's credibility.

[mynameis]

Being "available to watch" does not mean saw the plane hitting the tower. It's conjecture, something you scolded someone for in another thread.

It's conjecture? Proof is there are that many people undocumented watching the event due to the math involved. Statistically take the number of witnesses and divide that by the number working in Manhattan during the shift and you get a rough figures for how many of those thousands were watching.

[supertzar]

You are avoiding addressing the contradiction between stating that there are thousands of witnesses, many of them credible (still haven't stated which ones were credible and why, either) and saying you don't know how many witnessed it and don't claim to.

[supertzar]

It's conjecture? Proof is there are that many people undocumented watching the event due to the math involved. Statistically take the number of witnesses and divide that by the number working in Manhattan during the shift and you get a rough figures for how many of those thousands were watching.

We do not agree on how to understand reality, therefore we cannot have meaningful communication. Best of luck to you.

[mynameis]

You are avoiding addressing the contradiction between stating that there are thousands of witnesses, many of them credible (still haven't stated which ones were credible and why, either) and saying you don't know how many witnessed it and don't claim to.

I can with reasonable certainty due to statistics that there are at least one thousand people who witnessed the event and are still undocumented. You however are acting disingenuous and avoiding the mathematical probabilities in this aspect. I said their credibility is subject to their distance to the event and their credibility.

[thematrix]

in the hope perhaps of getting this thread more back on topic.

It is often claimed by many people that there were "thousands of eyewitnesses" to the 2nd plane hitting the south tower.

I would concur with that and here is why.

People are suckers for watching bad stuff happen. Look at any car accident on a motorway - in the opposite carriageway time and again traffic is slowed to a crawl as people on the other side slowright down to get a good lok at whatever mess is on the other side.

If you look at the film from the Naudet Bros. After the 1st tower gets hit one brother is walking the streets of NY filming as he goes. We see *hundreds* of people who have stopped what they are doing and are watching in horror and amazement what just happened, this is when most people presumably thought it was simply an awful air accident. The camera walks down one or two streets in a line going towards the tower, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that people lining the streets was only occuring where the camera was - it is a very safe assumption that in the immediate vicinity of the WTC complex people dropped what they were doing all around the tower so they could watch what was happening.

There must have been many thousands of people from all kinds of vantage points watching as the 2nd plane came in and struck the south tower. From all angles. A good % of those people will have seen the plane fly in with their own eyes, perhaps they didn't see the impact - and just heard it or felt it, but there *must* have been thousands of people who were actual physical eyewitnesses to a real plane.

It's possible that one could claim "I don't know how many witnesses" on the one hand but still say "it must have been more than x" without contradicting themselves.

Instead of arguing the toss over small details and remaining divided about things and taking this thread into a completely different direction I for one would like to see it get back to the OP topic - cos it's a subject that I have not seen discussed before in any of the 911 forums I have participated in.

[supertzar]

Don't you understand that to say x number of people must have seen the plane hit the tower, you have to assume that a plane hit the tower? It's circular logic.

[thematrix]

Don't you understand that to say x number of people must have seen the plane hit the tower, you have to assume that a plane hit the tower? It's circular logic.

Seeing as I am very convinced that a plane hit the tower then that is why I phrased it that way.

I take your point - if one was to maintain a completely open mind and wanted to phrase that statement appropriately it would go like:

"There must have been thousands of witnesses - in the streets of NYC that would have been well placed to see whateer it was that struck the South Tower"

better?

It does make you wonder though - lets assume for the sake of argument for a moment that there was NO plane.

A plane coming in at speed that low over manhattan would have made a *hell* of a noise. Even if you couldn't see the plane you would most defnitely hear the jet engines, most likely feel the vibrations from them as they screamed through the dense air that they are not built to fly through at that speed.

Given that we are assuming there are thousands of witnesses - and a good % of them would have seen a plane if there was one, almost all of them would have heard the plane if there was one, then...

How did the perps fake the plane convincingly enough to fool these people?

There would be hundreds of people some time after the event when they start to think a little more rationally thinking "I was in the flight path - I saw the hit on TV - but I didn't see or hear the plane when I was there???? what gives???????"

Today there seem to be no such group of people - surely we would have heard something from a good number of eye witnesses??

I completely agree with people who say "they could have faked the TV stuff - they have the capability to do that"

Yes absolutely they do - and they could. But they must also have engineered *something* to fool the witnesses on the ground and whatever that something was - a dressed up military plane - a dressed up missile - a hologram it must hav been very convincing and it must have been easier to do things that way than to use actual planes.

I agree 100% that afterwards the TV media was spun and only the story that the Govt wante us to get was what was portrayed on the media.

I don't buy the idea that the event itself was faked - I think the idea that this event was real to setup a future fake event has a lot more weight to it.

[edov]

I would suggest that the only "credible" eye witnesses were those that were filmed, at the scene, on the day. Anyone that was paraded in front of the camera now with an account of something they witnessed 7 years ago wouldn't cut it for me. How do we know they were there? How do we know the account they are giving us is reliable? It really doesn't matter if it's a homeless person or a policeman. You make your judgement when you hear the testimony. With that said, I urge you to watch the eye-witness accounts from that day...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuAQOjla9GY

[supertzar]

"There must have been thousands of witnesses - in the streets of NYC that would have been well placed to see whateer it was that struck the South Tower"

better?

Not really better because it still assumes something hit the tower. That doesn't help to solve the question of whether something, plane or non-plane, hit the towers.

[mynameis]

Not really better because it still assumes something hit the tower. That doesn't help to solve the question of whether something, plane or non-plane, hit the towers.

http://www.jumpcut.com/media/dyn/a9/77e4/f91c1f03707c3cfa876bda3f1e/view.jpg

What evidence is there this photograph is a fake?

[armoured_amazon]

I'm not sure whether there were planes or missiles made to look like planes but they were definitely not passenger jets. I remember being confused at the time when the news channels were talking about one plane - I was thinking "I thought that plane was darker, now it's white! Now it's black!" It was something I forgot about. Just like watching the plane go through the building with the nose untouched...

[supertzar]

I don't think you understand my point, mynameis. You probably think I am a "No Planer."

What evidence is there this photograph is a fake?

I don't know. What evidence there that it is real? It looks real, but so do special fx.

[mynameis]

I don't think you understand my point, mynameis. You probably think I am a "No Planer."



I don't know. What evidence there that it is real? It looks real, but so do special fx.

So one won't or can't admit to this is a real photograph via its provenance. Then one goes on about circular logic for some unknown reason. Without having proof of a date and time stamp, without proof of any modification of the original, and or negative would prove it's invalid; since NPT relies heavily on attacking eye witnesses who are also the victims, can one observe how and where this leaves 911 truth in obtaining evidence for future investigation from future said witnesses? Again how is this your conjecture I don't know or special effects proof this photograph is faked? Do you have any experts to back your claim that it is specialty effects? I've seen JRefs with more backbone than one claims in this assessment. Being for or against NPT does not influence my decision on what the right approaches are to understanding and then validating information correctly.

[ryans53]

The question about what eyewitnesses saw is a valid one to raise when talking about TV Fakery and 9/11. Certainly, it goes without saying that millions of people were in New York City on 9/11, and thousands, if not millions, of them were likely near the WTC complex when the events transpired. And it is fair to say that most of these individuals were paying close attention to what was happening at the WTC complex.

With all this in mind, many people likely "saw" what did (or did not) happen to those towers. Of course, by "saw" I mean that their eyes picked up rays of light that were then converted to chemical/electrical signals in their brains. Now, I'm no neurobiologist, but I have studied the brain through college level psychology courses and have overwhelmingly been taught that the brain's vision system is far from "photographic." Quite the contrary actually. The brain, and specifically the visual and memory components of it, are often referred to as "malleable" and "plastic". What this means is that what one "sees," and especially what one "recalls," is highly subjective--such phenomena are sensitive to past experiences, habits of perception, one's personal expectations, etc. This of course is not meant to say that nothing that we see is accurate or perhaps "objective," but it does cast doubt on the reliability of "eye-witness testimony" and the like.

In fact, a researcher by the name of Elizabeth Loftus (http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/) is particularly important in the field of eye-witness reliability. Her work spans three decades worth of experimental research that has been exceedingly well-received in the academic community. In short, she has argued that eye-witness testimony is very unreliable, and that one's memories of a witnessed event are incredibly suggestible to post-event information--i.e. that one's memory will change itself to match other post-event information. She has also suggested that entire memories can be fabricated or implanted--something she appropriately calls "false memories".

Now, I don't wish to argue that the effects Loftus has studied were necessarily at play on 9/11, but I offer this as something to consider when thinking about the reliability of eye-witnesses. As far as I can tell, despite the success and popularity of Loftus' work (most introductory psychology texts will mention her work), few seem to know about it or recognize its implications. This is particularly important for TV Fakery and 9/11.

It is very interesting to think: What would happen if thousands of people personally "saw" one event "live" with their own eyes, and hundreds of millions of other people presumably "saw" the same event "live" on television, but the two versions were not identical? Which version would "win" and why?

With respect to 9/11, it is not obvious to me that the eye-witness account would "win." That is to say that if none of the eye-witnesses on 9/11 actually "saw" a plane fly into a building, would they (a) be capable of remembering such an event accurately (i.e. that their minds would resist Loftus' effects of post-event persuasion--especially after watching the video footage repeatedly); (b) be bold enough to actually step forward and challenge the legitimacy of the video footage; (c) have a platform with which to even be heard by the public/media, not to mention taken seriously; and (d) be persuasive enough to convince the public that all the videos are in fact fake. In my opinion, each of these points dramatically reduces the chances of a "whistle-blower" eye-witness, or group of witnesses, from validating TV Fakery for us. And, given Loftus' work, the absence of such a whistle-blower eye-witness account does not validate that planes existed either, because "false memories" are a concern.

Even though eye-witness accounts are interesting, they unfortunately don't get us very far in figuring out what in fact happened on 9/11. I'd suggest that we leave the discussion of what witnesses saw as an interesting one, albeit a trivially interesting one.

[jalexander]

Another excellent post ryans53. :)

[supertzar]

So one won't or can't admit to this is a real photograph via its provenance. Then one goes on about circular logic for some unknown reason. Without having proof of a date and time stamp, without proof of any modification of the original, and or negative would prove it's invalid; since NPT relies heavily on attacking eye witnesses who are also the victims, can one observe how and where this leaves 911 truth in obtaining evidence for future investigation from future said witnesses? Again how is this your conjecture I don't know or special effects proof this photograph is faked? Do you have any experts to back your claim that it is specialty effects? I've seen JRefs with more backbone than one claims in this assessment. Being for or against NPT does not influence my decision on what the right approaches are to understanding and then validating information correctly.

I do not wish to debate you, mynameis, for reasons I have already stated. Best of luck to you.

[toty1994]

Despite ryans53's siting of research re the questionable reliability of some eye-witness accounts (not related to such an extraordinary event as 9/11, it seems), I still find it incredible that almost no-one who was there on that day (out of thousands?) seems to have noticed that there were no planes, if indeed that was the case. And I don't think the seemingly abundant eye-witness accounts of those who did report seeing the planes can be so easily dismissed as 'trivial' either.

[supertzar]

seemingly abundant eye-witness accounts

I think the point of the thread is to examine our tendency to take for granted that what we see and hear via media is true. How many individuals have been documented describing seeing planes? How do we know they are telling the truth? How do we know they are real people? It is an approach of absolute skepticism, which is an ideal I personally hold dearly. Don't "believe." Think!

[ryans53]

Well stated Supertzar, I think this subject should be approached skeptically.

Also, in addition to asking whether those who say they saw planes are telling the "truth" (as opposed to "lying"), we should also be asking whether what they "remember" even resembles what they first "saw." In other words, one who reports a memory may whole-heartedly believe that they are telling the truth--that is what is so fascinating about false memory research. Witnesses are not always "lying" when they ultimately give misinformation.

Toty-

I sympathize with what you're saying. The fact that 9/11 is in many ways an unprecedented event throws a host of extra variables into our assessment of what eye-witnesses might have seen. There are no "laboratory" equivalents to 9/11 to draw from. However, the research does give us some room to make inferences. For example, Loftus and others have performed controlled studies on the accuracy of an eye-witness against the accuracy of witnesses of the same event who were only shown a video recording of the event. Using staged armed robbery scenarios as the event to be witnessed, researchers found that, on average, when asked for specifics of what they saw, the eye-witnesses were less accurate than the video witnesses. This suggests that something can contaminate an eye-witness' ability to "record" what he/she saw accurately. One possibility is that the more traumatic the event, the more the brain is saturated with "fight-or-flight" chemicals like adrenaline. These things can inhibit the brains perceptual and memory abilities...possibly.

By "trivial" I did not mean to say that what eye-witnesses might have seen is necessarily insignificant; rather, I mean to say that it is not likely that we can decipher what they did/didn't see on 9/11. This is because false memory research casts so much doubt on the accuracy of eye-witnesses in general that an extraordinary event like 9/11 could not possibly be understood with certainty.

[thematrix]

false memory research casts so much doubt on the accuracy of eye-witnesses in general that an extraordinary event like 9/11 could not possibly be understood with certainty.


You do realise that there are hundreds and thousands of convictions for serious crimes based solely on "eyewitness testimony"

Eyewitnesses *are* notoriously unreliable, however whenyou have eyewitnesses that corroborate each other independantly then what they claim to have witnessed can be given much more weight.

There were all kinds of first responders on the scene when the south tower was hit. These professional people are trained to remain calm in the face of emergencies and certainly in the case of police officers are trained to notice things that may later assist with enquiries.

Would you agree that testimony from first responders would be much more "credible" that testimony from random other witnesses?

There is lots of such testimony in the "oral histories" - much of it corroborates the aftermath of a devastating plane impact to the south tower.

Are you saying that we ought to completely disregard *all* witness testmony?

If you are then what evidence should be looked at carefully by a person who wants to try to determine the truth of what happened?

[thematrix]

It is an approach of absolute skepticism, which is an ideal I personally hold dearly. Don't "believe." Think!

One wonders what things an "absolute skeptic" might believe is true.

Everything we experience is merely the result of electrical signals beng interpereted by our brain in various ways.

If you look closely at atoms and molecules - you see vast amounts of empty space - yet the world we inhabit in our 5 sense reality feels solid.

There comes a point where you have to say that whether the physical worl we interact with is actually real or simply a computer generated dream world as we cannot tell the difference - essentially it doesn't matter.

There comes a point when investigating stuff like 911 you have to say there is this this this and this evidence which suggests that that happened.

I will accept that that is what actually happened - unless some new evidence emerges later that says otherwise.

You can pick apart any single individual piece of evidence and cast doubt upon it. When you have a whole group of things that are all pointing in the same direction it's much less likely that the evidence is corrupt somehow and much more likely that what it is saying is the truth.

[supertzar]

thematrix, I can accept that that is what seems to have happened, but we don't really know for sure. Moreover, beliefs are often based on myths. I have argued with someone who stated absolutely there are no historians in the whole world who question the historical Jesus. This person had the belief, based on an impression, that the historical Jesus was a forgone conclusion.

Is it not possible that the "thousands of witnesses" might be greatly exagerated, just like the "rock solid evidence" that Jesus did exist? People here are saying that millions must have seen it, since there are that many people in Manhattan and most everyone was watching the first building burn. Never mind that there are buildings all around the WTC site that would block many, if not most vantage points.

I am not saying there were no planes. I am standing up for true skepticism, which I am happy to see you have an understanding of.

[acebaker]

http://www.jumpcut.com/media/dyn/a9/77e4/f91c1f03707c3cfa876bda3f1e/view.jpg

What evidence is there this photograph is a fake?

I can prove that photo is a fake, but only indirectly. Compositing an airplane into a shot like that is so dead simple that it can be done perfectly. A well-made composite cannot be detected, even by an expert.

The proof is in the totality of the evidence, and you may read it by downloading this:

http://www.psy-opera.com/Papers/Composites-1-8.pdf

[mynameis]

I can prove that photo is a fake, but only indirectly. Compositing an airplane into a shot like that is so dead simple that it can be done perfectly. A well-made composite cannot be detected, even by an expert.

The proof is in the totality of the evidence, and you may read it by downloading this:

http://www.psy-opera.com/Papers/Composites-1-8.pdf

First you expect the experts at large to swallow that a pre-fabricated still composite photograph or picture is first created, then got uploaded onto a digital camera or memory card? Without any tinsy tiny blending to show for the photograph or modification of an altered file that was accessed or created before or after the event the day of said crash etc...

Secondly, you are talking about a video composite in your linked pdf, something I thought you would know the difference between.

[edov]

actually, anyone that knows PS can play with the levels of this image and check the mask of the plane.... there are some clear artifacts... but because its a digital image and because we don't know where it comes from, how many times its been processed, its pretty useless.

[mynameis]

actually, anyone that knows PS can play with the levels of this image and check the mask of the plane.... there are some clear artifacts... but because its a digital image and because we don't know where it comes from, how many times its been processed, its pretty useless.

You are incorrect. I do know where the photo comes from and how it is said to have been taken. All one must do is examine the owner's image.

[edov]

Actually, it is YOU that is incorrect mynameis.
You CANNOT vouch for the authenticity of this image.

[mynameis]

Actually, it is YOU that is incorrect mynameis.
You CANNOT vouch for the authenticity of this image.

I never implied that I could vouch for authenticity, so you are incorrect, yet again. I stated that how is this image a fake? What evidence is there? If you can't read....you are reminiscent of banoyes.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=522927&postcount=46

[edov]

I do know where the photo comes from and how it is said to have been taken.

I'd say that is vouching for its authenticity.

[mynameis]

I'd say that is vouching for its authenticity.

Now your not making rational sense. Knowing where the picture has been directly circulated from as a source is not vouching for authenticity. It is fact that the photograph has a source, I know the name of the claimed source, which you can't even render let alone challenge the photograph was or wasn't taken as a fake. I'll repeat the question...How is this photograph a fake and what is your evidence?

[edov]

Now your not making rational sense. Knowing where the picture has been directly circulated from as a source is not vouching for authenticity. It is fact that the photograph has a source, I know the name of the claimed source, which you can't even render let alone challenge the photograph was or wasn't taken as a fake. I'll repeat the question...How is this photograph a fake and what is your evidence?

OK mynameis (what is your name by the way?)

The picture is credited to Luke Cremin, who, by his own admission didn't take the picture. It was handed to him by "a foreman working by Atlantic Basin in Brooklyn. He gave me 'copies' and I came across the Digital Archive Site and posted them"

Incidentally, Luke Cremin's listed address is the same address of one Phyliss Bobb Photography.

The picture was allegedly taken with a Sony Mavica MVC-FD7 Digital Camera, one that's not noted as being particularly quick to save captured data (it takes roughly ten seconds to save before being able to shoot again) which leaves the obvious question of how "the foreman" was able to take the second picture of the ensuing fireball.

http://www.911researchers.com/taxonomy/term/1357

and while we're at it, surprisingly enough, another amateur picture attributed to Carmen Taylor also used the same camera... equally dubious if you ask me...

http://www.911researchers.com/node/998

[mynameis]

OK mynameis (what is your name by the way?)

The picture is credited to Luke Cremin, who, by his own admission didn't take the picture. It was handed to him by "a foreman working by Atlantic Basin in Brooklyn. He gave me 'copies' and I came across the Digital Archive Site and posted them"

Incidentally, Luke Cremin's listed address is the same address of one Phyliss Bobb Photography.

The picture was allegedly taken with a Sony Mavica MVC-FD7 Digital Camera, one that's not noted as being particularly quick to save captured data (it takes roughly ten seconds to save before being able to shoot again) which leaves the obvious question of how "the foreman" was able to take the second picture of the ensuing fireball.

http://www.911researchers.com/taxonomy/term/1357

and while we're at it, surprisingly enough, another amateur picture attributed to Carmen Taylor also used the same camera... equally dubious if you ask me...

http://www.911researchers.com/node/998


You do realize I find it more dubious your linked site has not one iota of a credible evidentiary shred to link the provenance of the photograph with the poster from the year 2002, when Carmen released hers well in advance.

[edov]

to the contrary mynameis. I think it has some very worthwhile evidence.
For example, the files posted by Luke Cremin are NOT the originals. Had they been, their filename would be that which the camera creates on filesave. They are not.

That is a FACT.

[mynameis]

to the contrary mynameis. I think it has some very worthwhile evidence.
For example, the files posted by Luke Cremin are NOT the originals. Had they been, their filename would be that which the camera creates on filesave. They are not.

That is a FACT.

Here's the series Carmen Taylor says she's taken. I suggest you take it up with her and a photo expert. Notice the head in the bottom right's left corner...

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5459/522/1600/SeriesSouth.jpg

[edov]

oh so now we've moved on from the Luke Cremin picture?
what a surprise.

Your Sub, quite appropriate don't you think?

"Excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta"
an excuse not asked for is a manifest accusation (against oneself)

[mynameis]

oh so now we've moved on from the Luke Cremin picture?
what a surprise.

Your Sub, quite appropriate don't you think?

"Excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta"
an excuse not asked for is a manifest accusation (against oneself)

I haven't moved on from anything. I said your provenance for the photo credit to Luke Cremin is invalid, meaning it holds no water. If you can't read what someone writes, try again. If his is the original photo then an expert would conclude that, but seeing as though he isn't given credit for that photograph, I am skeptical of his claim being as though he published it in 2002, not 2001.

[edov]

Ok mynameis, I'll humour you.

Who, in your opinion, is credited with the image?
Where was it first made publicly available?

[mynameis]

Ok mynameis, I'll humour you.

Who, in your opinion, is credited with the image?
Where was it first made publicly available?

You can't answer your own questions? Should I hold your hand and whisper sweet nothings into your ears as well? I know the AP ran with the story and published the photographs...don't you know that?

[edov]

So, you're not going to answer the question. You're not contributing very much are you? I think most people can see your rhetoric for what it is.
You must have posted that image dozens of times by now, and all you keep saying is, "prove it's a fake". As I've already said, without the "real" original, with metadata entact, it's a pointless challenge.
You see, where we differ is that I actually stepped up to the plate and dug out some information about the photo you keep evangelising. Yet you, do very little other than tell people that you know this and that, but yet you fail to offer any kind of clarification. You don't offer anything constructive regarding the allegation I made about the picture's origin other than you don't trust the sources I provided.

You can't answer your own questions?

What a strange thing to say. I ask you a question because you claim to have the answers.

Should I hold your hand and whisper sweet nothings into your ears as well?

Eeeew, no thank you. You sound really creepy. I prefer to do that stuff with people I like, that are real, and that don't have anything to hide.

[mynameis]

So, you're not going to answer the question. You're not contributing very much are you? I think most people can see your rhetoric for what it is.
You must have posted that image dozens of times by now, and all you keep saying is, "prove it's a fake". As I've already said, without the "real" original, with metadata entact, it's a pointless challenge.
You see, where we differ is that I actually stepped up to the plate and dug out some information about the photo you keep evangelising. Yet you, do very little other than tell people that you know this and that, but yet you fail to offer any kind of clarification. You don't offer anything constructive regarding the allegation I made about the picture's origin other than you don't trust the sources I provided.



What a strange thing to say. I ask you a question because you claim to have the answers.



Eeeew, no thank you. You sound really creepy. I prefer to do that stuff with people I like, that are real, and that don't have anything to hide.

So I give you an answer and you still don't know, then you get frustrated and become cynical; this is to be expected from people who can't or won't do their own research and need hand holding and others telling them how great a person they are; how does any of this help with contributing to 911 research? I don't expect to change anyone's mind, I'd rather they find information themselves that way they can enforce in their own minds what the truth versus the realities are before I even have to type something. Then and only then do people understand how information and finding out the actual truth and supporting that truth works. If you can't support your claims don't take it out on the other person simply tell them to do work to back up their claim. I have proven that this is a legitimate question, whether or not the photo is a fake and as of one week today or more no NPTist has been able to prove otherwise.

[edov]

You're skirting around the issue. You are not addressing anything.
The original image has NOT been verified as authentic, less so is it available for scrutiny. It is you that is retreating into a corner whilst throwing silly statements as to the integrity of genuine researchers.
For someone so compelled to debunk the NPT, you bring very little to the table, save some remarks intended blur the conversation.

If you've got something other than a copy of the image you're hawking around, please, I'd love you to prove me wrong.

And as for needing my hands holding, I can hold my own mate.

[mynameis]

You're skirting around the issue. You are not addressing anything.
The original image has NOT been verified as authentic, less so is it available for scrutiny. It is you that is retreating into a corner whilst throwing silly statements as to the integrity of genuine researchers.
For someone so compelled to debunk the NPT, you bring very little to the table, save some remarks intended blur the conversation.

If you've got something other than a copy of the image you're hawking around, please, I'd love you to prove me wrong.

And as for needing my hands holding, I can hold my own mate.

Prove it is a fake and then the issue is solved. Don't be frustrated. I've posted more information casting truth into NPT than you have posts.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35865

[edov]

Prove it is a fake and then the issue is solved. Don't be frustrated. I've posted more information casting truth into NPT than you have posts.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35865

Yeah, I read that thread, and this one is turning into a similar affair.

I'm far from frustrated mynameis, actually, I'm quite enjoying this little exchange with you. I was always labelled an argumentative little so and so.
Could quite easily go on for some time longer.

Plenty of researchers have come before me that have lost interest in your silly little games, time-consuming, valueless, pathetic games. Not me.

So you have 2000 plus posts on this forum. Good for you.
A case of quantity over quality if you ask me.

Face it, people that believe the NPT on the evidence 'they' think is credible aren't changing their mind on the evidence 'you' think is credible. It's a catch 22 situation. The only people you have any hope of influencing are those who are on the fence, and they want information, not rhetoric.

If your approach was less arrogant and more inclusive, you may succeed in your aims, yet I suspect, given the nature of most researchers (that I've met anyway) they'll be well wary of someone who keeps saying.. "look it up", "you don't know, I do" and words to that effect.

Have a nice day.

[edov]

Now your not making rational sense. Knowing where the picture has been directly circulated from as a source is not vouching for authenticity. It is fact that the photograph has a source, I know the name of the claimed source, which you can't even render let alone challenge the photograph was or wasn't taken as a fake. I'll repeat the question...How is this photograph a fake and what is your evidence?

Well, I can't find it. Please do tell.

[ryans53]

Whether photos like the one posted by mynameis are fake or not presses on the point in question: Was fakery likely used on 9/11, and if so, to what extent?

The original question posed by mynameis is a good one: What evidence is there that the photo is fake? The wrong question to ask is this: Is this photo fake?

As Ace pointed out, the realness/fakeness of the photo cannot be determined directly because expert counterfeit photos are near indistinguishable from real ones. So, to answer mynameis' question, Ace replied that the evidence is indirect.

In general, to show that the photo is likely fake, one can attempt to show either that no plane ever hit the tower (Morgan Reynolds' work), or that other photos ostensibly depicting the same thing do not match up properly or are otherwise provably fake (Ace Baker's work). If one of the above is successful, then we are justified in believing that the photo in question is likely fake; but of course justified belief still falls short of definitive truth. Remember, to the extent that certainty can even be obtained by humankind, it is only attainable in laboratory-like settings. What we are doing here is trying to reconstruct a past event, something that necessarily requires inferences to the best possible explanation. But, as David Hume has famously shown, inferences are always subject to error.

Therefore, I would suggest that one only try to understand the legitimacy of the photo in question in context--that is, look at the sum total of evidence for TV Fakery as Ace suggests, and from there make your inference. Don't try to zoom in on this photo to the exclusion of corroborating evidence, as this would compromise your results.

[edov]

All's quiet on the Western front i see....
2:45 am here and I've just got back from the hospital. My friend fell down a flight of stairs and smashed his face up... guess it puts things into perspective.

Night all.

Edo

[3stepsahead]

both of you two last posters are worthy of my congrats

thank you it is nice to read your thoughts

[3stepsahead]

Well I can tell you that the people saying missile were probably further away than the people saying plane. This would suggest a link to the visual atmospheric discrepancy as well as a pattern associated with the necessary visual distance involved with seeing an error in eye witness judgment. Do not hold to hope that a pattern between distance and eye witness testimony will not create a pattern destroying or supporting planes. I think that the closer to the towers we find eye witnesses the more witnesses will say planes; depending on the numbers more witnesses further away will say they didn't see planes, but missiles and that is becaus*insert explaination of your choice here.* I'm excluding those who heard something, but did not see something close by the WTC for obvious reason. Alas this one photograph taken if valid is enough for me to suspect the aims of NPT:

A photograph of the plane before hitting the tower.
http://www.jumpcut.com/media/dyn/a9/77e4/f91c1f03707c3cfa876bda3f1e/view.jpg

that photo has been altered?
or it is taken by a camera that is outdated?
is that even a regular airliner?

[3stepsahead]

in the hope perhaps of getting this thread more back on topic.

It is often claimed by many people that there were "thousands of eyewitnesses" to the 2nd plane hitting the south tower.

I would concur with that and here is why.

People are suckers for watching bad stuff happen. Look at any car accident on a motorway - in the opposite carriageway time and again traffic is slowed to a crawl as people on the other side slowright down to get a good lok at whatever mess is on the other side.

If you look at the film from the Naudet Bros. After the 1st tower gets hit one brother is walking the streets of NY filming as he goes. We see *hundreds* of people who have stopped what they are doing and are watching in horror and amazement what just happened, this is when most people presumably thought it was simply an awful air accident. The camera walks down one or two streets in a line going towards the tower, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that people lining the streets was only occuring where the camera was - it is a very safe assumption that in the immediate vicinity of the WTC complex people dropped what they were doing all around the tower so they could watch what was happening.

There must have been many thousands of people from all kinds of vantage points watching as the 2nd plane came in and struck the south tower. From all angles. A good % of those people will have seen the plane fly in with their own eyes, perhaps they didn't see the impact - and just heard it or felt it, but there *must* have been thousands of people who were actual physical eyewitnesses to a real plane.

It's possible that one could claim "I don't know how many witnesses" on the one hand but still say "it must have been more than x" without contradicting themselves.

Instead of arguing the toss over small details and remaining divided about things and taking this thread into a completely different direction I for one would like to see it get back to the OP topic - cos it's a subject that I have not seen discussed before in any of the 911 forums I have participated in.

ican only parry with this,
there is a significant difference between watcing an accident from a safe distance, and watching a disaster on such a scale, i am certain i would have run as far away as possible, however, i think you are right that many people stood and watched. and i will guarantee you they mostly all saw that it was planes on the tv later on.

[masonfree party]

real planes have flashing navigation lights....show me the evidence of this on any of the faked films..quite frankly anyone who believes planes were used with all the evidence available is either brainwashed,paid op or just plane thick

[qasrose]

real planes have flashing navigation lights....show me the evidence of this on any of the faked films..quite frankly anyone who believes planes were used with all the evidence available is either brainwashed,paid op or just plane thick

The only one's who are brainwashed.are you

http://www.jumpcut.com/media/dyn/a9/77e4/f91c1f03707c3cfa876bda3f1e/view.jpg

And as for that image, It's not a photograph, it's actually a still image taken from video footage.

It would be impossible for a person to take a photograph of a plane traveling that fast into the towers.

Look at the lines on the towers, this proofs it's a still captured image from a video shot..

[edov]

And as for that image, It's not a photograph, it's actually a still image taken from video footage.

It would be impossible for a person to take a photograph of a plane traveling that fast into the towers.

Look at the lines on the towers, this proofs it's a still captured image from a video shot..

Hi Qasrose, that's an interesting supposition. Does that also then imply that Carmen's shots are also video footage? Considering her image sequence captures 3 instances over a period of time that her camera was unable to perform.
Yet Associated Press ran with this story and she was nominated for a Pullitzer prize for her photograph.

[qasrose]

Hi Qasrose, that's an interesting supposition. Does that also then imply that Carmen's shots are also video footage? Considering her image sequence captures 3 instances over a period of time that her camera was unable to perform.
Yet Associated Press ran with this story and she was nominated for a Pullitzer prize for her photograph.

I've not seen Carmen's shots so I wouldn't know..

But for that picture above, all you have to do is look at the colored lines on the towers, and you get your answer.

[edov]

Here's the series Carmen Taylor says she's taken. I suggest you take it up with her and a photo expert. Notice the head in the bottom right's left corner...

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5459/522/1600/SeriesSouth.jpg

Here you go Qasrose.
Looks like video stills to me too. Which is a gross fabrication by AP / Carmen Taylor if true. So is the question then, can media complicity be ruled out?

[3stepsahead]

I've not seen Carmen's shots so I wouldn't know..

But for that picture above, all you have to do is look at the colored lines on the towers, and you get your answer.

okay thanks.

what do you think about the lightreflections on the plane then?
it is not behind the tower yet and there are no visible objects blocking the sun out, should it not be silver and shining in the sun?
:)