The 9/11 movement must stop using post-9/11 productions to prove their points! To even discuss or argue something that is less than 2 years old is making me insane. I see it on Alex Jones' site, and now here, You're using a photo that's been cleaned up.
WHAT THE MOVEMENT HAS DONE WAS TRADE REALITY and AUTHENTICITY FOR A SHARPER AND MORE DECEPTIVE SUBSTITUTE!!!!
-----------
"MIND THE GAP!"
Essentially, "mind the gap", means "look at the gap." .....and so it is here as well. Remember that. Here is the original that spelled the doom of real the clip that was shown that day, or the doom of a notion that a real plane took part. Remember to mind the gap......
THIS IS WHAT GETS CNN TO FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY.
This was shown between 9:03am and 10:00am. on 9/11. This what we all saw--rough, engine drooping, but plenty good enough to deceive us, if shown at full speed. Which is what we saw that morning. First you see just as you did that morning, and then look again at the same clip in slow motion, and extremely enlarged, and now you'll understand everything.
Now the extreme enlargement. {give it time to d/l] Watch it 10-20-100 times.....IT'S IN A LOOP..... and "mind the Gap".
Where does the "plane" go? Is there any movement AT ALL in the pixels to the right of the green spire? Could the plane have gone into the green spire instead of the bldg? There should be a 25% deceleration upon contact with anything.........but the disappearing tail is going just as fast, the same speed whether there was a bldg. there or if there was nothing there to stop it!
No deceleration.
No pieces of debris.
No movement from flying concrete or steel.
No passengers flying out.
That's because it's a simulation--a two-second clip that was slipped in that fooled the world. So we don't KNow what caused the towers to explode.
Were I to go to court, I could not testify that there was no plane, because I don't know what that two-second video clip was hiding, if anything. All I could say was that I saw a brief simulation of a plane---a plane that had no sound. We not only did not ever see what hit if anything, the bldg., but we did not see the entire explosion--it looks like a combination of real and simulation.
I've heard a person argue that by enlarging the video clip so much, you lose the detail of the debris or impact---but I point out that the plane is still visible despite the extreme enlargement.
You are showing a photo that's less than 2 years old! This AFTER-PRODUCTION CREATION was done by Aaron Taub, as a reaction to MY discovery ON THE ORIGINAL FOOTAGE SHOWN ON TV SOMETIME IN THE FIRST 24 HOURS showed conclusively that the public was shown a fake. [There was a real scramble to smother that one, I can assure you.].
Itis driving me crazy to keep seeing their post-production cover-up shots being used by 9/11ers!!!
Visual evidence must be LIMITED to that which was shown to the world on TV on the earliest hours of 9/11.----NOT ALL THE STUFF distributed after that, WHICH is new and improved deception! Whether IT WAS DISTRIBUTED BY TV, DVD, INTERNET, it doesn't matter--it's been WORKED ON in the comfort of having time to work on it. Now this is for all the chips.... this one clip.
After seeing this clip and playing it repeatedly, I showed it all over the place in Bush-supported covens of the Internet. The next thing I notice is that the original is removed from thisisnewyork website, and this is there instead. [Fortunately WF kept the original on her collection of flt 175 videos.. If she had not SAVED IT, we would not be watching this today.
You all need to understand something---just like "Eye-Witnesses-R- Us", so too are "Photos-with-planes-R-Us." are ground out for public consuption, naive investigator, or spin-masters' use --they pump them out at the speed of light. They can edit out portions of someone's comments that they saw a plane "on TV". They follow us around--see what we've dug up, then counter it with spin, faked photos, get someone from Central Casting. See, they Know who knows what they're doing--who's the greatest threat, and I cannot help but notice who never gets any heat......
They had so many errors in the original, that analysis was like a movable feast. In fact, there were so many errors, that the orig was unreuseable, and they had to scrap it entirely and start from scratch with a brand new shiny fake. This is it.: Cleaner, sharper, tidier--certain to be substituted for the rough original fake that was show on 9/11.
Excuse me if I'm not thrilled to go thru this explanation for the dozenth time, but the orig. was so revealing, that they had to move the buildings around, etc... AND THEY CLOSED THE GAP!!!!! finished covering up their fatal flaws, quietly slip it in on the thisisnewyork website.....and this website, IMHO, is where THEY leave stuff for us to find, (and quietly remove any photos that are a threat.--)where all the naive researchers grabbed it up since it "was sharper". So now we have not only the "corrected" version, but we have internal nit-picking, ATTACKING THE AUTHENTIC RESEARCHERS WHO ARE ON THE RIGHT TRACK, by saying "see how clear and sharp this photo is? We were shown real planes! (Then they point to a photo that's less than 2 years old, freshly counterfieted.) "Therefore those who say these are not real planes must be disinfo.........!!!! " and right about now, my eyes are glazing over...........
and without the logo:
....and to the slo-mo again........
malaprop aka izzy
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 8:52 AM
Subject: [planehuggers] Why It Is Vital To Refute The No-WTC-Planes Disinformation -was: Here is a clear photo of UA 175 ...
On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 07:57:14PM -0700, Dick Eastman wrote:
>...
Dick, your reasoning here is excellent, and one can add to it that
of all the people in New York and New Jersey who were watching the
fire in WTC1, not a single one has come forward in five years
to say that they were watching from an angle and distance where
they could have seen the plane hit WTC2, and were watching at the
time of the explosion in WTC2, but did not see the plane hit it.
Eric Salter has just published a superb report on the No-WTC-Planes
disinformation operation here:
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf
However, Dick, you are wrong to attack Jim Fetzer and others on
this list who have received (some of) the No-WTC-Plane messages
here and have not responded. Fetzer is extremely busy, both
with his job as a university professor and his leadership of
Scholars for 911 Truth:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
He no doubt receives a huge flood of e-mail every day, and can
only respond to a tiny fraction of it. He (and Steven Jones)
did eject the No-WTC-Plane disinfo members from the Scholars,
after a failed attempt to reason with them (which is impossible,
because they are purposely lying).
Other good people on the list have not responded to the disinfo
messages here because they are either passive, too busy, or don't
consider themselves qualified to evaluate the evidence. They
need to become qualified by studying the issues and educating
themselves in basic video technology and physics. Wikipedia
is often a good place to start (although not in matters of Israel
and Palestine, because it is operated by Zionists). For example,
these articles provide a good introduction to video compression:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_compression
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2
The survival of life on Earth depends on defeating the Fascists
in the governments of the U.S., Israel, and England, and to do that
the truth about the 9-11 false-flag pseudo-terrorist attacks must
be understood by a majority of people in those countries. The
No-WTC-Planes gang are working to sabotage the 9-11 truth movement,
and so are extremely dangerous. Their disinformation must be
fought with the rational scientific truth in every forum in which
it appears.
On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 07:57:14PM -0700, Dick Eastman wrote:
>
>Here is a clear photo of UA 175 before it hit South Tower -- notice the
>detail of the engines, notice the detail of the WTC wall, absent in the
>"pod" video. We see how the sunlight hit the plane -- explaining what is
>seen in other recordings.
>
>http://www.infowars.net/pictures/Oct06/231006spet11.jpg
>
>I can instantly prove to the intelligent that the 44 video recordings of the
>two jetliners crashing into towers cannot have been faked as the
>"no-planers" outrageously claim.
>
>The explosion of the building was photographed live. It caught the details
>of this unique explosion -- a complex and chaotic event photographed live.
>This explosion really happened and was photographed live. The 44 pictures
>of the planes hitting show continuity with this explosion -- including the
>engine coming out of the other side of the building. The videos were all
>presented with the same plane crash and the same consistency of crash and
>explosion. It would be impossible to have "cartooned" those planes in
>advance without first knowing what the explosion would look like -- of
>matching the graphic with the explosion. It would have been impossible to
>"model" the actual explosion before hand and create 40 different angle shots
>of the same explosion and same plane approach.
>
>Yet despite this impossibility the no-planers claim that 44 cameras were
>loaded with cartoons and all the those with those videocameras were
>conspirator spooks -- and that on top of that -- that no real person who
>was not a spook -- in all New York and New Jersey -- not one of them
>thought of aiming a camera at the world trade center after the North Tower
>was hit to take a picture of the south tower suddenly exploding without
>being hit by a plane.
>
>The people who say this know it is ridiculous -- they know intelligent
>people reject it immediately when the consider the above -- and yet the
>keep insisting and creating blogs and websites and arguing on yahoogroups
>and googlegroups and usenet -- because they want the ridiculous story out
>there for all to see so that people will come to heap scorn on anyone and
>everyone who suggests -- for whatever reason -- that 9-11 was a false-flag
>black-op by the US and Israel.
>
>Everyone on this list except Mark S. Bilk, Peter Wakefield Sault, and Ron
>Corvus are no-planes or silent supporters of the no-planers. No
>intelligent person of good will could read this debate and not choose to
>voice his outrage at the "no-planer" deception that is so obvious and so
>evil.
>
>I especially want to write out Jim Fitzer as a genuine 9-11 investigator.
>He has shown that he is just a publicity hound and that the "no-planers" can
>have him if they just get him an interview. He didn't raise one objection to
>no-planes even when their gross deceptions were pointed out. He is not a
>hard-evidence investigator.
>
>Dick Eastman
>Yakima, Washington
>
Having problems with message search?
Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.
Offline 
Send Email
