nonhocapito wrote:2) There could never be footage with "normal" random tourists pasted on top of a fake scene like you suggest, simply because one tourist could recognize him or herself. Rather, actors/agents and virtual people were used everywhere in the 9/11 virtual reality.
In relation to this particularl clip, I consider the green screen explanation unlikely. If the scene was staged, surely these "actors/agents and virtual people" would behave in a way that at least fits the scenario, if not the soundtrack? It was the very fact they are behaving like normal tourists on a normal day that tipped me off to the fake nature of this clip.
Because we don't know where the clip comes from, it's possible that someone on von Kleist's team created it, and also possible that someone else fed it to them, passing it off as real footage they had obtained. For all we know, some teenagers with a copy of Adobe Premiere could have made that clip, using footage they'd filmed themselves, and a background copied and pasted from recorded news footage.
Even if it turns out that this clip was played on the news as "real" footage, what are the chances of any of the handful of people in the video seeing it at all? Of them looking past the dramatic background, and the misleading soundtrack, and recognising themselves? If I'm right that this is stock footage, with the background swapped out along the horizon line, as I said, it could have been filmed *anywhere*. If these people were filmed somewhere other than NY, perhaps without their explicit knowledge, particularly if it's a long time ago, why would they make the association between their vague memory of being a tourist somewhere, and this scene which the authoritarive news media is telling them is NY? Particularly when their critical faculties are being distracted by the smoking tower background, and the screaming soundtrack.
Even in the unlikely event any of the people in it did recognise themselves, what are the chances anyone would believe them?
Again, I'm not sure the points below belong in this thread, but since you brought them up...
nonhocapito wrote:4) The people behind "In plane site", just like those behind "Loose change" and all those "conspiracy" movies of the sort, are cointel agents whose main purpose is to drive the people with questions into blind alleys...
This is a pretty broad generalisation, for which your supporting argument appears to be:
nonhocapito wrote:Once you take videos like those of Evan Fairbanks or the Naudet brothers or the whole of TV footage at face value, even if it is to contradict the official story, you are not making real research, but rather lending credibility to the official story by granting the status of document of reality to the material created in and around the official story of 9/11.
Accepting the news media coverage as real for the sake of argument is an example of proof by contradiction. http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~larryc/pro ... adict.html
This method relies on IF>THEN logic. IF the official story is true THEN the footage should be consistent with it. By using scientific tests, you examine the footage to see if it fits the story, and build physical models based on the story, and see if they fit the footage. If the physics required by the official story does *not* fit the footage, you have proof by contradiction that EITHER the official story isn't true OR the footage isn't real (or BOTH). Incidentally, what I've presented here is a proof by contradiction that lending credibility to the official story is not the inevitable consequence of taking the footage at face value, or the only plausible reason for doing so.
Do you have any more substantial arguments to support your claim that all 911 truthers outside the CluesForum circle of trust are "cointel agents"?
nonhocapito wrote:5) If you want to hang around here, you must be familiar with the reasons and research behind the following statements:
You have stated on other threads that you are interested in encouraging critical thinkers, not followers. At this stage, I do not see how the various claims you've made are self-evident. As I explore the contents of these forums, we'll see if this view changes.
nonhocapito wrote:a) there were no planes;
As a statement of theory, this is fine. I do agree, of course, that real planes were not the cause of the towers collapsing (to me this is conclusively shown by the collapse of Tower 7). However, as I have said numerous times to the fellow researcher who introduced me to this forum, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Even if you have conclusively demonstrated that every photo and video of planes on 911 is fake, that does not prove there were no planes. All it proves is that there are no real photos and videos of planes.
nonhocapito wrote:b) the burning and collapse of the towers as that of the Pentagon as presented to the public was an artificial creation; nobody was allowed to witness and document the actual collapsing of the towers probably due to the easily recognizable method of controlled demolition used to bring them down;
Again I'm not sure this follows. Every piece of video I've seen of any of the towers collapsing makes it look exactly like a controlled demolition, and I have thought so since day 1.If it was possible for those responsible for the destruction of the WTC buildings to totally control the area around the WTC campus, and all media emanating from it, why were they not able to produce fake news footage that made the collapse look more like they could have been caused by planes exploding? Why did they not fake the towers collapsing assymetrically, for example, slumping towards the side which got hit? Why did they not fake a more convinving (not to mention physically possible) shot of the second hit?
nonhocapito wrote:c) given the completely controlled environment in which the whole scam took place, it goes without saying that there were no real victims, as the close-up study of the alleged victims and their ridiculous biographies proves without doubt.
Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Even if you have conclusively proved that some, or even many, of the purported victims of 911 are not real people (and some of the stories I've looked at are certainly questionable), this does not prove that there were no victims. All it proves is that the various victim counts and biographies given in the official narrative need to be taken with a grain of salt.
nonhocapito wrote:If any of this sounds outlandish or unacceptable to you, you should definitely document yourself a lot more.
You can't deny that it must sound outlandish to anyone who has not had access to the same body of evidence and arguments you have, or the same time to digest it. That doesn't mean it's wrong. Quantam mechanics sounded outlandish to Einstein, leading to his famous quote that "God does not play dice with the world". Einstein was wrong, and much experimental evidence has emerged over the decades to support the theories of quantam mechanics. So, despite coming "out of left field", none of what you say is unacceptable. These are your theories, and you have spent a lot of time assembling evidence to support them. I am posting here because I suspect they have some merit, and I want to learn more.
While I understand that you don't want to be rehashing the same discussions ad nauseum, reading the entire contents of this forum, let alone the various sources linked, and watching the embedded videos, would take many months. Much of it presumably consists of trolling and disinfo, and the arguments between the admins and genuine researchers, and the entities attempting to insert this time-wasting material, which it would be nice not to have to read. What would be useful for newcomers to the forum is a primer which summarizes your various claims, and the evidence for each, with links back to the forum pages in which the productive parts of the discussion took place (or at least some representative examples of them).
On Drilling for Truth, I have tried out a 'claim and counterclaim' format, using a wiki, where I break every issue into the most specific possible points, and document examples of the claims and counterclaims, and links to any documentary evidence presented for each (all of it archived using WebCite - see my post in Tools of the Trade). If you want some more documentation of who I am, this would be a good place to start.http://www.coactivate.org/projects/dril ... oject-home