Zip forward to about 8:11. They were talking about Lucky Larry.
The associated video shows WTC7 sucking smoke inwards. Clearly a video running in reverse (if any part of the video is actually real).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiSaZRmz ... re=related
History Channel 911 Myths
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7339
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
-
- Member
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 11:49 am
- Contact:
-
- Member
- Posts: 247
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:55 pm
- Contact:
-
- Member
- Posts: 2579
- Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
- Location: Italy
- Contact:
So I watched this sad piece of propaganda... what all these 9/11 truthers are doing on the history channel? I guess they are part of History... What a waste of time! It almost felt like watching a 9/11 truth "documentary", where all the voices tend to a single conclusion which nonetheless remains behind the corner of your brain.
It really makes you think, how all the stories seem to be merging into one now, one confused tale that summarizes all the many contradicting lies. The desired effect being bringing anyone to the conclusion that this story isn't worthed our already stretched time (which, in a way, is utterly true).
Oh, this works so well... I think it works because people are always in a hurry to be "convinced" of something, and then their convictions put them in the corner, force them to lie to themselves and then to give up.
Like Nietzsche wrote: "The most common lie is the one to ourselves. To lie to others is, relatively, the exception". And also: "Convictions are prisons. They don't see far enough, they don't see below themselves".
My advice would always be, on this forum too, to never let ourselves be trapped by our convictions, never deny the "weak" parts -- so that we can really see reality in transparency, never to get trapped by what we know "so far" (sorry for the likely useless rant) :)
p.s. I probably am being stupid here but... I get that that piece of sequence at 8-something is reversed, which is lame editing (they wanted to show the building "after" the rubble with firemen, but it was originally the other way around?), but I don't get what it proves...
It really makes you think, how all the stories seem to be merging into one now, one confused tale that summarizes all the many contradicting lies. The desired effect being bringing anyone to the conclusion that this story isn't worthed our already stretched time (which, in a way, is utterly true).
Oh, this works so well... I think it works because people are always in a hurry to be "convinced" of something, and then their convictions put them in the corner, force them to lie to themselves and then to give up.
Like Nietzsche wrote: "The most common lie is the one to ourselves. To lie to others is, relatively, the exception". And also: "Convictions are prisons. They don't see far enough, they don't see below themselves".
My advice would always be, on this forum too, to never let ourselves be trapped by our convictions, never deny the "weak" parts -- so that we can really see reality in transparency, never to get trapped by what we know "so far" (sorry for the likely useless rant) :)
p.s. I probably am being stupid here but... I get that that piece of sequence at 8-something is reversed, which is lame editing (they wanted to show the building "after" the rubble with firemen, but it was originally the other way around?), but I don't get what it proves...
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7339
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
You know, to have our defining historical news footage played backwards on the History Channel is something taxpayers should complain about. :Pnonhocapito 4 Sep 14 2010, 02:48 PM wrote:
p.s. I probably am being stupid here but... I get that that piece of sequence at 8-something is reversed, which is lame editing (they wanted to show the building "after" the rubble with firemen, but it was originally the other way around?), but I don't get what it proves...
What does it prove, in itself? Nothing I guess - just 'incompetence by highly paid top professionals'...just another NORAD failure if you will...
However, I welcome anyone to prove that this WTC7 imagery is real:
I think you'll find this "CHIMNEY SHADOW" fascinating :
Hope you'll enjoy my "FEARLESS FIREMAN" too! :
And does this look real at all? And has the coal-black smoke now turned milky-white?
(Oh merciful Lord - please let no one comment that "it is a question of viewing angles" :rolleyes: )
It is time we all start thinking of the entire 9/11 imagery pool as just a big Hollywood movie split into many TV clips - have we not seen scores of such catastrophy movies? Don't we all know perfectly well what they can do with modern cinematic special effects?
"Independence Day"(1996)
http://www.septemberclues.org
-
- Member
- Posts: 2579
- Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
- Location: Italy
- Contact:
Simon, far from me to doubt the whole fiction of WTC7! I was just asking about this single clip, maybe there was something I was missing... Shameful incompetence is pretty much the explanation I would have given, considering this badly pieced-up story is supposedly going down in History as the truth.simonshack @ Sep 14 2010, 04:28 PM wrote: It is time we all start thinking of the entire 9/11 imagery pool as just a big Hollywood movie split into many TV clips - have we not seen scores of such catastrophy movies? Don't we all know perfectly well what they can do with modern cinematic special effects?
( about this:
"History is disappearing from state schools as growing numbers of head teachers view it as a worthless subject, according to research."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed ... hools.html
...which does not surprises me. Teachers need to keep pupils alert and lies are tiring, whether you give them or you take them...)
Looks to me like a sloppy attempt to produce, for a "conspiracy debunking" film, images supporting the idea that there was a raging fire inside Building 7.
Equally sloppy attempts to convince us of the fire/damage have been made. I'm sure you've seen this hilariousness:
Because collapsing debris creates clean, perfect, straight-downwards holes in buildings, right? A gash of this type can only be explained through:
a) Fake video footage
b) Advanced weaponry
Based on the glum brown/red "pollution" color of New York on a clear day, I'll go with the first.
It's interesting that both this fake video and the fake UA175 "International Shot" were filmed by ABC, which was also involved in providing fake footage and mock interviews throughout the day.
Why is this interesting? Because ABC is owned by Disney, which owns nearly half of A&E, which owns the History Channel -- the provider of this amazing footage of building-attracted smoke and purveyor of "conspiracy-debunking" nonsense pieces.
The other "half" of A&E is owned by Hearst, which owns Popular Mechanics magazine -- the creators of that awful "Debunking 9/11 Myths" piece and stars of the History Channel "debunking" film.
The minority of A&E is owned by NBC Universal, which also provided us with fake "LIVE" footage and crash videos on 9/11.
So this History Channel "debunk-u-mentary" came from the same companies that faked the footage and provided us with the "Debunking 9/11" piece.
Expose on ABC/Hearst/Disney connections to the CIA:
http://www.smokershistory.com/abc.htm
Named in that article is Nicholas Brady, connected to the Fiduciary-Trust/Franklin-Templeton group that evacuated the Towers prior to their demolition.
The ties that bind.
Equally sloppy attempts to convince us of the fire/damage have been made. I'm sure you've seen this hilariousness:
Because collapsing debris creates clean, perfect, straight-downwards holes in buildings, right? A gash of this type can only be explained through:
a) Fake video footage
b) Advanced weaponry
Based on the glum brown/red "pollution" color of New York on a clear day, I'll go with the first.
It's interesting that both this fake video and the fake UA175 "International Shot" were filmed by ABC, which was also involved in providing fake footage and mock interviews throughout the day.
Why is this interesting? Because ABC is owned by Disney, which owns nearly half of A&E, which owns the History Channel -- the provider of this amazing footage of building-attracted smoke and purveyor of "conspiracy-debunking" nonsense pieces.
The other "half" of A&E is owned by Hearst, which owns Popular Mechanics magazine -- the creators of that awful "Debunking 9/11 Myths" piece and stars of the History Channel "debunking" film.
The minority of A&E is owned by NBC Universal, which also provided us with fake "LIVE" footage and crash videos on 9/11.
So this History Channel "debunk-u-mentary" came from the same companies that faked the footage and provided us with the "Debunking 9/11" piece.
Expose on ABC/Hearst/Disney connections to the CIA:
http://www.smokershistory.com/abc.htm
Named in that article is Nicholas Brady, connected to the Fiduciary-Trust/Franklin-Templeton group that evacuated the Towers prior to their demolition.
The ties that bind.
-
- Member
- Posts: 401
- Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:58 am
- Contact:
-
- Member
- Posts: 5060
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm
I had the same thoughts/question...carcdr @ Sep 15 2010, 04:36 AM wrote: Back in the days of film, it would have been possible to imagine that someone mounted the reels in reverse and ran a clip backwards.
These (digital) days, it takes conscious effort to run a clip in reverse.
I conclude that this clip was reversed on purpose.
What was that purpose?
-
- Member
- Posts: 2579
- Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
- Location: Italy
- Contact:
In that part of their bullshit documentary, they needed to show the smoking building "after" the rubble+firemen, for dramatic effect. The purpose is continuity of the story within the context of what they are saying.TruthNow @ Sep 15 2010, 05:59 PM wrote:I had the same thoughts/question...carcdr 4 Sep 15 2010, 04:36 AM wrote: Back in the days of film, it would have been possible to imagine that someone mounted the reels in reverse and ran a clip backwards.
These (digital) days, it takes conscious effort to run a clip in reverse.
I conclude that this clip was reversed on purpose.
What was that purpose?
This has another implication, which is, in a way, the usual one: the footage of 9/11 is too limited. Ridiculously so. They have to make use of the little they have, and end up reversing a clip just to create an effect they need.
This is an indisputable fact that raises many questions. In the age of multimedia, and in presence of the most disturbing event of our times, the quantity of imagery cannot be so little, unless intentionally controlled and prevented.
Assuming the imagery is FAKE, rendered or composed, is so far the easiest explanation to this lack of imagery: rendering is a slow, tedious process, while filming reality is disgustingly easy, and a child could do it with profit.
Brutal Metal 4 Sep 15 2010, 06:46 AM wrote: It still makes me laugh how Moronic those Popular Mechanics Experts are!
Really guys?? The wings break off in the Pentagon but not in the Towers?
Come on!! And their take on Building 7 is funny..
Popular Mechanics produced an "expert" to explain this nonsense to us:
Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... n#bigplane
Problems:
A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building
a) Really? It doesn't? But it's okay if that exact same thing happens in NYC, right?
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/s ... c1hole.jpg
In this case, one wing hit the ground
b) The "wing" that supposedly hit the ground would have left a mark -- the lawn in front of the Pentagon was completely undamaged:
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/lawn.html
the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns
c) Sheared off? Then where, pray tell, is it? And why couldn't US-Military/CNN's Jamie McIntyre find it after conducting a "close-up inspection"?
http://pentagon911.0catch.com/_webimage ... 347626.JPG
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C02dE5VKeck
What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass.
d) Really? According to the defense department, the nosecone (Which the county fire chief described as a "puddle") penetrated three concrete, hardened "rings". According to ASCE, the landing gear did. Not bad for near-liquid wreckage.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001 ... 5evey.html
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/ ... traj_a.jpg
But it gets better.
A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University.
Who is Professor Mete Sozen of the defense establishment's Purdue University?
He is the "principal investigator" on the university's "9-11 simulation" project, which re-enacts the North Tower attack like this:
http://www.livevideo.com/video/embedLin ... ng-wi.aspx
Apparently Sozen believes that it is alright for airplanes to fly through reinforced buildings and create cartoon holes when it is in New York!
Sozen was also involved in their simulation of the Pentagon event, which asserts to us that a 757 without engines crashed into the Pentagon:
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simu ... 0sep02.gif
It never ends.