artreddin wrote:My original argument was that any image, including ones put up on this site by people supposedly gathering the truth, may be doctored. This would be much much harder to prove today than ten years ago, and indeed, most would think it unnecessary to test them... unless, like you and me, they lived by the motto "Question Everything". I also presented the argument as a possible rebuttal by an outsider, basically with the idea "Well, why should we believe your images are the real ones?"
When I say the final sentence gives the lie to the weakness of your rebuttal I was referring to the word "allegedly": first you accept that they are only presented as being legitimate (Really, we only have the poster's word; they could be taken in any office in any city.) but then you conclude from this that they have something to do with deciding whether the buildings were bustling with activity or not.
Yes they have something to do, like all the imagery we have. As I said, it is in the relation
between the images that lie the useful things. I wouldn't put the images of the empty offices on the front page, but I certainly don't refuse them right away either. They are part of this strange, unfathomable pool of absurd pictures that are left around us to tell the story of the rise and fall of the WTC. As I said, on this forum you rarely see images being treated as if they were certainly real. But they are often telling us something anyway.
And BTW, don't you do something worse with those energy beams? You seem to have decided
that a certain part of the images is real: the smoking towers and later on, the falling towers. They must be real, you say, because people could see them from miles (what about the planes, then?). Then you decide
that the most probable explanation are the energy beams. Once you get married with said explanation you go about attacking whoever thinks differently. But -- how can you be so sure?
Me, I am open to every possibility. You say that we have a microwave dustifying buildings at work here. I don't dismiss it, I don't know if it is possible or not. Maybe it is. But I find other explanations much more likely, more interesting, more consistent with the reality I know about. The giant microwave, maybe the same "HAARP" we always hear about with earthquakes, is a fascinating shortcut that gets us nowhere but in a corner, where you are left looking for "followers" who are to believe the theory
. Who wants that? If I wanted religion I'd be in church.
The beauty of the research on media fakery is that it frees us from this burden, of having to believe a "theory of everything", a "religion of truth" like with the various branches of the "truth" movement. An exposee of media fakery perfectly works with a theory full of unknowns and believe me, it helps a lot more.
artreddin wrote:in this case, the "planes" exploding into the building serving both as a visible representation of the "terrorists' attack" and a cover that would allow for bringing the buildings down through a pulverization from the top to the bottom... this, BTW and despite Heiwa's insistence, having nothing to do with gravity.
Thus we have a plan to show to the world this super secret microwave weapon at work, for the purpose of demolishing a couple of buildings in the middle of a big city, but we put people off-track by pretending it was all caused by planes. Why using the microwave in the first place then? Why do you think in this plan, like Simon perfectly mocked above, nobody realized it was more practical to use some form of classic demolition, anything that could be covered with a bit of smoke and a bit of photoshop?