Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:13:56 -0500 [10:13:56 AM CDT]
To: "Rasga Saias" , firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths (once more, with feeling!)
Thanks for sending the link, which I plan to include in the list of
studies related to this question. In case you haven't noticed, I
also included Anthony's "Busted!" So what I have here is a set of
studies both PRO and CON video fakery. Incidentally, I think that
I was the first to emphasize the distinction between video fakery
and planes/no planes, which is highly relevant to the posts from
Jeff Hill, which I like but which I also find a bit disappointing.
I should also mention that that list has been there for some time
and I am not constantly going back and forth to update it. There
is, in my view, sufficient proof of video fakery that I doesn't
matter if some of them are wrong. That's why I have accented 5
arguments I think are especially strong. I notice you mention 19
studies on this site, whereas I count 29. Some of those you don't
seem to have included present a lot of interesting important stuff:
"Chopper 5 Composite":
REBUTTALS AND REPLIES:
Debunking "September Clues": A Point by Point Analysis
10 October 2007, Nick Irving, Scholars for 9/11 Truth
September Clues - Busted! (Anthony Lawson on "September Clues")
Eric Salter's Rebuttal:
Ace Baker's response:
ADDITIONAL FOOTAGE AND ARGUMENTS:
Unseen September 11th Footage (video)
9/11 Attack (worth sorting out)
South Tower Anomalies
South Tower Anomalies - Extended
South Tower Anomalies III - Addressing the Debunkers
North and South Tower Anomalies
I have been a huge fan of Jeff Hill, who has also tossed in his
25-cents worth here. I find his suggestion--that we might have
authentic videos of impossible events BECAUSE the images we are
seeing are themselves HOLOGRAMS--extremely interesting. It was
a lapse on my part that I had not mentioned this earlier in the
thread. I do agree this possibility needs to be taken seriously
and John Lear, among others, has been outspoken in its defense.
Perhaps he will also add a few of the arguments he has advanced.
shure Today, 6:44 AM Post #10
Feb 13, 2008
Some emails between Jim and mylself;
I see that information has already been posted, but is hidden from view. I would disagree with the part about the Harley guy. I would also disagree with referring to killtown as a video expert!!! I would also think about distinguishing between fakery and video fakery. We can't say the videos are fake, but we know what we are seeing happen in the videos is not possible. There is a big difference!
You have missed the key point. If the videos are showing us events that are not possible, then they have to be fake! Surely you can see that. If it can't actually happen in space/time, given laws of physics, of engineering, and of aerodynamics, then is has to be an artificial creation and cannot possibly be real. We see them all the time on television and in movies, which reduces our ability to think critically when we see something in a vide, on television, or on the big screen. But what you are asserting is simply not true.
I know your totally against this, but just Humour me for a second. What if all those videos and pictures captured a 'hologram"? Then the videos themeselves wouldn't be fake! Personally, I just don't believe that everyone who videotaped, photographed or said they saw the "plane" are all lying and part of the coverup.
Actually, that's a very good point. Thanks for clarifying exactly what you meant. It's a point that I need to incorporate into my own discussions of video fakery. Terrific!
I thought Jim started to understand something at this point, but he seems to have dismissed the distinction and continues to follow down the road of disinformation.
This case illustrates a problem. I do not claim to be the world's leading
expert on video fakery and planes/no planes, but I am willing to address
the issues and attempt to sort them out. The phenomena I have emphasized
appear to me to be the strongest, because they involve violations of laws
of physics, of engineering, and of aerodynamics that cannot occur in the
real world--absent something highly unusual, as Jeff reminds me, such as
holograms. I just want to get to the bottom of this and I am not willing
to accept weak arguments in lieu of powerful evidence something is wrong.
Rasga likes to make the questions small enough that he thinks he can rebut
them. But there are far larger issues at stake. The indirect evidence in
support of the possibility of no planes--the studies by Elias Davidsson,
the missing envelopes, the non-production of uniquely identifiable parts,
the impossibility of the cell phone calls, on and on and on--tell me that
we are dealing with a hoax and a scam of very large proportions. Some of
you apparently don't want to address it. But some of us are not going to
rest until we have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Quoting "Rasga Saias" :
> I did get your memo Jim.
> And I also spent some time with this:
> I'm a very pragmatic person and I don't waist much time with words.
> So I hope you don't mind my selective approach instead of remaining in an
> ambiguous position like you insist to.
> There's no evidence proving directly video fakery.
> I think you should pick better your sources.
> Simon Shack, Killtown and their associates have failed to
> even reassemble honest researchers.
> Don't get me wrong, but I believe you're being fooled by them.
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:52 AM, wrote:
>> I infer that you did not get the memo (my lengthy discussion of all of this),
>> so here is sampler from a recent article. You need to appreciate that, even
>> if Killtown were a village cobbler or Ace Baker were an errand boy, that does
>> not show their arguments are wrong. You appear to be confusing the source
>> of an argument with the argument itself. I have spent 35 years teaching
>> students to avoid committing elementary fallacies like this, so I trust you can
>> fathom my impatience in its display by you in this context. Ken seems to think
>> that I am unkind when I "cut to the chase", but this has been going on for quite
>> a while now and there is no reasonable explanation for feigning not to under-
>> stand my position. Just for the record, here is another summary of five of
>> the strongest arguments, where the longer post below is more definitive. If
>> all of this is still not enough for you, I can't imagine what it would take.
>> (1) Multiple experts (including the FAA, the Royal Air Force, and so on)
>> have calculated the speed of United 175 as reflected by the Michael
>> Herzarkhani video at approximately 560 mph (averaging their estimates).
>> While that corresponds to the cruise speed of a Boeing 767 at 35,000 feet
>> altitude, it would be impossible at 700-1000 feet altitude, where the air is
>> three times more dense, as Joe Keith, an aerospace engineer and designer of
>> the Boeing "shaker system," has recently explained in the video entitled,
>> "Flight 175 - Impossible Speed," which is archived here While Anthony
>> Lawson has claimed such a plane could reach that speed in a dive, the plane
>> is clearly not diving.
>> (2) The way in which the plane enters the building appears to be
>> impossible as well. Go to killtown.blogspot.com and scroll to (what is
>> now) the sixth image and you can view the plane interacting with the
>> building. It is passing into the steel and concrete structure without
>> displaying any signs of impact, where the wings, the engines, the fuselage
>> and other component parts all remain intact. It should have been the case
>> that massive debris was breaking off and the plane was being dismantled by
>> the interaction between the moving plane and the stationary building, as
>> early critics and late -- from the Web Fairy to Morgan Reynolds -- have been
>> maintaining for years now. So this is yet another physical impossibility.
>> (3) As Joe Keith has observed, the interaction observed here also violates
>> all three of Newton's laws of motion. According to the first law, objects
>> in motion remain in uniform motion unless acted upon by a force. According
>> to the second, an object accelerates in the direction of the force applied.
>> According to the third, for every action there is an equal and opposite
>> reaction. But the plane moves at uniform motion through both air and
>> building, which would violate Newton's laws unless the building provides no
>> more resistance (force) than air, which is absurd. By most counts, the
>> plane moves its length through air in 8 frames and also moves its length
>> into the building in the same number of frames, which cannot be the case if
>> these are real objects and real interactions.
>> (4) Neither the impact of United 175 with the South Tower nor the impact
>> of American 11 with the North show the damage done to the steel and concrete
>> in the form of the "cut-outs" that subsequently appear at the time they were
>> allegedly being "caused" by the planes' impacts there. A study of the
>> Naudet brothers footage reveals a secondary explosion after the initial
>> impact and fireballs that actually causes the cut-out in the North Tower.
>> Indeed, an extension of the right wing's cut-out was even "penciled in."
>> Take a look at the study of this phenomenon under "9/11 Amateur, Part 2."
>> It is fair to infer that the same technique was employed to create the
>> cut-out images in the South Tower.
>> (5) The same student of the videos has examined the Evan Fairbank's footage
>> and found ample grounds to dispute it. Certainly, it shows the same smooth
>> entry as the Herzarkani footage and the same lack of debris from the
>> encounter. However, it goes further in considering the angle of the shot
>> and how he came to take it, which suggests that he is lying through his
>> teeth. He claims he saw a "white flash" and was able to determine it was a
>> jet. But the time line is so brief that this explanation appears to be a
>> complete fabrication. View this study at "9/11 Amateur, Part 3." Killtown
>> has now extended the uniform motion argument to Evan Fairbank's video, as
>> can be observed in the very first image currently archived on his site,
[NOTE: The rest of this post simply repeats my earlier reply to Ken (below).]