The BBC's claim that it was a mistake does not ring true. I suspect that someone got the pages of the script out of order. One thing that is rarely mentioned is that the studio announcer, who is talking to Jane Standley, who is telling us that WTC7 has just collapsed while it can be seen, still standing, over her left shoulder, asks her something like "... are the people in the street talking about revenge?" Why would he ask that, before any hint of who was to blame had surfaced?
Who cares whether there were planes or not, worry about the important issues like who really did this and why. You are wasting you energy on the wrong things imo.
Where you went wrong MR Lawson is channelling your energy into the wrong thing!
If, as you say, you disagree with the events that day then make a video detailing why you disagree, focus on the real deception in hand, not some silly theories that do not uncover the real story. Peace. :)
Lies and misguided explanations of the 9/11 attacks are just as damaging as the 9/11 Commission's report claiming that the planes were hijacked. The mass media love it when stupid people claim there were no-planes in New York, because it deflects research away from the real issues. Look at my video "9/11: The Unidentified Murder Weapons" and see where I have put some of my energies. Where have you put your energies? It seems into criticising someone who cares about the truth.
What exactly is the purpose of the video? To enlarge your e-penis somehow? We all know that this was a set up, so maybe put your efforts into researching what really went on, and while you are at it can you do a video on why one of the most important high security buildings in America (Pentagon) was not able to capture a supposed plane hitting the building on CCTV? Your energy is wasted on this trash video, do some proper research and come back with some real answers...
With regard to the Pentagon: the lack of video evidence from around a building bristling with video cameras points to one of the biggest cover-ups in the history of CC-TV surveillance. Shortly after whatever happened at the Pentagon, the FBI collected all video material from private premises, which has been suppressed, ever since. So the FBI would be the people who could help with your request for some "real answers", because I am not in the habit of making things up.
I don't normally respond to such crudity, but your lack of logic should not go unchallenged. You are clearly one of those people who think that someone who criticises no-planes videos accepts the official story. In my case, you are wrong. The official story is totally unacceptable, but that does not mean that there were no planes or that the media was putting out doctored videos. So why don't you tell me exactly where you think I went wrong? Generalities are meaningless.
here's a simple question, its nothing to do with camera's or anything... everyone seems to be suggesting that the government was involved in this attack right? now I'm sorry but i am proud of my country, and i know very few people who are not. and it is just beyond my understanding that anyone would harm an innocent person in their own country. terrorists all believe what they do is right. but i doubt any government would be as cold hearted as people claim.
First I would like to know: Why you are proud of your country? Are you proud of the way your country has killed millions upon millions of innocent people in so many countries since the end of the last so-called "Just War", World War 2? Are you proud of your country because it is backing Apartheid Israel's attempts to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from their vicinity, with $3 billion in the tax dollars your fellow countrypersons pay? Tell me: What's to be proud of about the US?
i see you're point, and i understand you see a government willing to kill innocent vietnamese civilians as a government willing to kill innocent american civilians. But these are different people, and different times, and i look for the good in the world. Gandhi said "be the change you want to see in the world" so i'm trying to spread love and peace, not spend my days angrily checking footage of planes hitting towers, when i should be morning those killed in the attacks.
and also, I'm proud of my country because i'm not the only person who thinks what i think. its the people that make up a country, not its leaders or its governments. otherwise people would still be mindlessly abusive to germany and russia.
I cannot agree with being proud of something over which one had no control. Maybe you were lucky to have been born or become an American, but proud? Why? Your fellow Americans have done nothing to stop the carnage in Gaza, Afghanistan and Iraq; little to show their shock, horror and disgust at the way their tax dollars are being spent by the people they vote into power, or at least hardly ever protest about their excesses. Because others think as you do, doesn't make you all right.
Do you believe America should play the world's police? Personally I feel America has too often stepped over it's limits to apply it's justice to other nations when it should've been left to the UN. Oh well.
No, it should not. Of course the U.N. was set up to try to make 'policing' the world the joint responsibility of all nations, but that is not the way to control wealth, is it? And that is why Americans are being sacrificed: for the obscene wealth that the armaments industry generates, and the greed for oil and cheap minerals that drives the U.S. economy, but that is now working in China's favour, so perhaps America is, deservedly, getting its comeuppance.
I am a retired director, cameraman film and video editor with over 30 years experience in the shooting, recording and editing of moving pictures, as well as having some experience with computer generated images. I do not know anything about you, except that you have as much of a responsibility to tell the truth as I have. If you are accusing me of telling lies, then point them out. If you are unable to do so, then I will remove your insult from these comments pages, and block you.
You missed out one important word "September Clues -- Busted!" Anyone who cannot see past Simon Shack's absurd deceptions has a serious problem with reality. But have a look at plain "September Clues", and have a good laugh at its transparent manipulations or the truth.
Interesting: Google Earth shows that the buttresses ARE wedge shaped, the sides about 20 degrees off parallel, meaning the face of the rear wedge would be about 40 degrees off the plane of the face which is reflecting the sky. To get an intense reflection of the part of the sky near the sun from a semi-shiny surface, the lens axis would need to be close to 45 degrees to the face of the wedge, but the rear wedge angle would then be about 25 degrees, giving far less reflection.
I was using my intuition and 30 years of experience with computer graphics, but since you ask
1 ) The top of the empire state building is solid! It appears in this overlay that the right hand side of the turret which is often seen in photographs reflecting white, has mistakenly become 'transparent' and is showing the sky colour behind the solid tower, I've just flicked through a couple of hundred pictures of the tower and discovered this in 5 mins... how hard can it be
Easy. 30 years of computer graphics may have made you forget about the real world. There are four decorative sections; 'turrets' as you call them, on the upper spire of the building, and other photographs show that the sides of these sections are quite shiny. The video has captured the bright eastern sky being reflected from the panel which is oriented at about 45 degrees to the axis of the camera's lens. There is nothing mysterious or CGI about it. How easy can it be?
Come on! You are deluding yourself, if that corner was mirrored and the other's weren't that might be a slightly plausible argument, but they are not. Please take some time to look at every other image of the empire state you can find on Google. Can you find an example where the tower has the illusion of being transparent? I couldn't, only one where that same section is solid white, but NOT matching the sky. Was this the source image used here which caused the anomaly?
It is intriguing why the opposite buttress does not reflect the sky. Other photos show that there are many antennae beside it, so they could breaking up the strong reflection, or perhaps the surfaces on each buttress are not parallel and the one which is reflecting is at exactly the correct angle to the lens axis to give a reflection of maximum intensity. The shadow detail and the edge of the reflective buttress is very clear, so why would this have been left visible in a CGI?
I was using my intuition and 30 years of experience with computer graphics, but since you ask
1 ) The top of the empire state building is solid! It appears in this overlay that the right hand side of the turret which is often seen in photographs reflecting white, has mistakenly become 'transparent' and is showing the sky colour behind the solid tower, I've just flicked through a couple of hundred pictures of the tower and discovered this in 5 mins... how hard can it be
@kinggunner69 You powers of observation are non-existent. If a camera is pointing down, from a high helicopter position, it will not be "looking" through as much polluted air as a camera which is lower. Of course 9/11 was not perpetrated by box-cutter-wielding Arabs, but the optical reality of these shots has absolutely nothing to do with that aspect of the events, and only a fool would try to make such an absurd connection.
I can't answer for the visually impaired. You tell me what is in the air when you look horizontally for a distance of 50 miles or so, from a building or a helicopter, across the outskirts of a city into which hundreds of thousands of cars, buses and trucks are entering from about 6 am onwards. Try using YOUR brain, dude, but call me a liar again and you are blocked.
@fahloc Yet another unobservant critic. Shots from that tilted camera appear several times in the 9/11 video record. The tilt is always the same, so: Guess what? It was a fixed camera set up on one of the tall buildings in the Rockefeller Centre. It's lens was set at quite a narrow angle, so narrow, in fact, that the helicopter you are referring to, also being about the same distance away from the Towers, was never likely to appear in its field of view. Please try thinking of something original.
You stated in your video that the background wasn't visible due to the haze or smog. If I remember correctly the visibility of that day was GREAT. There was no smog or haze. Even the news anchors said it was a picture perfect day. Also, why do all the different videos have a weird color and/or washed out look? The still pictures from that day are very VIVID and clearly show a blue sky. I am wondering it it is an attempt to disguise what ever it was that hit the towers.
@infoseeker264 A lens with a narrow viewing angle "looks through" a considerable amount of air and gives an entirely different picture than the human eye and stills cameras, which have a wider angle-of-view. To the eye, the air may look crisp and clear, but view a scene through a 1000 to 2000 mm lens, and you are looking through many more pollution particles. The effect is obvious when looking at the images taken from helicopter cameras on 9/11. Most of the color anomalies are due to copying.
Ya know I’m going to start my own Demo Company called "USA Suckers Demolition" I'm going to charge 5000$ to drop huge Steel buildings. It’s easy, get some cheap JetAfuel - cut a few random core columns and pore it over 3 floors and throw a match at it. Then I’m going down the Pub for a meal and 5 pints! when I come back I knw the Huge Steel framed building will have fallen down into its own footprint with the steel magically cut ready for transport! I’m GOING TO MAKE a Shitload of Cash! LOL
lol, this video only shows that there were planes which crashed into the buildings. I didn0t even know some people were questioning that. But it WAS an inside job. Watch more vids of this channel.
Also now that i think of it, i wouldn't be shocked to find out that people who did this whole mess are making those "there were no planes" allegations so that the "doubters", who still look for the truth behind all this, look like paranoid and dumb.
@saultrain I can't really remember. That being said, I think my point was that one of his main arguments is that others should take their videos down if he finds what he thinks is a flaw in them and I was asking if he would do the same. One (trivial) example is where he describes the offending video as a "music-video". Since this is a clear ad-hominem, or ad-videoum ;-) argument, it is strictly speaking a fallacy, or at best a cheap-shot. Should he therefore remove his video?
@tuffvibes1972 : I can answer that: Get a map and look to see if there were any building under the South Tower plane's flight path. Let me tell you, there were, so it was "supposed" to be one of those buildings. Are you sure you're brain is firing on on all of the cylinders it's got?
@alawson911 the woman on the phone that claimed to see the plane hit lived in Chelsea which is a km northof the towers. The plane she "saw" was behind the south tower and therefore impossible for her to see. Look into this more
I listened to a radio show you were on in 2008 where you claimed about eye witness reports, then when questioned you could not provide a source, very suspicious. Also banning members from making comments on other videos show's you are in fear of certain people's responses. Why would anyone go to the lengths you have if they were not hiding something?
@tuffvibes1972: There were hundreds of eye witness reports, I can't give all their names, or where they can be found; check the NY papers immediately following 911.
I have a right to block people who become tedious, only making accusations with no supporting evidence. Why don't you pick one issue that you have with the video, and try to challenge me on that? Pick carefully, because I have all of the answers. In fact, they are in the video above, if you look at it carefully enough.
@alawson911, you said you didn't have a clue in that radio interview, why didn't you say what you have just written on the radio? Maybe you've had time to come up with an answer now! You have all the wrong answers, nothing in your videos seems right to me, there's nothing convincing in this either. Nice try though!
@tuffvibes1972: I don't normally use expressions like "haven't a clue", so if that was an interview with James Fetzer or Kevin Barrett, it will be archived, so find it and send the link in a message to my YouTube account, so that I can verify what I actually said. While you are at it, tell me what some of my wrong answers are, in this video. Be specific, and don't generalise. I can answer any question you like, but I cannot answer a general accusation. Now go away and do some research.
You're blatantly on the payroll lawson, and you've disabled some of your videos so people cannot write back to prove you're a fake! These respose videos you're making are just making you all look even more GUILTY! You cannot fool everyone!
@dnbmonster1: Guilty of what? Telling the truth? Yes, I confess. I've disabled comments on some of my videos, and your current comment clearly demonstrates why I have done so. If you have something valid to say, about my conclusions, then say it. Blanket accusation of being "guilty", "on the payroll" and "a fake" are not valid comments, they carry no weight without evidence. If you have something to say about me and my videos, you can always make one yourself. You live up to your name.
Great Video. Common sense becomes so hard for someone throwing away all the Data that does not fit thier conclusions. Bush haters and Govt conspiracy freaks already have thier minds made up......its them who are brainwashed.... by anger.
@marcusdolby1 : You are wrong if you think that the presence of real planes in New York means that I accept the 9/11 Commission report. I do not. How could anyone accept such a report when the identity of the planes has never been established?
@ gemriderz: You are not thinking straight. The engine in Murray Street did not appear to match the plane because we were only TOLD that the plane was United 175. But what if it was not?
Don't you get it? An engine fell out of a building that had been hit by a plane; the engine was real, it was seen, touched, videoed, photographed then dumped in a land fill on Staten Island. Forget everything else and use some logic: If the engine was real, so was the plane. What we don't know is: What plane?
gemriderz: You are making unfounded accusations. e.g.: your statement:
"YOU are why they got away with it. Accept WHATEVER you're told."
Is utterly absurd. Can't your brain get itself around the fact that the planes must have been real planes, with real engines, but that they were almost certainly not the planes which the 9/11 Commission and the Bush administration claimed they were?
It is people like me who are revealing the truth, not people like you who can't even think straight.
No, I USED to believe they were jets. I even (sadly), at first believed the gov'.
Now I know that engine parts don't match up to the planes, and that almost no one 'saw a jet'.
You'll notice that so many early reports were "a missile", or JUST an explosion, and ONLY until Sawyer and other liars began 'selling back to the on-site people' that it was jets did that lie take hold. Then all the secondary explosions reported BY reporters (broadcasts gone) and fireman of same explosions.
Actually, both the tower's and Pentagon's engines didn't match the 'supposed plane'. John Lear and other pilots (100K+ hours flying) reviewed the Pents' 'black box'; "No way - didn't happen".
Final Proof? Remember all the 'conspiracy theorists' that were bashed for called Gulf of Tonkin BS?
48 years later, and BOTH skippers admit the ENTIRE incident was faked!
Anyone care? DO YOU?? 60K dead, 1M Viets
Sheep.
YOU are why they got away with it. Accept WHATEVER you're told.
@gemriderz I saw that turbine photos was sitting upright under some scaffolding some dude put sign there than took pics, what are odds of engine coming out of one bld and hitting opposite bld than hits road-way in a upright postion, i say very smelly indeed
gemriderz : You don't really think that the planes were fake, do you? If you do, then how do you explain the jet-engine core which came out of the northern face of the South Tower, just after the impact. It hit quite high levels of another building, on the way down, and ended up in Murray and Church streets. Too many people make the ridiculous no-planes or faked-planes claim, without explaining where this engine came from.
Want to know how it's NOT POSSIBLE it was "Islamic Terrorists"?
Simple.
No WAY IN THE WORLD ANYONE could go 4 for 4 hijacking planes - or anything. It's called "the fog of war", and, AT BEST, they would have succeeded at maybe 1 or 2, the other 2 or 3 attempts having failed.
Simply isn't possible to have a time line SO CLOSE and be 100% successful.
lol. Ask Dick Marchinko. "Two is one, One is none, you pencil-dicked numbnuts".
ishredu: Your dilemma is shared by many, and this is not difficult to understand when it is more than obvious that the 9/11 Commission did not do its job properly. For a start, it did not call for the forensic identification of the initial murder weapons: the four planes. That was and remains an unacceptable fault; something so rare in normal murder trials that it can be used by the defence to call for a case to be dismissed. Which is what should be done with 9/11, and the process begun again.
Look at the date on this video, it needed debunking, then. Pilots for 9/11 Truth is either an infiltrated forum or was disinformation from the start. Their stance on the New York planes can easily be debunked, but I'm more interested in doing other things. The planes were real, the question are what planes were they, and how were they flown? None of them has ever been forensically identified. Rob Balsamo of Pilots was just out to make money, selling his video for $19.95.
I certainly question charging for info especially in lieu of using the information in a lawsuit (if we are to assume they are "in it" for the correct reasons)
I dunno I have over 1400 hours looking at 9/11 (particularly new york) and my conclusion is that the story cannot be scientifically explained to my satisfaction...really at all.
who did what? I won't even "go there" I'm still trying to make sense out of the pure mechanics of it all.
Thank you for your kind comments. I used to be a commercials director, cameraman and editor, so I was loosely connected to the moving picture business, but from behind the camera.
"Using slow motion is not altering the material"..... Slow motion is altering time. That is called altered. Time is critical. It is the benchmark upon which most science is measured. You cannot measure velocity or motion without time. Kinetic energy equations are impossible without exact speed measurements which are in time ..... example miles per hour, seconds per hour. Every single thing you ever do is measured in time. Farts per hour, meals per day, taxes per year
Of course you are right, in the strictest scientific sense, but using slow motion during a news transmission is not altering the video, in the sense that it changes the image. This is what I meant, because I was dealing with accusations that the videos had been altered, and the sense being conveyed was that their content had been tampered with. Strictly speaking: it is only the time taken to view a video which changes, when it is shown in slow motion, and this does not alter its content.
Slow motion on live TV is altered time. Live means at this specific time occuring temporally at the same rate and in the same point that it occurs for the event. All live TV has a dump loop, and is not actually live but seconds or minutes ago. Turns out the pixelation on the videos when zooming in will tell you if it is altered or not. Alot of the footage is looking altered when examined closely. I very much appreciate the fact you prove all things. 9/11 was covered up, there is more to it.
Time matters, and what someone says matters, as well. I did not say: "Using slow motion is not altering the material" I said:
"TV stations have been slowing down videos of momentous, as well as trivial events, ever since the technology to do so was invented, and it is not considered to be altering the content of the material, any more than reading a Shakespeare sonnet very slowly, changes its meaning."
The title reads: ",,,using slow motion is not altering the content of the material..."
Slowmo Live? I like your video. I have been a certified engineer and a licensed California Contractor for 15 years. I build low and mid rise commercial buildings for a living. On any day I deal with ASTM steel, heat transfer, combustion, fasteners and connections, fire systems, reinforced concrete, floorpans, rebar, structural load calculations, fire code, inspections, trusses, fireproofing, shear and lateral strength, foundations, fire ratings, H2O service, etc. Fact ... 9/11 was a demolition.
Did I say anything about live slow motion? I am a retired commercials director, cameraman and editor with about 30 years in the moving images business, and altering a visual, to me, means changing its nature, by the addition or subtraction of some visual element. Maybe that is too limited, but it seems logical that showing something in slow motion is not actually altering the material. I agree with you: all of those buildings were demolished, please see my video "WTC7 - This is an Orange".
I understand. The image being changed is what your saying is altered. That would be the most direct form. Slow motion allows you to see what happened while you blinked. It can and is also used by those in your craft to emphasize a specific moment. I can guide you where to look by using frame speed. Some original news footage was altered. Zoom in it will pixelate more where altered. I like your orange video.
In a sense, it could be said that an image is altered when it is copied and pixilation occurs. This has led to claims that some of the 9/11 videos were altered, in that the planes were added, which I do not think is true. It needs to be explained exactly what was altered, not just to claim that an alteration took place.
Yes, I did mean to write "There will..." Thank you, but I'll let it go, for now.
The mainstream media has never questioned the 9/11 Commission's findings, nor did it use its undoubted power to question how NORAD or the U.S. Air Force allowed four hijacked aircraft to stay aloft until they each crashed, two of them into the WTC. The collapses of the Towers and WTC 7 all look like controlled demolitions, but the mainstream media has stayed silent. If that is not sinister, I don't know what is.
Otherwise a mostly fine video. I am however curious about what you meant when you said the mainstream media was helping cover up something sinister. Could you go into more details?
No parts from ANY of the planes has ever been matched to the maintenance records of the aircraft the 9/11 Commission alleges were involved. Page One of the "How to Solve a Homicide Manual" was ignored: "First, identify the weapon and where it came from". There were allegedly four weapons, but I don't think one of them hit the Pentagon, the simplest reason being that not one photograph shows any marks where the tail fin should have hit. The others were almost certainly remotely controlled.
I agree, they were real, just dont know who was flying them. Theres plenty of evidence to support the fact planes did hit the towers and one surely was blown up in shanksville.The pentagon is less clear, many witnesses say there was a plane but no one saw it hit the building, nor reported the tremendous noise a plane flying at 500+mph 50 foot overhead would make. Also no parts with the serial numbers has been recovered from flight 77 so what hit the pentagon and who was flying the WTC aircraft?
you can see the background just fine in the shot at 4:35? wheres the problem with the smog? 9/11 was an inside job, it was not pulled off by 19 islamic terrorist with box cutters. They may have been involved or are just patsies, but theres just not a chance they pulled this off without assistance.
At 4:35 you can still see a haze at the top of the screen, but look at the sequence at 8:00. Both shots look similar, but the author of the original video is trying to suggest that the background has disappeared in one of them, when, in fact, the camera is lower, and its long lens is enlarging that distant haze. Of course 9/11 was an inside job, but, although the planes never been forensically identified, it is absurd to suggest that they were not real. That is the point of my video.
joiganja: If you were going to attempt to destroy two huge buildings, and target the Pentagon, would you really risk it all by using hijacked planes, or having the media twist it about with CGI? Give me a break. The planes have never been forensically identified, using serial numbers from the debris, so the obvious answer is that they were remotely controlled, having been prepared in some remote, disused desert air force facility and radar swapped when transponders were switched off.
Look at my "Impossible Speed and Impact -- Busted" video. The FAA-permitted test dive speed, Vd, between sea level and 17,845 feet is 420 knots. That is a speed limit, not an airframe limitation, if you can tell the difference. A 19% increase of that figure gives 499.8 knots, which is 575.16 mph. If you don't think that Boeing 767-type aircraft (no one knows for sure, what they were) are capable of withstanding a 19% overstress factor, I suggest that you don't fly in any of them.
@alawson911 faa ,i said boeing,what do you mean if i can tell the difference and then say no one knows for sure what they were,if you don,t know what they were how can you comment, also 19% is that to make your theory make sense, the air is too thick at the altitude it hit tower to do those speeds
No one knows EXACTLY what kind of aircraft they were. The South Tower plane looks like a Boeing 767, in the videos and photographs, but none of the planes has ever been forensically identified, using serial numbers taken from the debris. If you think that they were holograms or graphics, then that is your problem. Post away, I will not be responding to you, again.
i dont think a plane was projected on to the ny sky line,but there is something masking what hit the tower in all the video ,i dont know how they done it either,you say you wont respond,very childish,millions watching in nyc,loads with cameras and no one can identify plane in any of them,show me a film of 2nd strike where the plane has flashing lights underneath like you see everyday on real planes apart from military
Not answering comments which I do not understand is not childish. Aircraft flight decks are provided with switches for everything; no flashing lights is hardly mysterious. People like you tend to forget that there were only fifteen minutes separating the strikes and that no one knew a second plane was coming. This, and low definition video and stills cameras explain why the planes cannot be accurately identified. I have no idea what you mean by: "something masking what hit the tower."
@alawson91 so how did these inexperienced pilots fly above cloud with no help from air traffic control straight to new york,and i think you know what i mean,the superior intelligence you seem to think you possess clearly isnt there if you don,t.
1) You don't know a lot about the air, at ground level, do you. Every big city in the world suffers from "hazy smog" produced by the exhausts of millions of vehicles. Look at the sky, vertically, and you are only looking through about 50 feet of pollution, but a long-focus, helicopter-mounted lens, tilted slightly downwards, will be looking through thousands of feet of pollution or hazy smog.
Google: air pollution height and you can learn something about it.
2) "The Video I recorded on 911 shows 90% fuzzy colors and 2-6% tilt of the WTC and/or ESB."
Percentages of what? The tilt of a structure should be described in terms of degrees, but the tilt almost certainly came from your camera setup; either lens distortion or the camera was at an angle to the horizontal.
At 4:40 there is an excellent example of a terrible video copy, and the plane can be identified, in other videos, as a 767 lookalike; much bigger than a 757.
There was no hazy smog on 911. The "What We Saw" video with (?) and Bri clearly shows clear sky. The Video I recorded on 911 shows 90% fuzzy colors and 2-6% tilt of the WTC and/or ESB. In that sense the video is fake. It should show vertical blds and clear sky. The "orb" shot at minute 4:40 is an excellent example. And It Doesn't look at all like a 757.
pianoman21897: Ive removed your message, because I do not tolerate pub language in my message sections, whether the writer approves of my videos, or not. I would appreciate it if you would post a new message, leaving out the swearing.
Yeah, all the stuff that you saw was real and happened. But the event should of not have happened. Nor should those building had fallen like they did. Plus there should be more videos from the Pentagon.
You are absolutely right. It is amazing how many people call me a shill, and worse, because I think that the planes were real.
The question is: What planes were they? The FAA refuses to release any details of serial numbers from the "Black Boxes" or the engines found in New York; near Shanksville and at the Pentagon. The NTSB did not even investigate the crashes. A monster and monstrous cover up, with no physical evidence, whatsoever, to back up the 9/11 Commission's findings.
I've put that video on hold, for the moment, mainly due to illness, but also because my research has turned up some conflicting material, and needs to be sorted out. Thank you for your enquiry.
No, I certainly don't think that they were. I'm currently writing another video, regarding that issue, and some of the things I've found out will amaze you. Hang in there, I hope to have it finished in a week or two. In the meantime try Googling Aidan Monaghan 9/11 and read the top hit. Good hunting.
Phil Berg, a Democrat, is the founder of the Birther movement. Before being a Birther he was a Truther, trying to have the Supreme Court dissolved and sueing Bush for involvement in 911. Alex Jones, another leading truther, is behind the "documentary" called the Obama Deception.
They are doing it because they honestly believe that the government is run by some vast conspiracy, and have to therefore find a way for Obama to fit into this worldview.
You suck. You debunked one of my videos on this subject starting at 4:10. Now I feel stupid for not figuring it out myself. So simple. I guess it's hard to see something that's directly in front of you some times.
Thank you for your comment. You must know the old saying: Don't get mad, get even. ThoughtCrime7 has known that he was misleading people, ever since I posted this video, and he all he died was comment that he was flattered at the attention Id given him. But he did not take his disinformation down. Anyone who spots this kind of thing, as you have done, should notify the culprit, and try to get him or her to correct their mistake, if that is what it was. Only the truth matters; nothing else.
I enjoy the approach you take to addressing the various pseudo-facts found in ThoughtCrime's video as well as the temperence with which you maintain the discussion on your pages.
Some pages, like Loose Change, seem to digress into 'flame-fests', which I think is reflective of the way they present their arguments.
Thank you. I don't think that shouting and swearing contests are very productive. I delete all posts with insults and bad language. Some people call that censorship, I call it maintaining a certain level of decorum.
Actually, the Orb WAS the plane. Well, it was an artifact left by the plane when the compression software got rid of the plane as it reduced the resolution of the video when compressing.
im REALLY not trying to attack him, im just trying to make the point that people dont get famous unless they look the part, which mr baker did NOT, right?
jastheswift2: You have not quoted any "specific" evidence that the videos of the planes were faked, and citing one person who lied does not make every other eyewitness a liar. If you saw something, and someone else was found to have lied about seeing the same thing, would that make your testimony invalid? A FDNY fire chief testified to seeing the North Tower hit, and his brother was killed that day. Are you calling him a liar?
Gary Welz lied. So what? People do such things when seeking their moment of fame.
"...you have little idea how massive and specific the proof is that supports the irrefutable conclusion that footage was faked on 9/11..."
Provide this specific proof to both of us, in message form. If you do not, I will post the fact, here. And remember: there is still no technology capable of projecting images into clear air, or directly onto the retinas of people, or into their video and stills cameras.
"Gary Welz lied. So what? People do such things when seeking their moment of fame."
so you are sure that gary welz lied because he was seeking fame?
"Provide this specific proof to both of us, in message form."
because the proof that footage was faked is so clear when presented in a video format, some debunkers like to haggle over words when it comes to the faked footage shown on 9/11. they also like to pretend that the proof does not exist, unless their current opponent brings it up...
oh, so because somebody shows you a video telling you it was faked, that is proof?
give us some names.
give me another example of thermite/silent demo charges being used, and give me another example of such footage being half CG and half live action, whilst being live. no, scratch that; within 30 mins of being recorded will do, so you cant say it wasnt live, because that is irrelevant if you can find another instance of such techniques being used within 30 mins? so we can ignore live/not live
can YOU admit that MAYBE he was lying to seek fame?
if so, then why cant you think tjhat people like ace baker are lying to seek fame?
he certainly couldnt get fame and money as a musician, because he was terrible and had no personality. both of which you need to be a succesful musician.
oh, and he was fat and ugly too. im not calling him names, im just saying, fat, ugly people dont get famous for music, right? or not nowdays, anyway
"can YOU admit that MAYBE he was lying to seek fame?
if so, then why cant you think tjhat people like ace baker are lying to seek fame?..."
are you getting desperate? you want me to admit and submit to your baseless speculation about gary welz? laughable...
does soliloquizing about ace baker's appearance and personality have any affect on the evidence for faked footage that has been reached and demonstrated by many others besides ace baker?
unless you CAN give me this evidence, your argument is ridiculous.
give me one instance of thermite being used for CD. not because i want you to fail, but because i cant find any myself. same with experts saying it was fake, and silent CD
w0bbl3r: Ace Baker is not, or was not (if his suicide was not faked) fat, or ugly, either. Google - Hardfire DID A PLANE HIT THE SOUTH TOWER? Baker can be seen at counter 4:00. Even if you were right, you do not advance your argument by writing such things about people with whom you do not agree.
well he was a bit fat, and he was VERY ugly and nerdy looking.
not nearly a cool looking rock star, was he?
and i was just saying that not to call him names, but as a statement of fact that he would find it difficult to become famous as a musician even if he were talented, which he wasnt.
so, going the "inside job/no planes" bullshit route, he found an easier way to fame.
i wasnt trying to call him names, just stating fact.
would britney be famous if she were ugly? or j-lo? or paris?
My point was, and is, that personal attacks or derogatory comments about someone with whom you disagree do not advance your argument, as far as what is under discussin goes. In fact it demonstrates that you are unable to stick to the point.
i wasnt calling him names, just stating fact that ugly fat people dont tend to become famous for music, right? thats just fact. im not having a go, just saying.
so, ace wanted to be famous, but was too fat and ugly to make it in mainstream pop culture, right?
so, he just took advantage of ignorant people like our little friend here, and made money and got some fame that way instead.
and seeing and hearing testimony from dozens of eyewitnesses at the time, and countless more since, is just further proof that you are just a moronic little boy who has played too many videogames and watched too many episodes of 24
"and seeing and hearing testimony from dozens of eyewitnesses at the time,..."
how do you feel about the fake witness gary welz? why have fake witnesses and faked footage if it would be certain that "dozens" of people would see a plane enter the tower?
what i said was that IF there were PROOF of who did it, they would have been tried, and convicted.
the very fact that not only has all footage been proven real, but also no people have been tried, is 110% proof that there is NO evidence to the contrary.
you claim it is proven the footage was fake. if that were true, they would have tried those responsible, including the whole world press, and the city of new york (including FDNY and NYPD personnel).
"the very fact that not only has all footage been proven real, but also no people have been tried, is 110% proof that there is NO evidence to the contrary."
childish logic. the footage has been presumed real by you and other debunkers. no one being officially tried has no effect and cannot negate the veracity and strength of the massive evidence provided...it is your choice to swallow and accept as authentic all that is shown on television...
no, the footage has been PROVEN real, by experts in "video manipulation", video editing, CGI in live broadcasts, and all other forms of video techniques, from all over the world.
so, in short, i DONT know the "Limits of" it, but i have seen, read, and heard proven testimony from people who DO.
you have heard ramblings from a fat, crap musician, and that is more believable?
"you have heard ramblings from a fat, crap musician, and that is more believable?"
you are childishly judging the veracity of the evidence for faked footage on factors irrelevant to it...your comment, in your delusional allusion to a single person, also shows that you have little idea how massive and specific the proof is that supports the irrefutable conclusion that footage was faked on 9/11, and how it is been determined by numerous individuals...
you cant put someone who knows nothing about video editing and such, against experts in this field (who obviously own him at every turn), and stand with the uneducated crap musician.
thats just choosing what you want to believe, rather than using the proof and facts that are in front of you.
and i said dozens of people at the time. and hundreds more since.
this is called selective perception, and you seem to do it all the time, moron
"...against experts in this field (who obviously own him at every turn), and stand with the uneducated crap musician."
the fact that you attribute all the evidence that footage was faked to an "uneducated crap musician" shows that you have little idea how expansive the evidence for faked footage is, as well as the numerous individuals who have ascertained such evidence. thus, your appeal to unnamed experts is shallow because your scope of the faked footage evidence is severely limited...
then give me one other example of thermite being used for CD, one other example of live CGI rendering into live action footage, and one video editing and/or CGI expert who backs your claims.
give me those 3 things, and i will once again look into this, because i can find none of those examples.
if you cant find thermite in CD (you cant, its impossible) then give me an example of silent demo charges, because explosions were NOT heard anywhere near the correct area, at anywhere near the right time
then give me names of experts in this field that back up uyour claims.
ther are NONE, are there?
and even having one or two would be normal for something like this, because people always go against the grain in scientific theories, like with the whole inside job/CD bullshit, but when such an overwhelming amount of experts give such factual evidence, and can even prove how they came to these conclusions, then the tiny minority are just ignorant
"then give me names of experts in this field that back up uyour claims.
ther are NONE, are there?"
typical move by a debunker whose position is wobbly: instead of trying to refute the evidence that footage was faked, he/she evasively asks for "names." in this way, the debunker unscientifically judges the evidence based on the "name" without looking at the actual evidence. your asking for "names" merely shows that you have little understanding of that which you are trying to refute...
We do not know what kind of planes flew into the Towers, because the NTSB cannot or will not confirm that they were the allegedly hijacked ones. When ID transponders are switched off, in the vicinity of another plane, there is no way for ATC to tell which blip is which. The only possible reason for the FAA to withhold the serial numbers is because there is something to hide, just like the videotapes from about 50 surveillance cameras around the Pentagon have been hidden since 9/11. Wise up!
Dont ask me that question, ask someone who might know. Here are two questions for you:
Were weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq? George Bush and his team of experts swore that they were there, but, after over a million Iraqi and thousands of Americans deaths, with many more innocent people maimed for life, they still have not been found.
Do you think those people would be concerned about what happened to four plane-loads of civilians?
These flights are extrememly famous. So you say they did not exist.
The people who would have been involved with them that day( bagage handlers, check in , fuelers, food,airport airtraffic,transport to aircraft drivers and staff) Would say 'funny I don't remember that plane being here and It would have been part of my duty.' Two airports, two airlines.. So where did these flights go?>
OOAS007, You left out the important conditional phrase: "when it is clear that much else is being hidden."
Try finding out the serial numbers from the engines and other parts of the wreckage from the aircraft that crashed that day; particularly the serial numbers on the flight-data and cockpit-voice recorders. You will find they are being withheld by the FAA, backed up by the Justice Department. Dont take my word for it, Google: 9/11 black box serial numbers
Thank you for your comment. I will be putting up another 9/11 video on YouTube shortly, and it is comments like yours which compel me to keep going. My new catchphrase is:
Only fools believe what they are told, when it is clear that much else is being hidden.
conspiracies are virtually impossible to keep secret, especially one like this, that would take probably tens of thousands of people on the inside.
all these people have kept quiet?
impossible.
people say "it shouldnt have happened like that". ok, shouldnt have is not the same as IMPOSSIBLE, which is the case with CD, thermite, keeping thousands quiet, CD-ing a building from the top not the bottom, and many other things claimed by these loonballs
if a conspiracy is uncovered, the fact that it has been uncovered is a reason inept debunkers use to show that there was no conspiracy to begin with...some debunkers just can't accept that they have been deceived, so they use all their intellectual might to defend that which they have swallowed...
This is great. Thanks. :)
beachcomber2008 4 months ago in playlist More videos from alawson911
@nebula25x
The BBC's claim that it was a mistake does not ring true. I suspect that someone got the pages of the script out of order. One thing that is rarely mentioned is that the studio announcer, who is talking to Jane Standley, who is telling us that WTC7 has just collapsed while it can be seen, still standing, over her left shoulder, asks her something like "... are the people in the street talking about revenge?" Why would he ask that, before any hint of who was to blame had surfaced?
alawson911 6 months ago
PS: I put my energies into charity fund raising, far better than debunking stuff that no one really cares about.
tuffvibes1972 7 months ago
Who cares whether there were planes or not, worry about the important issues like who really did this and why. You are wasting you energy on the wrong things imo.
tuffvibes1972 7 months ago
Where you went wrong MR Lawson is channelling your energy into the wrong thing!
If, as you say, you disagree with the events that day then make a video detailing why you disagree, focus on the real deception in hand, not some silly theories that do not uncover the real story. Peace. :)
tuffvibes1972 7 months ago
@tuffvibes1972
Lies and misguided explanations of the 9/11 attacks are just as damaging as the 9/11 Commission's report claiming that the planes were hijacked. The mass media love it when stupid people claim there were no-planes in New York, because it deflects research away from the real issues. Look at my video "9/11: The Unidentified Murder Weapons" and see where I have put some of my energies. Where have you put your energies? It seems into criticising someone who cares about the truth.
alawson911 7 months ago
What exactly is the purpose of the video? To enlarge your e-penis somehow? We all know that this was a set up, so maybe put your efforts into researching what really went on, and while you are at it can you do a video on why one of the most important high security buildings in America (Pentagon) was not able to capture a supposed plane hitting the building on CCTV? Your energy is wasted on this trash video, do some proper research and come back with some real answers...
tuffvibes1972 7 months ago
@tuffvibes1972
With regard to the Pentagon: the lack of video evidence from around a building bristling with video cameras points to one of the biggest cover-ups in the history of CC-TV surveillance. Shortly after whatever happened at the Pentagon, the FBI collected all video material from private premises, which has been suppressed, ever since. So the FBI would be the people who could help with your request for some "real answers", because I am not in the habit of making things up.
alawson911 7 months ago
@alawson911 very good vid. two thumbs up on this one.
dominic150 3 months ago
@tuffvibes1972
I don't normally respond to such crudity, but your lack of logic should not go unchallenged. You are clearly one of those people who think that someone who criticises no-planes videos accepts the official story. In my case, you are wrong. The official story is totally unacceptable, but that does not mean that there were no planes or that the media was putting out doctored videos. So why don't you tell me exactly where you think I went wrong? Generalities are meaningless.
alawson911 7 months ago
awards?
danawanapskana 8 months ago
here's a simple question, its nothing to do with camera's or anything... everyone seems to be suggesting that the government was involved in this attack right? now I'm sorry but i am proud of my country, and i know very few people who are not. and it is just beyond my understanding that anyone would harm an innocent person in their own country. terrorists all believe what they do is right. but i doubt any government would be as cold hearted as people claim.
Paddy104 1 year ago
@Paddy104
First I would like to know: Why you are proud of your country? Are you proud of the way your country has killed millions upon millions of innocent people in so many countries since the end of the last so-called "Just War", World War 2? Are you proud of your country because it is backing Apartheid Israel's attempts to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from their vicinity, with $3 billion in the tax dollars your fellow countrypersons pay? Tell me: What's to be proud of about the US?
alawson911 1 year ago
@alawson911
i see you're point, and i understand you see a government willing to kill innocent vietnamese civilians as a government willing to kill innocent american civilians. But these are different people, and different times, and i look for the good in the world. Gandhi said "be the change you want to see in the world" so i'm trying to spread love and peace, not spend my days angrily checking footage of planes hitting towers, when i should be morning those killed in the attacks.
Paddy104 1 year ago
@alawson911
and also, I'm proud of my country because i'm not the only person who thinks what i think. its the people that make up a country, not its leaders or its governments. otherwise people would still be mindlessly abusive to germany and russia.
Paddy104 1 year ago
@Paddy104
I cannot agree with being proud of something over which one had no control. Maybe you were lucky to have been born or become an American, but proud? Why? Your fellow Americans have done nothing to stop the carnage in Gaza, Afghanistan and Iraq; little to show their shock, horror and disgust at the way their tax dollars are being spent by the people they vote into power, or at least hardly ever protest about their excesses. Because others think as you do, doesn't make you all right.
alawson911 1 year ago
@alawson911
Do you believe America should play the world's police? Personally I feel America has too often stepped over it's limits to apply it's justice to other nations when it should've been left to the UN. Oh well.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays
No, it should not. Of course the U.N. was set up to try to make 'policing' the world the joint responsibility of all nations, but that is not the way to control wealth, is it? And that is why Americans are being sacrificed: for the obscene wealth that the armaments industry generates, and the greed for oil and cheap minerals that drives the U.S. economy, but that is now working in China's favour, so perhaps America is, deservedly, getting its comeuppance.
alawson911 1 year ago
Comment removed
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays
It would help if you wrote understandable English.
alawson911 1 year ago
Comment removed
stbays 1 year ago
@alawson911
Do you think it'd help if the USA pulled it's troops out of foreign territories or is there another way it could try to help?
Better?
stbays 1 year ago
@Paddy104
why so proud?
wyldeyouth 8 months ago
@ssike0
I am a retired director, cameraman film and video editor with over 30 years experience in the shooting, recording and editing of moving pictures, as well as having some experience with computer generated images. I do not know anything about you, except that you have as much of a responsibility to tell the truth as I have. If you are accusing me of telling lies, then point them out. If you are unable to do so, then I will remove your insult from these comments pages, and block you.
alawson911 1 year ago
For the real truth, see the September Clues website and video series.
73849309378 1 year ago
@73849309378
You missed out one important word "September Clues -- Busted!" Anyone who cannot see past Simon Shack's absurd deceptions has a serious problem with reality. But have a look at plain "September Clues", and have a good laugh at its transparent manipulations or the truth.
alawson911 1 year ago
@JayDeeLives
Interesting: Google Earth shows that the buttresses ARE wedge shaped, the sides about 20 degrees off parallel, meaning the face of the rear wedge would be about 40 degrees off the plane of the face which is reflecting the sky. To get an intense reflection of the part of the sky near the sun from a semi-shiny surface, the lens axis would need to be close to 45 degrees to the face of the wedge, but the rear wedge angle would then be about 25 degrees, giving far less reflection.
alawson911 1 year ago
Generally quite good but.... the 'good friend video' at 2.51 is so obviously computer graphics and overlays, it's like looking at super mario!
JayDeeLives 1 year ago
@JayDeeLives
Do you have any proof that what you are saying is correct?
alawson911 1 year ago
hi,
again @2.51 - 2.53
I was using my intuition and 30 years of experience with computer graphics, but since you ask
1 ) The top of the empire state building is solid! It appears in this overlay that the right hand side of the turret which is often seen in photographs reflecting white, has mistakenly become 'transparent' and is showing the sky colour behind the solid tower, I've just flicked through a couple of hundred pictures of the tower and discovered this in 5 mins... how hard can it be
JayDeeLives 1 year ago
@JayDeeLives
Easy. 30 years of computer graphics may have made you forget about the real world. There are four decorative sections; 'turrets' as you call them, on the upper spire of the building, and other photographs show that the sides of these sections are quite shiny. The video has captured the bright eastern sky being reflected from the panel which is oriented at about 45 degrees to the axis of the camera's lens. There is nothing mysterious or CGI about it. How easy can it be?
alawson911 1 year ago
Come on! You are deluding yourself, if that corner was mirrored and the other's weren't that might be a slightly plausible argument, but they are not. Please take some time to look at every other image of the empire state you can find on Google. Can you find an example where the tower has the illusion of being transparent? I couldn't, only one where that same section is solid white, but NOT matching the sky. Was this the source image used here which caused the anomaly?
JayDeeLives 1 year ago
@JayDeeLives
It is intriguing why the opposite buttress does not reflect the sky. Other photos show that there are many antennae beside it, so they could breaking up the strong reflection, or perhaps the surfaces on each buttress are not parallel and the one which is reflecting is at exactly the correct angle to the lens axis to give a reflection of maximum intensity. The shadow detail and the edge of the reflective buttress is very clear, so why would this have been left visible in a CGI?
alawson911 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hi,
again @2.51 - 2.53
I was using my intuition and 30 years of experience with computer graphics, but since you ask
1 ) The top of the empire state building is solid! It appears in this overlay that the right hand side of the turret which is often seen in photographs reflecting white, has mistakenly become 'transparent' and is showing the sky colour behind the solid tower, I've just flicked through a couple of hundred pictures of the tower and discovered this in 5 mins... how hard can it be
JayDeeLives 1 year ago
@kinggunner69 You powers of observation are non-existent. If a camera is pointing down, from a high helicopter position, it will not be "looking" through as much polluted air as a camera which is lower. Of course 9/11 was not perpetrated by box-cutter-wielding Arabs, but the optical reality of these shots has absolutely nothing to do with that aspect of the events, and only a fool would try to make such an absurd connection.
alawson911 1 year ago
@kinggunner69
I can't answer for the visually impaired. You tell me what is in the air when you look horizontally for a distance of 50 miles or so, from a building or a helicopter, across the outskirts of a city into which hundreds of thousands of cars, buses and trucks are entering from about 6 am onwards. Try using YOUR brain, dude, but call me a liar again and you are blocked.
alawson911 1 year ago
lord haw haw.....
SuperBandstand 1 year ago
um so wheres the helicoptor in the video in "rockerfeller center" that did shoot the live video?
fahloc 1 year ago
@fahloc Yet another unobservant critic. Shots from that tilted camera appear several times in the 9/11 video record. The tilt is always the same, so: Guess what? It was a fixed camera set up on one of the tall buildings in the Rockefeller Centre. It's lens was set at quite a narrow angle, so narrow, in fact, that the helicopter you are referring to, also being about the same distance away from the Towers, was never likely to appear in its field of view. Please try thinking of something original.
alawson911 1 year ago
you ask for a lie here is one.( no one pay you a penny to do what you do)
h1grafi 1 year ago
considering the size of your lies no one should listen to you
h1grafi 1 year ago
You stated in your video that the background wasn't visible due to the haze or smog. If I remember correctly the visibility of that day was GREAT. There was no smog or haze. Even the news anchors said it was a picture perfect day. Also, why do all the different videos have a weird color and/or washed out look? The still pictures from that day are very VIVID and clearly show a blue sky. I am wondering it it is an attempt to disguise what ever it was that hit the towers.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 A lens with a narrow viewing angle "looks through" a considerable amount of air and gives an entirely different picture than the human eye and stills cameras, which have a wider angle-of-view. To the eye, the air may look crisp and clear, but view a scene through a 1000 to 2000 mm lens, and you are looking through many more pollution particles. The effect is obvious when looking at the images taken from helicopter cameras on 9/11. Most of the color anomalies are due to copying.
alawson911 1 year ago
funniest line @ 7:39 . . . . they demonstrate a lack of understanding of positional paralax and perspective distortion
dd201011 1 year ago
Ya know I’m going to start my own Demo Company called "USA Suckers Demolition" I'm going to charge 5000$ to drop huge Steel buildings. It’s easy, get some cheap JetAfuel - cut a few random core columns and pore it over 3 floors and throw a match at it. Then I’m going down the Pub for a meal and 5 pints! when I come back I knw the Huge Steel framed building will have fallen down into its own footprint with the steel magically cut ready for transport! I’m GOING TO MAKE a Shitload of Cash! LOL
blackArt2000 1 year ago
Thank you I'm tierd of those 9/11 was a inside job people
ncdhfujdf 1 year ago
@ncdhfujdf
lol, this video only shows that there were planes which crashed into the buildings. I didn0t even know some people were questioning that. But it WAS an inside job. Watch more vids of this channel.
Also now that i think of it, i wouldn't be shocked to find out that people who did this whole mess are making those "there were no planes" allegations so that the "doubters", who still look for the truth behind all this, look like paranoid and dumb.
jeolmmum 1 year ago
@ncdhfujdf LMAO - so you're either a tinfoil wearing crazy person or a wool-wearing person. I'm not going to the slaughter house.
thnksmarter 1 year ago
I wonder if you would remove, or amend, your videos, were I to point out the obviously fallacious arguments they contain?
kkkaldav 1 year ago
Comment removed
kkkaldav 1 year ago 2
@kkkaldav What are the flaws? The points seems valid.
saultrain 1 year ago
@saultrain I can't really remember. That being said, I think my point was that one of his main arguments is that others should take their videos down if he finds what he thinks is a flaw in them and I was asking if he would do the same. One (trivial) example is where he describes the offending video as a "music-video". Since this is a clear ad-hominem, or ad-videoum ;-) argument, it is strictly speaking a fallacy, or at best a cheap-shot. Should he therefore remove his video?
kkkaldav 1 year ago
Comment removed
kkkaldav 1 year ago 2
'A very large plane flew over my building' what building was that supposed to be?
tuffvibes1972 1 year ago 4
@tuffvibes1972 : I can answer that: Get a map and look to see if there were any building under the South Tower plane's flight path. Let me tell you, there were, so it was "supposed" to be one of those buildings. Are you sure you're brain is firing on on all of the cylinders it's got?
alawson911 1 year ago
@alawson911 the woman on the phone that claimed to see the plane hit lived in Chelsea which is a km northof the towers. The plane she "saw" was behind the south tower and therefore impossible for her to see. Look into this more
ssike0 1 year ago
I listened to a radio show you were on in 2008 where you claimed about eye witness reports, then when questioned you could not provide a source, very suspicious. Also banning members from making comments on other videos show's you are in fear of certain people's responses. Why would anyone go to the lengths you have if they were not hiding something?
tuffvibes1972 1 year ago 6
@tuffvibes1972: There were hundreds of eye witness reports, I can't give all their names, or where they can be found; check the NY papers immediately following 911.
I have a right to block people who become tedious, only making accusations with no supporting evidence. Why don't you pick one issue that you have with the video, and try to challenge me on that? Pick carefully, because I have all of the answers. In fact, they are in the video above, if you look at it carefully enough.
alawson911 1 year ago
@alawson911, you said you didn't have a clue in that radio interview, why didn't you say what you have just written on the radio? Maybe you've had time to come up with an answer now! You have all the wrong answers, nothing in your videos seems right to me, there's nothing convincing in this either. Nice try though!
tuffvibes1972 1 year ago 2
@tuffvibes1972: I don't normally use expressions like "haven't a clue", so if that was an interview with James Fetzer or Kevin Barrett, it will be archived, so find it and send the link in a message to my YouTube account, so that I can verify what I actually said. While you are at it, tell me what some of my wrong answers are, in this video. Be specific, and don't generalise. I can answer any question you like, but I cannot answer a general accusation. Now go away and do some research.
alawson911 1 year ago
You're blatantly on the payroll lawson, and you've disabled some of your videos so people cannot write back to prove you're a fake! These respose videos you're making are just making you all look even more GUILTY! You cannot fool everyone!
dnbmonster1 1 year ago 2
@dnbmonster1: Guilty of what? Telling the truth? Yes, I confess. I've disabled comments on some of my videos, and your current comment clearly demonstrates why I have done so. If you have something valid to say, about my conclusions, then say it. Blanket accusation of being "guilty", "on the payroll" and "a fake" are not valid comments, they carry no weight without evidence. If you have something to say about me and my videos, you can always make one yourself. You live up to your name.
alawson911 1 year ago
there's a shot from the empire state building that NY 1 Used. it's very bad though.
Montera15 1 year ago
Great Video. Common sense becomes so hard for someone throwing away all the Data that does not fit thier conclusions. Bush haters and Govt conspiracy freaks already have thier minds made up......its them who are brainwashed.... by anger.
marcusdolby1 1 year ago
@marcusdolby1 : You are wrong if you think that the presence of real planes in New York means that I accept the 9/11 Commission report. I do not. How could anyone accept such a report when the identity of the planes has never been established?
alawson911 1 year ago
@ gemriderz: You are not thinking straight. The engine in Murray Street did not appear to match the plane because we were only TOLD that the plane was United 175. But what if it was not?
Don't you get it? An engine fell out of a building that had been hit by a plane; the engine was real, it was seen, touched, videoed, photographed then dumped in a land fill on Staten Island. Forget everything else and use some logic: If the engine was real, so was the plane. What we don't know is: What plane?
alawson911 1 year ago
gemriderz: You are making unfounded accusations. e.g.: your statement:
"YOU are why they got away with it. Accept WHATEVER you're told."
Is utterly absurd. Can't your brain get itself around the fact that the planes must have been real planes, with real engines, but that they were almost certainly not the planes which the 9/11 Commission and the Bush administration claimed they were?
It is people like me who are revealing the truth, not people like you who can't even think straight.
alawson911 1 year ago
No, I USED to believe they were jets. I even (sadly), at first believed the gov'.
Now I know that engine parts don't match up to the planes, and that almost no one 'saw a jet'.
You'll notice that so many early reports were "a missile", or JUST an explosion, and ONLY until Sawyer and other liars began 'selling back to the on-site people' that it was jets did that lie take hold. Then all the secondary explosions reported BY reporters (broadcasts gone) and fireman of same explosions.
gemriderz 1 year ago
Oh; BTW
When I first heard of 'the shoe bomber', I said "here we go"
Then we had 'the underwear bomber', and THEN I KNEW it was faked. Glad to see W. Tarpley, author, scholar, invest' reporter, say the same
Haliburton and Pent' contractors RUN the world. 'War on Drugs'? Remember? Not enough to sustain a 'war', so we had to have a new enemy - 'Islam'.
So 'whomever' fakes these failed bombing attempts, and you sheep go "ooooo... terrorists"
And you morons buy right in. Sad. ASK - DON'T ACCEPT
gemriderz 1 year ago
Actually, both the tower's and Pentagon's engines didn't match the 'supposed plane'. John Lear and other pilots (100K+ hours flying) reviewed the Pents' 'black box'; "No way - didn't happen".
Final Proof? Remember all the 'conspiracy theorists' that were bashed for called Gulf of Tonkin BS?
48 years later, and BOTH skippers admit the ENTIRE incident was faked!
Anyone care? DO YOU?? 60K dead, 1M Viets
Sheep.
YOU are why they got away with it. Accept WHATEVER you're told.
4 for 4? Nope
gemriderz 1 year ago
@gemriderz I saw that turbine photos was sitting upright under some scaffolding some dude put sign there than took pics, what are odds of engine coming out of one bld and hitting opposite bld than hits road-way in a upright postion, i say very smelly indeed
MrDoverben22 1 year ago
gemriderz : You don't really think that the planes were fake, do you? If you do, then how do you explain the jet-engine core which came out of the northern face of the South Tower, just after the impact. It hit quite high levels of another building, on the way down, and ended up in Murray and Church streets. Too many people make the ridiculous no-planes or faked-planes claim, without explaining where this engine came from.
alawson911 1 year ago
Want to know how it's NOT POSSIBLE it was "Islamic Terrorists"?
Simple.
No WAY IN THE WORLD ANYONE could go 4 for 4 hijacking planes - or anything. It's called "the fog of war", and, AT BEST, they would have succeeded at maybe 1 or 2, the other 2 or 3 attempts having failed.
Simply isn't possible to have a time line SO CLOSE and be 100% successful.
lol. Ask Dick Marchinko. "Two is one, One is none, you pencil-dicked numbnuts".
Not no way, not no how.
Too many credible people call it fake.
gemriderz 1 year ago
ishredu: Your dilemma is shared by many, and this is not difficult to understand when it is more than obvious that the 9/11 Commission did not do its job properly. For a start, it did not call for the forensic identification of the initial murder weapons: the four planes. That was and remains an unacceptable fault; something so rare in normal murder trials that it can be used by the defence to call for a case to be dismissed. Which is what should be done with 9/11, and the process begun again.
alawson911 1 year ago
so what? these people you are correcting are retards......... OBVIOUSLY!
don't for one second think that I buy into the official story, I do not.
in the future please try to "debunk" some of the REAL info-vids out there, for instance try debunking "pilots for 9/11 truth
chew on that stuff for a while
then get back to me.
ishredu 1 year ago
Look at the date on this video, it needed debunking, then. Pilots for 9/11 Truth is either an infiltrated forum or was disinformation from the start. Their stance on the New York planes can easily be debunked, but I'm more interested in doing other things. The planes were real, the question are what planes were they, and how were they flown? None of them has ever been forensically identified. Rob Balsamo of Pilots was just out to make money, selling his video for $19.95.
alawson911 1 year ago
I certainly question charging for info especially in lieu of using the information in a lawsuit (if we are to assume they are "in it" for the correct reasons)
I dunno I have over 1400 hours looking at 9/11 (particularly new york) and my conclusion is that the story cannot be scientifically explained to my satisfaction...really at all.
who did what? I won't even "go there" I'm still trying to make sense out of the pure mechanics of it all.
ishredu 1 year ago
You are a real life Sherlock Holmes! And Your voice is you should narrate or get into movies!
JZPotter 2 years ago
Thank you for your kind comments. I used to be a commercials director, cameraman and editor, so I was loosely connected to the moving picture business, but from behind the camera.
alawson911 2 years ago
Then face the camera! You Are awesome!!!
JZPotter 2 years ago
Where were you when I needed an agent? I'm too old now; I'd frighten little babies away. But thank you for your kind words.
alawson911 2 years ago
In School. That's where I was. You could still narrate!
JZPotter 2 years ago
"Using slow motion is not altering the material"..... Slow motion is altering time. That is called altered. Time is critical. It is the benchmark upon which most science is measured. You cannot measure velocity or motion without time. Kinetic energy equations are impossible without exact speed measurements which are in time ..... example miles per hour, seconds per hour. Every single thing you ever do is measured in time. Farts per hour, meals per day, taxes per year
Time really does matter.
superiorgreen 2 years ago
Of course you are right, in the strictest scientific sense, but using slow motion during a news transmission is not altering the video, in the sense that it changes the image. This is what I meant, because I was dealing with accusations that the videos had been altered, and the sense being conveyed was that their content had been tampered with. Strictly speaking: it is only the time taken to view a video which changes, when it is shown in slow motion, and this does not alter its content.
alawson911 2 years ago
Slow motion on live TV is altered time. Live means at this specific time occuring temporally at the same rate and in the same point that it occurs for the event. All live TV has a dump loop, and is not actually live but seconds or minutes ago. Turns out the pixelation on the videos when zooming in will tell you if it is altered or not. Alot of the footage is looking altered when examined closely. I very much appreciate the fact you prove all things. 9/11 was covered up, there is more to it.
superiorgreen 2 years ago
Time matters, and what someone says matters, as well. I did not say: "Using slow motion is not altering the material" I said:
"TV stations have been slowing down videos of momentous, as well as trivial events, ever since the technology to do so was invented, and it is not considered to be altering the content of the material, any more than reading a Shakespeare sonnet very slowly, changes its meaning."
The title reads: ",,,using slow motion is not altering the content of the material..."
alawson911 2 years ago
Slowmo Live? I like your video. I have been a certified engineer and a licensed California Contractor for 15 years. I build low and mid rise commercial buildings for a living. On any day I deal with ASTM steel, heat transfer, combustion, fasteners and connections, fire systems, reinforced concrete, floorpans, rebar, structural load calculations, fire code, inspections, trusses, fireproofing, shear and lateral strength, foundations, fire ratings, H2O service, etc. Fact ... 9/11 was a demolition.
superiorgreen 2 years ago
Did I say anything about live slow motion? I am a retired commercials director, cameraman and editor with about 30 years in the moving images business, and altering a visual, to me, means changing its nature, by the addition or subtraction of some visual element. Maybe that is too limited, but it seems logical that showing something in slow motion is not actually altering the material. I agree with you: all of those buildings were demolished, please see my video "WTC7 - This is an Orange".
alawson911 2 years ago
I understand. The image being changed is what your saying is altered. That would be the most direct form. Slow motion allows you to see what happened while you blinked. It can and is also used by those in your craft to emphasize a specific moment. I can guide you where to look by using frame speed. Some original news footage was altered. Zoom in it will pixelate more where altered. I like your orange video.
superiorgreen 2 years ago
In a sense, it could be said that an image is altered when it is copied and pixilation occurs. This has led to claims that some of the 9/11 videos were altered, in that the planes were added, which I do not think is true. It needs to be explained exactly what was altered, not just to claim that an alteration took place.
alawson911 2 years ago
Yes, I did mean to write "There will..." Thank you, but I'll let it go, for now.
The mainstream media has never questioned the 9/11 Commission's findings, nor did it use its undoubted power to question how NORAD or the U.S. Air Force allowed four hijacked aircraft to stay aloft until they each crashed, two of them into the WTC. The collapses of the Towers and WTC 7 all look like controlled demolitions, but the mainstream media has stayed silent. If that is not sinister, I don't know what is.
alawson911 2 years ago
8:46-8:55 "The will"? Did you mean "There will"?
Otherwise a mostly fine video. I am however curious about what you meant when you said the mainstream media was helping cover up something sinister. Could you go into more details?
stbays 2 years ago
No parts from ANY of the planes has ever been matched to the maintenance records of the aircraft the 9/11 Commission alleges were involved. Page One of the "How to Solve a Homicide Manual" was ignored: "First, identify the weapon and where it came from". There were allegedly four weapons, but I don't think one of them hit the Pentagon, the simplest reason being that not one photograph shows any marks where the tail fin should have hit. The others were almost certainly remotely controlled.
alawson911 2 years ago
I agree, they were real, just dont know who was flying them. Theres plenty of evidence to support the fact planes did hit the towers and one surely was blown up in shanksville.The pentagon is less clear, many witnesses say there was a plane but no one saw it hit the building, nor reported the tremendous noise a plane flying at 500+mph 50 foot overhead would make. Also no parts with the serial numbers has been recovered from flight 77 so what hit the pentagon and who was flying the WTC aircraft?
babybluesnowden 2 years ago 2
you can see the background just fine in the shot at 4:35? wheres the problem with the smog? 9/11 was an inside job, it was not pulled off by 19 islamic terrorist with box cutters. They may have been involved or are just patsies, but theres just not a chance they pulled this off without assistance.
babybluesnowden 2 years ago 2
At 4:35 you can still see a haze at the top of the screen, but look at the sequence at 8:00. Both shots look similar, but the author of the original video is trying to suggest that the background has disappeared in one of them, when, in fact, the camera is lower, and its long lens is enlarging that distant haze. Of course 9/11 was an inside job, but, although the planes never been forensically identified, it is absurd to suggest that they were not real. That is the point of my video.
alawson911 2 years ago
joiganja: If you were going to attempt to destroy two huge buildings, and target the Pentagon, would you really risk it all by using hijacked planes, or having the media twist it about with CGI? Give me a break. The planes have never been forensically identified, using serial numbers from the debris, so the obvious answer is that they were remotely controlled, having been prepared in some remote, disused desert air force facility and radar swapped when transponders were switched off.
alawson911 2 years ago
you aint busted anything,so take it off.
joiganja 2 years ago
Look at my "Impossible Speed and Impact -- Busted" video. The FAA-permitted test dive speed, Vd, between sea level and 17,845 feet is 420 knots. That is a speed limit, not an airframe limitation, if you can tell the difference. A 19% increase of that figure gives 499.8 knots, which is 575.16 mph. If you don't think that Boeing 767-type aircraft (no one knows for sure, what they were) are capable of withstanding a 19% overstress factor, I suggest that you don't fly in any of them.
alawson911 2 years ago
@alawson911 faa ,i said boeing,what do you mean if i can tell the difference and then say no one knows for sure what they were,if you don,t know what they were how can you comment, also 19% is that to make your theory make sense, the air is too thick at the altitude it hit tower to do those speeds
joiganja 2 years ago
No one knows EXACTLY what kind of aircraft they were. The South Tower plane looks like a Boeing 767, in the videos and photographs, but none of the planes has ever been forensically identified, using serial numbers taken from the debris. If you think that they were holograms or graphics, then that is your problem. Post away, I will not be responding to you, again.
alawson911 2 years ago
i dont think a plane was projected on to the ny sky line,but there is something masking what hit the tower in all the video ,i dont know how they done it either,you say you wont respond,very childish,millions watching in nyc,loads with cameras and no one can identify plane in any of them,show me a film of 2nd strike where the plane has flashing lights underneath like you see everyday on real planes apart from military
joiganja 2 years ago
Not answering comments which I do not understand is not childish. Aircraft flight decks are provided with switches for everything; no flashing lights is hardly mysterious. People like you tend to forget that there were only fifteen minutes separating the strikes and that no one knew a second plane was coming. This, and low definition video and stills cameras explain why the planes cannot be accurately identified. I have no idea what you mean by: "something masking what hit the tower."
alawson911 2 years ago
@alawson91 so how did these inexperienced pilots fly above cloud with no help from air traffic control straight to new york,and i think you know what i mean,the superior intelligence you seem to think you possess clearly isnt there if you don,t.
joiganja 2 years ago
why dont you google boeing altitude speeds and air density
joiganja 2 years ago
IExposeMormonism,
1) You don't know a lot about the air, at ground level, do you. Every big city in the world suffers from "hazy smog" produced by the exhausts of millions of vehicles. Look at the sky, vertically, and you are only looking through about 50 feet of pollution, but a long-focus, helicopter-mounted lens, tilted slightly downwards, will be looking through thousands of feet of pollution or hazy smog.
Google: air pollution height and you can learn something about it.
alawson911 2 years ago
IExposeMormonism,
2) "The Video I recorded on 911 shows 90% fuzzy colors and 2-6% tilt of the WTC and/or ESB."
Percentages of what? The tilt of a structure should be described in terms of degrees, but the tilt almost certainly came from your camera setup; either lens distortion or the camera was at an angle to the horizontal.
At 4:40 there is an excellent example of a terrible video copy, and the plane can be identified, in other videos, as a 767 lookalike; much bigger than a 757.
alawson911 2 years ago
There was no hazy smog on 911. The "What We Saw" video with (?) and Bri clearly shows clear sky. The Video I recorded on 911 shows 90% fuzzy colors and 2-6% tilt of the WTC and/or ESB. In that sense the video is fake. It should show vertical blds and clear sky. The "orb" shot at minute 4:40 is an excellent example. And It Doesn't look at all like a 757.
IExposeMormonism 2 years ago
pianoman21897: Ive removed your message, because I do not tolerate pub language in my message sections, whether the writer approves of my videos, or not. I would appreciate it if you would post a new message, leaving out the swearing.
alawson911 2 years ago
Yeah, all the stuff that you saw was real and happened. But the event should of not have happened. Nor should those building had fallen like they did. Plus there should be more videos from the Pentagon.
Yerizzo 2 years ago
You are absolutely right. It is amazing how many people call me a shill, and worse, because I think that the planes were real.
The question is: What planes were they? The FAA refuses to release any details of serial numbers from the "Black Boxes" or the engines found in New York; near Shanksville and at the Pentagon. The NTSB did not even investigate the crashes. A monster and monstrous cover up, with no physical evidence, whatsoever, to back up the 9/11 Commission's findings.
alawson911 2 years ago
I've put that video on hold, for the moment, mainly due to illness, but also because my research has turned up some conflicting material, and needs to be sorted out. Thank you for your enquiry.
alawson911 2 years ago
No, I certainly don't think that they were. I'm currently writing another video, regarding that issue, and some of the things I've found out will amaze you. Hang in there, I hope to have it finished in a week or two. In the meantime try Googling Aidan Monaghan 9/11 and read the top hit. Good hunting.
alawson911 2 years ago
alawson911,
Watched the "Empire Of Oil: The Hidden History Of 9/11" vid on google ... very informative ... still verifying.
How you making out with this vid you were working on last month?
luvmyctd 2 years ago
I have never believed in the "no planes" theory at the WTC but can we be certain they were the planes (unaltered) that they say they were?
luvmyctd 2 years ago
Some of these truthers have absolutely no grounding in reality. They are now going on about Obama's birth certificate and stuff.
dangerouslytalented 2 years ago
ok that has nothing to do with this. those are all right wing nutjobs. tell me how that is related to this?
Th3xUnkn0wn 2 years ago 2
Phil Berg, a Democrat, is the founder of the Birther movement. Before being a Birther he was a Truther, trying to have the Supreme Court dissolved and sueing Bush for involvement in 911. Alex Jones, another leading truther, is behind the "documentary" called the Obama Deception.
They are doing it because they honestly believe that the government is run by some vast conspiracy, and have to therefore find a way for Obama to fit into this worldview.
dangerouslytalented 2 years ago
oh i wasn't aware of that. but phil berg and alex jones are obviously lunatics who should not be trusted to provide facts.
Th3xUnkn0wn 2 years ago
I don't think any of the truthers should be trusted to provide facts.
dangerouslytalented 2 years ago
yeah, that's why you go and do your own research to see if what they're saying has any validity.
Th3xUnkn0wn 2 years ago 2
I have done my own research. It is only the truther websites that say this kind of thing, and even they are inconsistant with each other.
dangerouslytalented 2 years ago
You suck. You debunked one of my videos on this subject starting at 4:10. Now I feel stupid for not figuring it out myself. So simple. I guess it's hard to see something that's directly in front of you some times.
911TruthVideos 2 years ago
Thank you for your comment. You must know the old saying: Don't get mad, get even. ThoughtCrime7 has known that he was misleading people, ever since I posted this video, and he all he died was comment that he was flattered at the attention Id given him. But he did not take his disinformation down. Anyone who spots this kind of thing, as you have done, should notify the culprit, and try to get him or her to correct their mistake, if that is what it was. Only the truth matters; nothing else.
alawson911 2 years ago
How does he suck, if you failed figuring that out?
sihskaiekkcm 2 years ago
It was meant in a playful way. He saw that. You can butt out.
911TruthVideos 2 years ago
Well you still failed I'm afriad, and no thanks.
sihskaiekkcm 2 years ago
I enjoy the approach you take to addressing the various pseudo-facts found in ThoughtCrime's video as well as the temperence with which you maintain the discussion on your pages.
Some pages, like Loose Change, seem to digress into 'flame-fests', which I think is reflective of the way they present their arguments.
Manelvagorio 2 years ago
Thank you. I don't think that shouting and swearing contests are very productive. I delete all posts with insults and bad language. Some people call that censorship, I call it maintaining a certain level of decorum.
alawson911 2 years ago
Excellent!
Westonelm 2 years ago
Thank you.
alawson911 2 years ago
Right. My point was that the plane wasn't an orb. It was a plane which was wiped out of the picture, because the picture was over compressed.
alawson911 2 years ago
Actually, the Orb WAS the plane. Well, it was an artifact left by the plane when the compression software got rid of the plane as it reduced the resolution of the video when compressing.
dangerouslytalented 2 years ago
im REALLY not trying to attack him, im just trying to make the point that people dont get famous unless they look the part, which mr baker did NOT, right?
w0bbl3r 2 years ago
jastheswift2: You have not quoted any "specific" evidence that the videos of the planes were faked, and citing one person who lied does not make every other eyewitness a liar. If you saw something, and someone else was found to have lied about seeing the same thing, would that make your testimony invalid? A FDNY fire chief testified to seeing the North Tower hit, and his brother was killed that day. Are you calling him a liar?
alawson911 2 years ago
Gary Welz lied. So what? People do such things when seeking their moment of fame.
"...you have little idea how massive and specific the proof is that supports the irrefutable conclusion that footage was faked on 9/11..."
Provide this specific proof to both of us, in message form. If you do not, I will post the fact, here. And remember: there is still no technology capable of projecting images into clear air, or directly onto the retinas of people, or into their video and stills cameras.
alawson911 2 years ago
"Gary Welz lied. So what? People do such things when seeking their moment of fame."
so you are sure that gary welz lied because he was seeking fame?
"Provide this specific proof to both of us, in message form."
because the proof that footage was faked is so clear when presented in a video format, some debunkers like to haggle over words when it comes to the faked footage shown on 9/11. they also like to pretend that the proof does not exist, unless their current opponent brings it up...
jastheswift2 2 years ago
oh, so because somebody shows you a video telling you it was faked, that is proof?
give us some names.
give me another example of thermite/silent demo charges being used, and give me another example of such footage being half CG and half live action, whilst being live. no, scratch that; within 30 mins of being recorded will do, so you cant say it wasnt live, because that is irrelevant if you can find another instance of such techniques being used within 30 mins? so we can ignore live/not live
w0bbl3r 2 years ago
"lied because he was seeking fame? "
can YOU admit that MAYBE he was lying to seek fame?
if so, then why cant you think tjhat people like ace baker are lying to seek fame?
he certainly couldnt get fame and money as a musician, because he was terrible and had no personality. both of which you need to be a succesful musician.
oh, and he was fat and ugly too. im not calling him names, im just saying, fat, ugly people dont get famous for music, right? or not nowdays, anyway
w0bbl3r 2 years ago
"can YOU admit that MAYBE he was lying to seek fame?
if so, then why cant you think tjhat people like ace baker are lying to seek fame?..."
are you getting desperate? you want me to admit and submit to your baseless speculation about gary welz? laughable...
does soliloquizing about ace baker's appearance and personality have any affect on the evidence for faked footage that has been reached and demonstrated by many others besides ace baker?
jastheswift2 2 years ago
unless you CAN give me this evidence, your argument is ridiculous.
give me one instance of thermite being used for CD. not because i want you to fail, but because i cant find any myself. same with experts saying it was fake, and silent CD
w0bbl3r 2 years ago
w0bbl3r: Ace Baker is not, or was not (if his suicide was not faked) fat, or ugly, either. Google - Hardfire DID A PLANE HIT THE SOUTH TOWER? Baker can be seen at counter 4:00. Even if you were right, you do not advance your argument by writing such things about people with whom you do not agree.
alawson911 2 years ago
well he was a bit fat, and he was VERY ugly and nerdy looking.
not nearly a cool looking rock star, was he?
and i was just saying that not to call him names, but as a statement of fact that he would find it difficult to become famous as a musician even if he were talented, which he wasnt.
so, going the "inside job/no planes" bullshit route, he found an easier way to fame.
i wasnt trying to call him names, just stating fact.
would britney be famous if she were ugly? or j-lo? or paris?
w0bbl3r 2 years ago
My point was, and is, that personal attacks or derogatory comments about someone with whom you disagree do not advance your argument, as far as what is under discussin goes. In fact it demonstrates that you are unable to stick to the point.
alawson911 2 years ago
you dont understand my point.
i wasnt calling him names, just stating fact that ugly fat people dont tend to become famous for music, right? thats just fact. im not having a go, just saying.
so, ace wanted to be famous, but was too fat and ugly to make it in mainstream pop culture, right?
so, he just took advantage of ignorant people like our little friend here, and made money and got some fame that way instead.
w0bbl3r 2 years ago
and seeing and hearing testimony from dozens of eyewitnesses at the time, and countless more since, is just further proof that you are just a moronic little boy who has played too many videogames and watched too many episodes of 24
w0bbl3r 2 years ago
"and seeing and hearing testimony from dozens of eyewitnesses at the time,..."
how do you feel about the fake witness gary welz? why have fake witnesses and faked footage if it would be certain that "dozens" of people would see a plane enter the tower?
jastheswift2 2 years ago
what i said was that IF there were PROOF of who did it, they would have been tried, and convicted.
the very fact that not only has all footage been proven real, but also no people have been tried, is 110% proof that there is NO evidence to the contrary.
you claim it is proven the footage was fake. if that were true, they would have tried those responsible, including the whole world press, and the city of new york (including FDNY and NYPD personnel).
AGAIN, you are an idiot.
you cant help it
w0bbl3r 2 years ago
"the very fact that not only has all footage been proven real, but also no people have been tried, is 110% proof that there is NO evidence to the contrary."
childish logic. the footage has been presumed real by you and other debunkers. no one being officially tried has no effect and cannot negate the veracity and strength of the massive evidence provided...it is your choice to swallow and accept as authentic all that is shown on television...
jastheswift2 2 years ago
no, the footage has been PROVEN real, by experts in "video manipulation", video editing, CGI in live broadcasts, and all other forms of video techniques, from all over the world.
so, in short, i DONT know the "Limits of" it, but i have seen, read, and heard proven testimony from people who DO.
you have heard ramblings from a fat, crap musician, and that is more believable?
moronic logic at best.
w0bbl3r 2 years ago
"you have heard ramblings from a fat, crap musician, and that is more believable?"
you are childishly judging the veracity of the evidence for faked footage on factors irrelevant to it...your comment, in your delusional allusion to a single person, also shows that you have little idea how massive and specific the proof is that supports the irrefutable conclusion that footage was faked on 9/11, and how it is been determined by numerous individuals...
jastheswift2 2 years ago
"veracity of the evidence"????
there is NO evidence at all.
you cant put someone who knows nothing about video editing and such, against experts in this field (who obviously own him at every turn), and stand with the uneducated crap musician.
thats just choosing what you want to believe, rather than using the proof and facts that are in front of you.
and i said dozens of people at the time. and hundreds more since.
this is called selective perception, and you seem to do it all the time, moron
w0bbl3r 2 years ago
"...against experts in this field (who obviously own him at every turn), and stand with the uneducated crap musician."
the fact that you attribute all the evidence that footage was faked to an "uneducated crap musician" shows that you have little idea how expansive the evidence for faked footage is, as well as the numerous individuals who have ascertained such evidence. thus, your appeal to unnamed experts is shallow because your scope of the faked footage evidence is severely limited...
jastheswift2 2 years ago
then give me one other example of thermite being used for CD, one other example of live CGI rendering into live action footage, and one video editing and/or CGI expert who backs your claims.
give me those 3 things, and i will once again look into this, because i can find none of those examples.
if you cant find thermite in CD (you cant, its impossible) then give me an example of silent demo charges, because explosions were NOT heard anywhere near the correct area, at anywhere near the right time
w0bbl3r 2 years ago
"how expansive the evidence for faked footage is"
then give me names of experts in this field that back up uyour claims.
ther are NONE, are there?
and even having one or two would be normal for something like this, because people always go against the grain in scientific theories, like with the whole inside job/CD bullshit, but when such an overwhelming amount of experts give such factual evidence, and can even prove how they came to these conclusions, then the tiny minority are just ignorant
w0bbl3r 2 years ago
"then give me names of experts in this field that back up uyour claims.
ther are NONE, are there?"
typical move by a debunker whose position is wobbly: instead of trying to refute the evidence that footage was faked, he/she evasively asks for "names." in this way, the debunker unscientifically judges the evidence based on the "name" without looking at the actual evidence. your asking for "names" merely shows that you have little understanding of that which you are trying to refute...
.
jastheswift2 2 years ago
"instead of trying to refute the evidence"
that is why i am asking for people to provide this evidence. i havent seen any.
and where are your sources on silent explosives, CGI editing into live action footage, and thermite used for CD?
you avoid what i am asking for by trying to say i am not seeing the evidence i am asking you to provide? thats real intelligent.
i asked, and alawson911 has asked, for this evidence, yet you claim we are ignoring it.
typical noplaner move i think
w0bbl3r 2 years ago
We do not know what kind of planes flew into the Towers, because the NTSB cannot or will not confirm that they were the allegedly hijacked ones. When ID transponders are switched off, in the vicinity of another plane, there is no way for ATC to tell which blip is which. The only possible reason for the FAA to withhold the serial numbers is because there is something to hide, just like the videotapes from about 50 surveillance cameras around the Pentagon have been hidden since 9/11. Wise up!
alawson911 2 years ago
SOAS007 So where did these flights go?
Dont ask me that question, ask someone who might know. Here are two questions for you:
Were weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq? George Bush and his team of experts swore that they were there, but, after over a million Iraqi and thousands of Americans deaths, with many more innocent people maimed for life, they still have not been found.
Do you think those people would be concerned about what happened to four plane-loads of civilians?
alawson911 2 years ago
The flights few in to the towers..
wmd's are hidden like in the US and UK. You are not supposed to find them. they had to go somehwere though.!
SOAS007 2 years ago
These flights are extrememly famous. So you say they did not exist.
The people who would have been involved with them that day( bagage handlers, check in , fuelers, food,airport airtraffic,transport to aircraft drivers and staff) Would say 'funny I don't remember that plane being here and It would have been part of my duty.' Two airports, two airlines.. So where did these flights go?>
SOAS007 2 years ago
OOAS007, You left out the important conditional phrase: "when it is clear that much else is being hidden."
Try finding out the serial numbers from the engines and other parts of the wreckage from the aircraft that crashed that day; particularly the serial numbers on the flight-data and cockpit-voice recorders. You will find they are being withheld by the FAA, backed up by the Justice Department. Dont take my word for it, Google: 9/11 black box serial numbers
Then get back to me.
alawson911 2 years ago
Hello RuffleTheTeacher,
Thank you for your comment. I will be putting up another 9/11 video on YouTube shortly, and it is comments like yours which compel me to keep going. My new catchphrase is:
Only fools believe what they are told, when it is clear that much else is being hidden.
alawson911 2 years ago
"Only fools believe what they are told"
told by who, the conspiracy theory nonsence mob.. Too many people would have to be involved if it was an inside job.!
SOAS007 2 years ago
exactly my point.
conspiracies are virtually impossible to keep secret, especially one like this, that would take probably tens of thousands of people on the inside.
all these people have kept quiet?
impossible.
people say "it shouldnt have happened like that". ok, shouldnt have is not the same as IMPOSSIBLE, which is the case with CD, thermite, keeping thousands quiet, CD-ing a building from the top not the bottom, and many other things claimed by these loonballs
w0bbl3r 2 years ago
if a conspiracy is uncovered, the fact that it has been uncovered is a reason inept debunkers use to show that there was no conspiracy to begin with...some debunkers just can't accept that they have been deceived, so they use all their intellectual might to defend that which they have swallowed...
jastheswift2 2 years ago
but no conspiray has been uncovered, moron.
where is the uncovering?
i say there are aliens living in my backyard. does that mean i have uncovered the proof of alien life?
because someone says something is so, without any proof whatsoever, doesnt make it so.
"debunkers" (although there is really nothing to debunk), just require evidence to put their faith in something.
i HATE the government, but cant just blindly blame them for things because of that, or ignore the laws of science
w0bbl3r 2 years ago
"but no conspiray has been uncovered, moron."
footage shown on 9/11 has been exposed as faked. some debunkers refuse to accept this fact, however....
jastheswift2 2 years ago
no,