South Tower Anomalies III - Addressing the Debunkers

Very interesting, thanks for your efforts. It´s kind of a shame that we still have to discuss about the topic 911 anyway, I remember seeing it live on TV and it was impossible for me to believe it.
Bush beeing in a kindergarten at that moment of the impact...that´s bad  screenplay

that was a very impressive video. you definately saved the best for last with the fireball comparisons. never seen that in any videos before. good job man!

I think that makes my case for a lack of informed perspectives nicely. I think the video is interesting, although I think the whole 'no aircraft' argument is absurd in the extreme. Psy ops on the thousands that saw planes? Puh-lease. On thing I don't see in the vid is any references to the level of pixellation, a real aircraft would be nowhere near as clearly defined as the models suggest. When the tower is 1 inch high on the screen a plane won't be visible.

I don't say there was no aircraft - I believe some type of aircraft hit the towers. I try to emphasize the difference between no-planes theory and fake news theory. There are many examples of fake news on 911 - check this out:
watch?v=X72d7v3smxc

I understand that you're not making this point but others do. I disagree with the term 'fake news' though, certainly on some of the clips you've presented where they have been slowed down for example. I apprecate your point that this makes them "not original" but i don't make the leap that there's anything underhand about it. 'Action" shots are often slowed down on the news for many reasons such as letting the audience grasp what they are seeing or stretching to fit a particular news segment.

Fair enough. I would check out "September Clues" if you haven't already. It may not convince you of anything, but he presents the best argument for & analysis of deliberately altered video.

Will do. Thanks. The joy of an intelligent discussion!

Cheers!

Ok, I watched as part as H before my brain was leaking out from my ears. If that's the best argument and analysis then with respect this perspective is in real trouble. I suppose I should mention I'm a professional analyst so filling in gaps in problems is what I do. The only, and I mean ONLY, interesting point made was regarding the apparent use of the same soundtrack, although I obviously do not have access to the original footage. Most of the other points were immediately dismissable.

I'd be happy to discuss point by point if you'd like, but some of the fundamental points were just too laughable.