View topic - RICK SIEGEL - unforgettable mega shill • Cluesforum.info I just realized that this "TRUTHERS AND SHILLS" section of our forum lacks a thread dedicated to the most spectacularly bold / blatant yet insidious "truther"-shilll of them all : the alleged "amateur 9/11 videographer" Rick Siegel. I was reminded of the clown today by the good Joan Edwards over at Fetzer's "REAL DEAL" blogspot. Hopefully, you will all enjoy reading this little piece of historical 'drama' leading up to the gradual exposure of the fake 9/11 imagery - which, as we will see, must have caused some panic among the MSM gatekeeping crowd... Little did I know about this fellow Rick Siegel's background as I signed up to "911researchers.com" - a discussion forum that Rick had founded. This was back in late 2006 / early 2007, as I was still working on September Clues v.1.0 (which I first released - on Livevideo.com - on June 5, 2007). At the time, Siegel's forum was one of only two places on the internet (along with Killtown's "911movement.org" forum) to allow any discussions about image fakery, or rather, about "NPT"(No-Plane-Theory") as it was called back then.All I knew about Siegel at the time was that he had produced a (crappy) 9/11 'conspiracy'-movie named "911 EYEWITNESS" - which starred Siegel himself in the guise of a "private citizen who - allegedly - filmed the WTC1 collapse from Hoboken, New Jersey". In fact, Siegel's collapse imagery was - at the time - the ONLY EXISTING supposed "amateur" collapse 'video' with a name attached to it. Yes, there were maybe 2 or 3 other blurry (alleged "amateur") collapse videos circulating back then, but they were anonymous (uncredited) and featured (Steven Rosenbaum's) "CAMERA PLANET" watermark. However, I soon started wondering why Siegel, the "911researchers.com" administrator never seemed to perform any research at all. All he did was posting silly gossip, vapid or/and provocatory comments - and whatnot. But since this was one of only two forums which tackled issues related to my own 9/11 research, I hung around there hoping to get some of my ideas across to its readers - and to learn good stuff from the forum's best contributors. And suddenly, around mid-2007, all hell broke loose... Please stay with me, because this gets pretty funny - knowing what we know today here on Cluesforum.As it happened, Siegel had started viciously attacking the author ("Sophia Shafquat" - aka "Sofia Smallstorm") of another 9/11 'conspiracy' movie, "911 MYSTERIES". Siegel accused Sofia (who had used parts of his purported WTC1 collapse video) of having "tampered with it" (you've gotta love it!... tampering with fake footage!) - and was even threatening her with a big lawsuit ! :P Next, Siegel was himself accused (by another 911 "truther" clown, John Albanese) of having viciously harassed a "9/11 victim family member", namely, the infamous Ellen Mariani (who has since been exposed as a fraud / impostor). That Siegel-Albanese "feud" (a crass dog-and-pony show) even made it to the New York Post :
Siegel's Bio:RICK SIEGEL is an award-winning Director of Photography who has worked in film and television for over twenty-five years. He has been DP on several feature films, including Bomber, which won Best Feature at several major film festivals, and Trust, Greed, Bullets and Bourbon, which is in post-production (8.13). Siegel won an Emmy Award (Outstanding Achievement for Single Camera Photography) for his episodic narrative work on ABC's Crash The Curiousaurus. (...)Siegel has designed and photographed over 100 televised music and comedy shows, including several seasons of A&E's Live By Request, Dave Matthews Band in Central Park, PBS's In the Spotlight series with Steely Dan, and Nora Jones in concert. E.P.K.'s for music artists include Tony Bennett, Celine Dion, Michael Jackson, Lady Gaga, Jennifer Lopez, and Jessica Simpson. Comedy specials designed and photographed by Siegel include those featuring Lewis Black, Wyatt Cenac, Craig Ferguson, Kevin Hart and John Oliver.For Bloomberg TV, Siegel designed and implemented the lighting for the Republican Presidential Debate in New Hampshire with Charlie Rose as moderator. He has lit and photographed many of Diane Sawyer and Barbra Walters' Celebrity interviews for ABC's PrimeTime and 20/20, as well as Walters' annual Most Fascinating People Specials. Siegel's commercial and infomercial clients include MTV, Nicoderm, Reebok and Time-Life. In his fashion and fragrance work, he has worked with many of the top designers such as Donna Karen, Calvin Klien and Ralph Lauren."http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0797002/bio? ... _ov_bio_sm
This video by Rick Siegel looks definitely genuine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ808QZjHxQAnd the smoke at the basement is telling. And here is another video where the camera is shaking a few seconds before the collapse of the other tower: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM88xJX5FsAMy latest theory is that massive amounts of conventional explosives were used below the foundations of the towers. This caused the whole core column sections to fall down into deep beforehand dug holes and thereby pull the buildings down.Thermite was used on the impact floors to soften the steel and cause the collapses to start at those floors.
Fetzer mentioned four forces in physics. I'm not an expert but I think the so-called color force is an additional force. And there is also the Casimir force caused by quantum effects. The van der Waals force is some kind of messy mix that seems to have been introduced because they don't grasp the true nature of forces in physics yet.I believe all forces, including gravity, are Casimir effects. That everything is waves (a particle is a wave packet) and that all forces are simply gradients caused by wave interactions."Maybe that is our mistake: maybe there are no particle positions and velocities, but only waves. It is just that we try to fit the waves to our preconceived ideas of positions and velocities.The resulting mismatch is the cause of the apparent unpredictability." -- Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, ch. 12.
I tend to agree, Anders.
Anders Lindman said :"This video by Rick Siegel looks definitely genuine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ808QZjHxQ "What specific features were you looking for to determine the fakeness or authenticity of that video, Anders?regards, onebornfree
It's poor video quality yet it "hangs together" in a way consistent with ordinary videos like that.Compare with: Theory of Ghostplane -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXmgF2yAEcNow, THAT's fakery. :-)And that fakery wasn't even done by the perpetrators according to my hypothesis.The only fakery the perpetrators needed was this crude 2D silhouette of a plane: Second plane hit, ABC, 9/11, 09:02 -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FphTec8I0XgSuper simple psyOp! The video fakery of the amateur videos was done later by people who had to cover up the event. Why do it the hard way when they can "outsource" the whole massive coverup? Ha ha.
"The only fakery the perpetrators needed was this crude 2D silhouette of a plane: Second plane hit, ABC, 9/11, 09:02"I was home that morning and watched the replay on TV soon after it 'occurred." The very first thing that struck me was the "terrorist" plane as it head towards the WTC--it just didn't look right, i.e, it was dark, etc., something very odd on that very bright, clear, sunny Tuesday morning. What was more odd later that morning when I heard over the radio that the buildings "collapsed." Huh?? Massive skyscrapers just don't "collapse!" Something definitely, pardon the expression, was not Kosher! Little did I realize that day just how "Kosher" that whole false flag terror attack really was!WLP
Anders Lindman wrote:"The only fakery the perpetrators needed was this crude 2D silhouette of a plane: Second plane hit, ABC, 9/11, 09:02 (...) Why do it the hard way when they can "outsource" the whole massive coverup? Ha ha."********************************************Anders, You clearly don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. If you are to comment / and opine about the imagery aired on ("LIVE") TV on 9/11, I think you ought to do some homework first. I can help you with that - if you wish.For starters, here is what I call the "16 SECOND MAGIC SEQUENCE" - please watch it carefully and try to process in your mind what all of this implies :http://septemberclues.info/images/16%20SECONDS%20LIVE%20APPROACH.gifIn addition to that sequence, we have the infamous "Nose-Out" shot -aired "LIVE" on FOX TV. In fact - and as documented in the official 9/11 TV archives - we are asked to believe that "FLIGHT 175" was captured live by CBS,NBC, ABC and FOX - while CNN, for some reason, showed the same TV feed as ABC (which was also shown "live" in the UK by the BBC). Moreover, only 1min and 52 secs later, CBS aired an additional shot of "FLIGHT 175" ( I call it the "CBS Follow-up Shot").Here are a couple of links to my studies which may help you get up to speed regarding the "live" imagery aired on the various major TV networks on the morning of September 11, 2001 :THE AIRPLANE ANIMATIONS AIRED ON LIVE TV:http://septemberclues.info/wtc_airplanes.shtmlSYNCHED OUT:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P9k7Et4zUkSimon Shack
Simon, I think you have done great research but I disagree that everything was faked on 9/11.The perpetrators indirectly forced the U.S. government to do a monumental coverup simply by inserting a crude 2D plane into three live video feeds (with a few seconds delay to allow for synchronization). And shaped charges cut out the plane shaped holes in the towers.The TWA 800 hoax was a preparation for 9/11 to make the government learn how to fake victims.The huge coverup still going on today has been needed for national security reasons, and those doing the coverup were innocent when it comes to the initial attacks. With minimal effort the perpetrators have compromised the whole U.S. government, media, academia and so on, and even in countries outside the U.S.
It isn't obvious what we should be looking for athttp://septemberclues.info/images/16%20SECONDS%20LIVE%20APPROACH.gifSimon.You should point us to the original footage and state your concern. I'll check out the other links later and hopefully won't again have to ask you to do what any sensible contributor would have done automatically. [Why IS every variety of truther or nationalist or antisemite always so damn bad at putting across his message? It's like a conspiracy or something.]
Anders said: "The perpetrators indirectly forced the U.S. government to do a monumental coverup simply by inserting a crude 2D plane into three live video feeds (with a few seconds delay to allow for synchronization). And shaped charges cut out the plane shaped holes in the towers."So, you know who the perps were?Who were they? Who has such power over the great US military and its national security?
Anders is also admitting the scene was tampered with--the cutting of the shaped holes in the towers. You should include the setting off of fuel to look like fireballs, but most of all,there was all this smoke coming out of the towers like smoke stacks for 102 minutes. Busy perps also getting ready to nuke the buildings????? That's not Occam's Razor with that much activity before a demolition.
Doesn't it make sense, Anders, if you were planning to blow up a building, you'd want to do it privately in case something went wrong. How easy to hand over to the networks some cassettes of how this demolition would look especially if you are going to claim planes did the damage? Occam's Razor.
PS. You would do this under the guise of a drill. That way, police, firemen, media people would all cooperate and help you no questions asked.
Don, please do the simple article we discussed, where you disabuse misimpressions of how a nuke would look and what it would do.This would include handling why the air was cool, the plastic unaffected but steel disintegrated (cars), the leaves unaffected.
I can't believe you are using the videos as evidence, particularly the "tipping cube." It's obvious you've not checked the veracity of these so-called "live" videos consisting of 102 minutes broadcast all over the world (and recorded on home video tape everywhere) by all five networks.It is evidence even though and particularly because it has obviousy been tampered with and altered to create an impression in the mind of the public. You have joined the establishment of Steven Jones, Judy Wood, Richard Gage in continuing the coverup. You accuse others of being 'limited hangouts" yet you are somehow different?By accepting the videos as real, you are making Judy Wood's major mistake by accepting all the photography as real and building her whole theory around it. What a waste.
Let's get down to the nitty gritty. Your interest in nukes reinforces the establishment view that 3,000 were killed. Without nukes, people would have been evacuated. There would have been no hijackers, no fires and no huge smoke stacks. 9/11 was a real estate deal, the motive being money. Look what has been achieved since then. The Freedom Tower, millions to "victims" NYC now greatest REstate market. etc.
Anders Lindman said : "It's poor video quality yet it "hangs together" in a way consistent with ordinary videos like that."So you are saying that you have no other criteria to determine video authenticity other than poor overall quality, yes? Seems a little, er, "thin on the ground" methinks :-)Be that as it may, a relevant question for you then: Why has an alleged "top flight" pro photographer [Siegal] produced such a low quality video? WTF did he shoot that footage with?Anders Lindman said : "yet it "hangs together" in a way consistent with ordinary videos like that." First of all, the various 9/11 videos of the three most captured events : 1] Fl.175's "strike , 2] the fall of WTC2, 3] the fall of WTC1 , do _not_ all "hang together", as Simons given links quite clearly demonstrate.However, lets assume, for the sake of argument, that they actually did all "hang together"- would that then mean that they were all genuine? No, of course not. This is in fact a clear error in logic/deductive reasoning famously used by Mr Fetzer himself [an alleged former teacher of logic and critical thinking :-) ] on numerous occasions, both here and elsewhere.The reason it is an error in thinking is simply because that because of computer technology, it has been possible since at least the mid 1990's to manufacture video sequences wholly within a computer, and to then generate multiple "prints" of that sequence, each "print" showing a shift in camera perspective so that the viewer gets the impression that the different from original "print" was done via a different camera , from a different p.o.v. , when all that in fact occurred was that the computer operator made a few keystrokes to produce that seemingly different camera perspective. That operation can be repeated literally hundreds of times to produce hundreds of slightly different original-looking "prints" of the same event, each with their own unique perspective. All done on ONE computer.:-)So you see Anders, the whole "they all hang together" "argument" is dead in the water for at least two reasons: 1] The videos don't "all hang together". 2] Even if they did somehow "all hang together", because of modern technological abilities it would not mean they were authentic. Regards, onebornfree.
Could Siegal have been in on it? Absolutely, that's possible. But that doesn't mean they put in tons of efforts on CGI fakery when they could get away with just faking the 2D plane silhouettes in the live video feeds. Think simplicity. When something gets too complex, then Occams' Razor cuts it away.
Anders, if you look at Sept. Clues, you will find that every photo was taken by a professional photographer, producer or animator. Rick was the only one submitting from New Jersey--across the water with a view of the south tower. Don't you find that a bit odd?Simplicity, simplicity!
Anders,Please go to this link and watch what Rick Siegel tried to sell to us:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izAeIhgQWw4&feature=player_detailpage#t=554Rick Siegel's caption says: "A LONE BIRD RIDES A HOT THERMAL IN A CIRCLE ABOVE THE DUST CLOUDS". Do you, Anders, really believe that a bird flying in the vicinity of the WTC could possibly have been captured by Rick Siegel's camera - from 3km away? Or is it more plausible that Rick Siegel's alleged "footage" is entirely fake / computer-generated ?Simon Shack
Anders Lindman said: "Could Siegal have been in on it? Absolutely, that's possible. But that doesn't mean they put in tons of efforts on CGI fakery when they could get away with just faking the 2D plane silhouettes in the live video feeds. Think simplicity. When something gets too complex, then Occams' Razor cuts it away."This is another example of faulty thinking , [just like the "they all hang together" argument :-)], in my opinion. You can make all the time-wasting excuses you want Anders , including Occams Razor theory, or whatever [eg "they all hang together"], but unfortunately, the only real way to determine whether or not the Siegel vid. is genuine or not is to closely examine it , frame by frame, and look for clues/giveaways as to its fabrication [or not]. In reality, that is the only way to actually establish whether or not the collapse sequences [including Siegels non MSM sequence and others like it] are genuine or not - it is necessary to completely forget subjective interpretations of what Occams Razor [etc.] means, and to instead actually take the time to closely examine the video[s] for technical faults/giveaways, of which there are many, but I'm not going to list them here :-). From your previous lack of a response to my opening question, it is obvious that you do not know what to look for. That's OK, neither did I at one time, so I understand your position. The question is, are you willing to actually go to the trouble of learning what to look for in this and other videos, and then to study it/them closely, or, are you, like most others here, including Fetzer and Fox, instead going to indefinitely keep loudly chanting the mantras of "they all hang together" and/or "Occams Razor" as if, like a cross waved at a vampire, those phrases and others similar have some sort of magical power to ward off the "evil spirit" of the necessity to actually take a close look at those videos, after taking the time to learn what to look for within them? Regards, onebornfree.
"... the only real way to determine whether or not the Siegel vid. is genuine or not is to closely examine it , frame by frame, and look for clues/giveaways as to its fabrication [or not]."Fair enough. I would be surprised if it could be shown that the Siegel video is CGI fakery. I absolutely doubt that, but yes to really know for sure such investigation is needed I agree.
This comment has been removed by the author.
View of WTC from Hoboken--west and north of the complex.https://www.flickr.com/photos/wallyg/161985174/in/photostreamYou can only see the north tower from where Siegel was filming, I now see. WTC2 was hidden behind WTC1. Sorry for being over zealous, but what a good vantage point for film fakery.
To paraphrase David Lee Roth: Look at all the shills here tonight! Someone must have pushed the panic button over at the ADL if Shack is posting here. Simon: have you figured out the Earth is round yet? Have you been able to grasp the concept of satellites in geosynchronous orbit?
Don, Simon didn't make that post. I did. I took it from his website where he commented further on Seigel's work. It was I who noticed that it has to be faked because of the geography. Look at the clip and tell me if I'm wrong.
I enjoy your posts, OBF
Thanks, Anon.Regards, onebornfree
View topic - RICK SIEGEL - unforgettable mega shill • Cluesforum.info iew forum - Truthers and shills • Cluesforum.info http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1745 16:51 collapse WTC2 BEHIND WTC 1-- you can hardly see it except for cube tilt. Why do we see only one tower which eventually falls at 38:00?
Don Fox said :' To paraphrase David Lee Roth: Look at all the shills here tonight! " Hi, Don, this just in: Casting aspersions, name-calling etc. [ eg ""shill", "jew" "flat earther" etc.] is nothing more than attempted character assassination, and has nothing to do with a serious attempt at argumentation. That you should consistently engage in this type of behavior, [because you've got nothing else, I'm guessing], and that Mr Fetzer would have on his show yet again, as sole guest, speaks volumes about both yours, and his ongoing desperation. So by all means carry on digging your own graves! What a laugh. :-)Regards onebornfree
OBF,Many times you have stated that Simon Shack has "scientifically analyzed" the 9/11 footage. His contention that the whole thing was a "102 minute movie" is demonstrably false. We wrote an article on this back in 2014 that people should check out. Shack denies that satellites exist because the existence of satellites disproves his Flat Earth Theory. Shack denies evidence that doesn't fit with his bizarre world view. Shack has no concept of the scientific method. Shack's "analysis" of 9/11 is a complete joke at best and a deliberate deception at worst. The regulars here know that Shack is completely full of shit but since Jim is on a new network now there may be a few new people. They deserve to know what Shack is all about.
Anders Lindman said: " I would be surprised if it could be shown that the Siegel video is CGI fakery. I absolutely doubt that, ..." Anders, if you are able, step away from this [your] statement and look at it as an unbiased outsider, or, the proverbial "fly on the wall", for a minute or two. Or, if you prefer, "in the cold light of day."Do you see the pre-bias of your very own statement? In other words, it appears that you are saying that even if you did bother to look closely at the Siegel [or other] footage, you would be starting your investigation of it with a pre-assumption [ ie bias], that the footage is genuine, yes?So, an important question for you Anders:If you start your investigation with the pre-assumption that the sequence in question is genuine, are you more, or less likely to reach a conclusion that the sequence is genuine, hmm? Second question: Do you believe that it is intellectually honest, for a serious 9/11 investigator, or even for a private individual merely interested in trying to establish some truth for him/herself about the alleged events of 9/11, to start their evidentiary review process from the position of pre-bias towards the authenticity of so-called evidence such as videos and/or photos, when it almost inevitably means that, in reality, it dramatically increases the chances of them proving to themselves that the "evidence" under review is genuine, in basically what is known as "a self-fulfilling prophecy"?And, of course, such investigative pre-review bias is "standard operating procedure" when reviewing possible evidence, for 99.9% of the so-called "9/11 truth movement", including both Messrs. Fetzer and Fox . You gotta love it . :-( Regards, onebornfree.
I have changed my view on 9/11 many times, but when it comes to the all-fakery theory I want to see some more blatantly obvious evidence before I change my mind again.It's good that you and others examine the all-fakery scenario. Just in case. Who knows what trickery has been done. It's just that for me personally I'm still sticking to the minimal-fakery hypothesis.If you believe that the footage of the collapses of the WTC towers were faked, what do you think the supposed real demolition looked like? Surely you must at least admit that the towers did come down.
Anders Lindman said: "I want to see some more blatantly obvious evidence "But that's just my point, Anders.That is, if you do not change/dispense with the pre-review bias you currently entertain when reviewing possible evidence, you are entirely unlikely to see any one thing blatant enough to change your mind. As I said before, you are merely going to reinforce/"prove" to yourself what you already believe, i.e. that the videos are genuine - nothing more than a "self-fulfilling prophecy".But by all means, carry on :-) .Regards, onebornfree
Well, if I had been clinging to a bias I would still believe in the Loose Change documentary. Or even in the official 9/11 story! (As I did in the beginning.) :D
Dear Anders Lindman, you wrote:"I would be surprised if it could be shown that the Siegel video is CGI fakery. I absolutely doubt that, but yes to really know for sure such investigation is needed I agree."*******************So, I have spent some time today doing just that. I sincerely wish to thank you for reviving my interest in looking into what must be the most boring (and fakest) 'conspiracy documentary' of all time - namely, Rick Siegel's "911 EYEWITNESS". To be sure, Rick Siegel was the very first clown who came up with the "nuke demolition" silliness...http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2395040#p2395040Simon Shack
The smoke moving to the left mirrored in the building is a reflection of smoke moving to the left (or at least away from the camera), isn't it?Looks consistent to me.
Anders Lindman said : "Well, if I had been clinging to a bias I would still believe in the Loose Change documentary. Or even in the official 9/11 story! (As I did in the beginning.) :D"And yet you had previously stated: " I would be surprised if it could be shown that the Siegel video is CGI fakery. I absolutely doubt that, ..." , indicating that without even knowing what to look for within the Siegel vid. that would indicate fakery, you are already pre-biased/predisposed to believe it to be authentic :-).Regards, onebornfree
Don Fox said : "Shack has no concept of the scientific method. Shack's "analysis" of 9/11 is a complete joke at best and a deliberate deception at worst. " Don, F.Y.I., with regards to a scientifically schooled/trained investigator, the scientific method does NOT include a process whereby possible evidence, i.e videos and photos, is automatically elevated to the level of "genuine, reliable evidence" without first being rigorously checked/cross-checked, as far as I am aware. Never has, never will.When reviewing such videos/photos, the genuine scientist/researcher will religiously maintain an entirely neutral, "don't know" attitude as to its/their authenticity, [ie: "they might be real, they might be fake- I cannot know at this time"], _until_ such time when they have been subjected to repeated tests, examinations and comparisons, in order to try to determine whether or not it/they can be relied on as real evidence, and _then_ possibly used to formulate a tentative "what really happened" hypothesis. You claim that Mr "Shack has no concept of the scientific method" , and yet, somehow, he is one of the very, very few people investigating 9/11 in this world who has ever [since sometime around 2006-07], seriously tried to perform various video/photographic analyses on most of the available 9/11 image pool, BEFORE deciding that it/they were authentic and therefor useful as evidence to formulate a "what really happened" theory. Virtually every other so-called "serious" 9/11 researcher has, from the very start of their, er, "investigations", instead automatically assumed practically all photos/videos to be authentic [ eg yourself, Fetzer, Hall, Wood, Johnson, Kalezov, A&E, Pilots for whatever, Reynolds, Gage , Uncle Tom Cobley and all.]In other words, there has been a still ongoing, wholesale denial of the ever-so-simple, "run of the mill", easy to understand, standard scientific investigative methodology by all of those named, plus their thousands of herd-like followers. You gotta love it :-). Don Fox said : "Shack denies that satellites exist because the existence of satellites disproves his Flat Earth Theory. Shack denies evidence that doesn't fit with his bizarre world view. " F.Y.I., Mr Shack does not have, nor subscribe to a "flat earth theory". However, that theory , h _has_ been openly discussed/debated at his site www.septemberclues.info. Learn to read/ consider, perhaps? :-). Don Fox said : "We wrote an article on this back in 2014 that people should check out." Don, I sincerely hope they all do, because it clearly shows the depths to which yourself, Fetzer et al are prepared to sink to. [In case you missed it in Fox's prior character assassination post in this thread, Dear Reader, here is the link again in all its glory, please check it out :-) : http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01/18/simon-shack-obf-and-the-911-september-clueless-distractors/It is laughably badly written/put together , and contains obvious factual errors due to yours/Fetzers habit of lifting sentences from source material entirely out of context then putting words/thoughts into mine and Mr Shacks heads in your feeble attempts at character assassination.Don, thanks so much for the laughs in that article. But don't stop there. By all means carry on and write another one like it with Mr Fetzer and his merry crew, can't wait - after all, I needz mi entataynemunt :-)Regards, onebornfree .
Thanks, OBF for this link Too funny for words. They don't have to check the photo evidence not even if planes are shown flying into buildings according to this: LOL.http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01/18/simon-shack-obf-and-the-911-september-clueless-distractors/Simon Shack, obf and the 9/11 “September Clueless” distractors | Veterans Today "1] there is never any need or requirement for the investigating “scientist” to ever closely scrutinize/compare even one of the 911 videos or photos, both with other 911 photos/videos, nor with pre-911 imagery, before accepting those videos/photos as indisputably genuine evidence."
I don;t think there is any point arguing with these people. We've tried to reason with them illustrating they have no evidence for their claims other than the USGS samples and that's not enough. As to " It was there and then it was not there" indicates it was a controlled demolition which occur in cities from time to time, No big deal. The building comes down and the business of the city carries on normally.
The USGS dust samples are the tip of the iceberg. Elevated temperatures at Ground Zero for 6 months, over 1/3 of the Towers was completely vaporized, over 1,000 people vaporized, 1,400+ cars toasted by neutron radiation and EMP, thousands of air conditioners were replaced due to EMP melting their guts - the list goes on and on. Not to mention the 70,000 people that are battling cancer due to 9/11. But you ignore all of that evidence and focus on Shack's bullshit "analysis" of the videos. It's obvious that you are just a shill Joan or Compass or whoever the hell you are.
Don Fox said: "The USGS dust samples are the tip of the iceberg:"1. Elevated temperatures at Ground Zero for 6 months, 2. over 1/3 of the Towers was completely vaporized, 3. over 1,000 people vaporized, 4. 1,400+ cars toasted by neutron radiation and EMP5.thousands of air conditioners were replaced due to EMP melting their guts - the list goes on and on. Not to mention 6. the 70,000 people that are battling cancer due to 9/11. But you ignore all of that evidence and focus on Shack's bullshit "analysis" of the videos.Don, all we are asking is where is your proof for this? All of the above are nothing but speculation.Unless you believe planes hit the towers and caused the gashes, fireballs and continual smoke, the photographic has to be false. Therefore, it must be checked. Articles in newspapers are not evidence.Best regards, Joan Edwards=Compass. 'It's obvious that you are just a shill Joan or Compass or whoever the hell you are.".........DonI'm an independent--always have been and always will be. A shill is a promoter usually paid, no? To state that you are not meeting the requirements of logical proof makes me a shill? Not that you should know, but there was a snafu on the board here and I had to take an alias in order to post.PS, "vaporized" is a favorite term by the liars and whores of the press.
Démolition contrôlée à l'explosif - CDI The Art of Demolition - YouTube(Watch some real controlled demolitions by CDI)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xUkvQ6OTYc
A very informative show, Jim and Don. Thank you!WLP
(Right-click on guest name to download mp3)
SUBSCRIBE to the iTunes feed
STREAM premieres on Revere Radio
5pm CST (2300 GMT) M-W-F: