Do people still believe 911 wasnt a inside job?

Odon,

You should go back into the video you provided us. Forty seconds in, listen to the news guy describe what he sees. Then notice that the news woman with him doesn't dispute his assessment.

 

Have you nothing further to add? Do you accept you have no real point? A point that was squashed after further footage was released, perhaps.

 

You don't suppose that that has anything to do with the decision to put up banners that would cover up the second half of a major world event, do you?

 

Which clip are you talking about?

It was/is standard practice. Like I said, there is the same images available without the banners, and from various angles.

 

Ok, let me get this straight. You're saying that it is common practice among news agencies to cover up the second half of a major world event. Boy, if that's true, they all must hire family members or someone equally unqualified to judge the importance of not covering up the second half of the biggest thing to happen in the U.S.

Beyond that, you're still not getting it. The point of the fact of the banners is that the news agencies responsible for getting the news to us put up banners at that particular moment. That the bannerless videos are out there on You Tube doesn't answer the question of why the news outlets deemed the end of the event uneventful.

 

you sure about that?

 

Nobody was expecting what happened. Obviously you disagree. So yes it was common practice to add titles and logos during live events. If they later transmitted the same footage, I imagine they did so with out the banners etc. I'm sure they did. Even so, it is possible to watch the same footage with out the banners. It really isn't the big deal you are trying to make it. The UK news had a little less intrusive banners than the US news had. But it is really a non issue at this point

Which clip are you talking about?

 

Yes.

 

The clip in post# 735 . . .

 

You know, you really don't understand that when you back up the idea that the banners coming up at the moment something is coming out the other side of the building, it makes you appear as if nothing raises your suspicions; not even banners put up at the wrong time in the wrong place.

 

Ok suffice to say you are maintaining that there is billowing smoke before fire!

That COINCIDENTALLY looks like the nose of a plane and its wing coming through the building.




yes smoke first then fireball got it!




who could argue with that since AS EVERYONE CAN PLAINLY SEE BELOW in plane crashes that its proven time and time again that there is always SMOKE BEFORE FIRE!



everyone can plainly see there ALWAYS BILLOWING SMOKE FIRST FIREBALL LATER! (well except on september 11, the day of physics tyranny)


Thanks for the physics lesson! (dont quit your day job) LOL

 

worse!



pretty well sums up his position

well even goes to;



and frankly from what I have seen even;

 

That the plane went straight through...? From your perspective - what plane? From mine - it is commentary with out the luxury of hindsight.

You are trying to convince me that YOU had/have a major issue with banners on the TV at the time, rather than some stupid conspiracy theory after the fact (check the 'conspiracy' link above - it's an old one) . It's really stupid, given the footage we have now. Stop trying to make something out of nothing.

It's really not 'billowing smoke' Yes there is a moment/second - from the impact of a plane hitting the tower. Split second debris / next split second fire.

What plane? There was no plane!

Your e.g is a crash without building debris. It is literally half a second 'smoke without fire', maybe less - maybe you can slow the footage down further so it looks longer.


Seriously, you two are becoming dumb and dumber.

 

Odon, you are trying to paint me as one who is only concerned about the ridiculous timing and placement of the banner because I found it on a conspiracy website or something like that. Before giving uninformed opinions as to why I would take issue with obvious attempts to cover something up, you should make sure that that is actually the case--which you didn't.

I've already posted that I found it highly suspicious that they brought the banner out like they did. I saw the nose of something come out the building the same as the news people in the video you posted. I saw it that morning. When I finally got my wife to see it, I was disappointed to see that they had placed a banner over it. I made the comment to her that that had to be the stupidest thing the guy in charge of graphics has ever done. I was equally perplexed by the fact that no one at the network found it to be a stupid thing to do.

 

From your denial-laden perspective, I can well imagine that we appear to be dumb and dumber. No doubt that's how we would look to dumberer.

 

I did initially presume that was the case - but gave you the benefit of the doubt. After, seemingly, ignoring my point that the same footage and other footage could be seen with out the banners/logo - I wondered why you would still find it relevant. You did, so that fermented my view it was just another well trodden CT. It's not really a big deal if it is or isn't. Like I said: Nobody was expecting what happened. Obviously you disagree. ...it was common practice to add titles and logos during live events. If they later transmitted the same footage, I imagine they did so with out the banners etc. I'm sure they did. Even so, it is possible to watch the same footage with out the banners. It really isn't the big deal you are trying to make it. The UK news had a little less intrusive banners than the US news had. But it is really a non issue at this point.

The news anchors did not mention anything about about 'a nose or something'. With the outgoing fireball it would appear, on first viewing, something did. We have had over a decade to scrutinise footage. You seem to be under the impression no planes hit the towers that day. Am I mistaken in that presumption? If so please make it abundantly clear what you do think, rather than try and 'straddle' the 'no plane' 'plane' issue. Perhaps you have abandoned the idea Zzaps' footage points towards a 'nose cone' protruding from the building - like 'Zzap' seems to have - and recognise/acknowledge what I said it is.

If it was after it being played out live - it probably was a stupid thing to do. And?

Denial?

It wasn't a coincidence i posted these questions after your comment:

Was there a fireball?
Was there a plane?

I said that because neither of you can settle on: If there were planes or not. Testimony. Manipulative footage such as -



...or anything else most people have moved on from approx' 10 years ago.

 

How many times do I have to tell you that if you cannot bring yourself to admit that the videos that Zzap posted which show the similarities between the WTC collapse and another building collapsing, what are the odds you're suddenly going to be able to see the less obvious.

What is obvious is that you're looking hard to find some way to move the converstion away from your not so mysterious refusal to see the similarities in the collapses of those buildings. When someone has shown themselves to be absolutely prone to denial of the obvious, it is foolish to expect otherwise when that person is presented with out-of-the box ideas.

The news anchors told what they saw. You contention that they didn't know the difference between smoke and a physical object is noted.

You're pretending to not know what it means that the graphics people would put up a banner to cover up the exit of something from the building.

 

There is going to be similarities when a building collapses, obviously. However that is done. However, comparing a building at the moment of detonation and a building while it falls is misleading, though. And all that stuff about a 'BILLOWING SMOKE FIRST FIREBALL LATER' is misleading, too.

...they THOUGHT they saw.

I know what it means.
I'm just saying it isn't true - and what does it matter now we have other footage?
If you can provide some footage of that particular point, and that it was only there at that precise time - I might share a little of your cynicism.
But we know it (e.g above) was the start of a fireball.

Like the footage of the supposed protruding object? I put that straight back in it's box.

 

No, Odon, you put nothing back in its box. You simply decided to speak on behalf of those news anchors. Call it a puff of smoke if you will, but I disagree.

And no amount of talking on your part is going to convince anyone that those two controlled demolitions that were shown to you side by side are misleading. I would imagine that anyone would see the person who says the similarities mean nothing as being not quite on the up and up.

 

Odon, what punched the hole in the wall that the "smoke" rushed through?