Note the "hiccup" in the film footage at about the 11:45 mark, the time of the hit of the second tower. Otherwise a very interesting perspective that I'd not seen.
#1. To: Eric Stratton, titorite, GreyLmist, randge, *9-11* (#0)(Edited)
Note the "hiccup" in the film footage at about the 11:45 mark, the time of the hit of the second tower. Otherwise a very interesting perspective that I'd not seen.
The part where we would have seen the alleged plane flying towards the tower has been conveniently edited out.
If that was supposed to be a link, could you please repost it so that it's activated? I'd be very interested in your 9/11 audio and video analytical findings.
Thanks. Would that lie-detection research be ethical as evidence, though, or at least ok for informal discussion purposes? I'm asking because Jeff Hill's alleged pumpitout.com phone interviews were eventually compared to illegal wiretapping. It didn't occur to me that was what he was doing and I haven't seen any court complaints filed from those he supposedly contacted for spontaneous questioning regarding 9/11 so that was probably all a staged-op. I'm not a lawyer and don't know what the protocols might be for voice analysis of criminal suspects who haven't been charged as yet for prosecution but might be at some point. Rense has posted some reverse-speech analysis articles of public figures and that's not been legally problematic.
The "Oh my God! It was a military plane!" would certainly be more convincing if they hadn't conveniently cut out the part where it would have been seen flying towards the tower.
How would she have recognized it as a military plane?
This whole 9/11 thing just gets weirder and weirder.
does it really matter if planes hit or not? given the fact that the 'no planes' position would sound even weirder & more incredible to the average person who needs to learn that it was an inside job, i think they need to be schooled on false flags etc & tyranny, & liberty, more than delving into a river that leads nowhere.
I understand, but, be it right or wrong, I don't care too much what the average person thinks. Discovering the truth of the matter is more important than giving a sugar coated half truth to appease the masses. Like Ron Paul. You know we both lost respect for him when he denied 9/1 was an inside job. Same principle applies to every other situation imo. Most average people are incapable of believing the truth anyway.
There is an abundance of evidence indicating that no planes and nukes (or some sort of exotic weapons) were used.
Most average people are incapable of believing the truth anyway.
There is an abundance of evidence indicating that no planes and nukes (or some sort of exotic weapons) were used.
That most people don't get that is troubling.
I don't think it's so much that they are incapable of believing the truth as they believed what they thought they saw and what they were told by those they trusted. I don't even think it's so much that they don't want to admit to themselves that they were mistaken as it is a "karma-thing" of sorts for many. Not that I believe there's any such thing as "karma" -- too much evidence against that with evil flourishing at the expense of the innocent and goodhearted -- but many have worked extensively to make the No Planes sector an object of derision so they'd rather not find themselves there, at least not openly where they might have to endure what they've dished out. If they just quit being derisive and obstuctive that would be a big improvement.