See other 9/11 Articles
Title: What We Saw [video]
Source:
Google Videos
URL Source: http://video.google.com/videoplay?d ... 6024#docid=5474006551011489413
Published: Sep 30, 2010
Author: N/A
Post Date: 2010-09-30 06:22:32 by Eric Stratton
Keywords: None
Views: 597
Comments: 33
Poster Comment: 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.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 19.
#1. To: Eric Stratton, titorite, GreyLmist, randge, *9-11* (#0)
(Edited)
The part where we would have seen the alleged plane flying towards the tower has been conveniently edited out. Coincidence? I think not. Not looking good for the planers.
12:12 - "Oh my God! It was a military plane!"
I hate that part. ;-)
It might be interesting to play with Voice Stress Analysis Freeware to see what it tells us about 911 audio and video. Don't have time right now to fool with it. What do you think of this?? 8=]
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.
That link is indeed permanently broken. Here are some others:
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.
I don't think that analyzing speech published in the public domain is any way as privileged as that recorded during a phone call. You should consult a lawyer if this makes your knees knock together. But I wouldn't worry about it myself.
Just wanted to be cautious. Your assessment sounds lawyerly enough for me.
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.
No planes:
There are no replies to Comment # 19. End Trace Mode for Comment # 19.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestNote 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.
#3. To: wudidiz (#1)
Note the "hiccup"
#6. To: randge (#3)
12:12 - "Oh my God! It was a military plane!"
#7. To: wudidiz (#6)
#8. To: randge (#7)
Voice Stress Analysis Freeware
#9. To: GreyLmist (#8)
#10. To: randge (#9)
#11. To: GreyLmist (#10)
#12. To: randge (#11)
#13. To: GreyLmist, randge (#12)
#17. To: wudidiz (#13)
This whole 9/11 thing just gets weirder
#19. To: Artisan (#17)
Replies to Comment # 19.