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.