Deep Politics Forum

Ed Jewett Wrote:Apparently, snide remarks constitute the best of attempts at discussion, dialogue and comprehension here.

That's sophistry Mr Jewett.


Please answer how they could manipulate the images that persons who took videos from locations within view of the Twin Towers captured and showed to their friends who saw these unaltered videos clearly depicting planes flying into the towers.

Fair question. Nothing snide about it.

Mr. Klimkowski, your dialogue with Mr. Fetzer is Mr. Fetzer's issue, although there is an article out there that may be an answer, in part.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/01/...b-balsamo/

He should, of course, speak for himself.

Frankly, a lot of people here make the assumption that if "it" isn't here or explained here, I didn't see it, aren't aware of it, and don't have to acknowledge it.

As for posting garbage, I'll refrain from making a wisecrack about the use of garbage dumps for the disposal of bodies (forensic evidence), but what you regard or characterize as garbage may be something else, or at least a poorly-formulated question or thesis. Frankly, it wouldn't be the first pile of garbage found here.

The "garbage" in "Believe Your Own Eyes" is the lack of clear explanations that debunk these tidbits:

• "completely in one side and out the other side" [with its nose intact];
  

• the multiple pre-event "predictive programming" visual, thematic, plot and time/date references;
  
• the wing, the wing (22:58);
  
• 
  
• WESCAM http://www.wescam.com(24:31);
  
• de crane, de crane (26:30 ff).
  
  
  [size=12]
  Perhaps you or someone else would like to offer them.
  [/SIZE]
  
  Since about 2004, I have been looking into the event(s) and asking questions.
  
  I don't have (nor am I obligated to share or formulate) beliefs or opinions about named hypotheses, since apparently no one here is obligated to answer or acknowledge my questions.
  
  I keep it all on the table, and allow any of them for initial consideration.
  
  I am not obligated to defend anyone or anyone's theory; I am obligated to keep a clear and open mind and continue to ask questions or allow information, debate, etc.
  
  You're welcome, in retrospect.
  
  By the way, I mis-spoke.
  
  
  For some of you, clearly the most important part of the "Believe Your Own Eyes" video starts at about 30:00.
  

Albert Doyle Wrote:

Ed Jewett Wrote:Apparently, snide remarks constitute the best of attempts at discussion, dialogue and comprehension here.

That's sophistry Mr Jewett.


Please answer how they coud manipulate the images that persons who took videos from locations within view of the Twin Towers captured and showed to their friends who saw these unaltered videos clearly depicting planes flying into the towers.

Fair question. Nothing snide about it.

There's nothing fallacious about it, Mr. Doyle. The issue is addressed in the films. Your request sentence is littered with presumptions or poor assumptions. The simplest of answers is that some of the footage or background could have been shot in advance of the event for use or insertion during the event and its broadcast, movies, or media coverage. Or perhaps some of the technical capabilities are inherent in the military tools of WESCAM, or "black budget/weaponry" tools of animation, simulation, computer graphics, etc.

Furthermore, given the previous history [in this event as well as prior events] of planted evidence, multiple references or inferences to "actors", and the depth of an ability to go undercover inherent in at least two or three of the suspected "perp" agencies, every fact and assumption must be questioned.

As noted here, folks here and elsewhere are still debating the veracity and validity of evidence in the Dealey Plaza matter, and the technologies of psy-op have grown substantially in five decades. But the playbooks remain intact and archived [e.g., Operation Northwoods].

Furthermore, the involvement and capacities of computerized systems under the control of the US government, the Israeli government, its military system technologies' contractors and intelligence agencies, their connection to PNAC, and to the 9/11 Commission, is already well documented.

Given the many issues, questions and obvious "errors" or "flaws" in the media coverage, and the fact that there has been a phenomenal effort underway to suppress evidence or viewing of it, the task is to surface information and analyze it, not suppress it, question it, or mischaracterize it.

All intelligence operations have at least two objectives.

One of the 9-11 objectives is observed on this thread.

Ed,

Statements like nose in nose out is pretty sloppy speculation. What is claimed to be *nose out* is easily confused for some sort of artifact. The resolution is not sharp enough to identify the form as a plane's nose.... It's a gray blob as far as I can tell.

Whether the planes were the ones were were told or not... there were too many eye witness to seeing planes to ascribe it to fakery.

I don't buy it.

Ed Jewett Wrote:There's nothing fallacious about it, Mr. Doyle. The issue is addressed in the films. Your request sentence is littered with presumptions or poor assumptions. The simplest of answers is that some of the footage or background could have been shot in advance of the event for use or insertion during the event and its broadcast, movies, or media coverage. Or perhaps some of the technical capabilities are inherent in the military tools of WESCAM, or "black budget/weaponry" tools of animation, simulation, computer graphics, etc.

With all due respect, that's abject lunacy that doesn't answer the point. You see the things you mention could not have been done with persons who took video, showed it to their friends privately, and then had their friends witness planes in the videos hitting the Towers. This event had the unique circumstance of the first plane causing people to break out their video cameras and start video-ing. This means that many people caught the impact into the south Tower on video. Therefore there were numerous cases where people showed their videos to others privately and those people saw images of a plane flying into the Tower. These videos could not have been altered because they were always in the possession of the video-er who was completely unknown to grand alteration intel command.

Pretty soon the will be a Fetzer cult of people standing on a mountain waiting for a comet to end the world.

Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Ed,

Statements like nose in nose out is pretty sloppy speculation. What is claimed to be *nose out* is easily confused for some sort of artifact. The resolution is not sharp enough to identify the form as a plane's nose.... It's a gray blob as far as I can tell.

Whether the planes were the ones were were told or not... there were too many eye witness to seeing planes to ascribe it to fakery.

I don't buy it.

Ah, the old "eyewitness" argument. Line 'em up, take their affidavits, and provide a list of names, links, etc. And then answer how it is that we should take their word and reject the many eyewitnesses who identified explosions.

The news commentator said the same thing about the appearance of the nose cone outside the other side of the building. You caught that, I trust. He said "his monitor might not be the best" -- fer sure, he being inside the studio of a major TV broadcaster in the media capital of the world.

I'm not an expert on anything, just some bloke sitting in a loft office at home wondering how it is that my country, my rights, the Constitution, the Magna Carta's hard won thesis, the budget and the economy, and countless unnecessarily damaged or dead limbs, minds, people, villages, families and the genetic future of whole cultures have gone up in a flash of magic powder, and people here are busy refuting independent citizen-based journalism [if you think it or I is driven by an intelligence connection for the purpose of disinformation or misinformation, state your case and prove it] done in lieu of actual investigative research by the media (instead of the obvious kow-towing, or the obvious errors like stating that Building 7 has fallen when it was still standing in the background shot).

Just because you don't buy it, Jeffrey Orling, doesn't mean it's not offered or accepted by others in the worldwide marketplace of awareness, free thought, free speech and the absence of fealty to a diseased and destructive way of life or world-view.

Albert Doyle Wrote:

Ed Jewett Wrote:There's nothing fallacious about it, Mr. Doyle. The issue is addressed in the films. Your request sentence is littered with presumptions or poor assumptions. The simplest of answers is that some of the footage or background could have been shot in advance of the event for use or insertion during the event and its broadcast, movies, or media coverage. Or perhaps some of the technical capabilities are inherent in the military tools of WESCAM, or "black budget/weaponry" tools of animation, simulation, computer graphics, etc.

With all due respect, that's abject lunacy that doesn't answer the point. You see the things you mention could not have been done with persons who took video, showed it to their friends privately, and then had their friends witness planes in the videos hitting the Towers. This event had the unique circumstance of the first plane causing people to break out their video cameras and start video-ing. This means that many people caught the impact into the south Tower on video. Therefore there were numerous cases where people showed their videos to others privately and those people saw images of a plane flying into the Tower. These videos could not have been altered because they were always in the possession of the video-er who was completely unknown to grand alteration intel command.

Pretty soon the will be a Fetzer cult of people standing on a mountain waiting for a comet to end the world.

Another erudite response... "abject lunacy", "cult" ...sounds like "conspiracy theorist", "mentally unstable", 'let us not tolerate any discussion of', etc. Been there; done that (for eight years now), but the game is getting tiring when it is perfectly clear that multiple countries, their intel and homeland security operations, and many many others live in fear of masses of people waking up enough to part the curtains of obfuscation and come to a sense of gnosis based on their own long-term review.

Charles Drago Wrote:All intelligence operations have at least two objectives.

One of the 9-11 objectives is observed on this thread.

Could you be more specific, Charles?

In a related thread in which you stated Fensterwald's First Lawhttps://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...bjectives.

I said:

"B) 9/11

To terrorize the American people (especially with the repetitive imagery inside the news coverage) and create fear; to create psychological shock, to traumatize, and to condition or stupefy the American people further;
To enable the war(s), support for their funding, and to 'identify' the enemy of the moment;
To drive a legislative agenda (most notably the Patriot Act);
To boost and bolster Bush's political ratings and agenda;
To create funds thgrough theft and fraud for further black ops, the secret intel budget, etc. (see the theft of trillions from the Pentagon, the stock market games and "puts", the theft of the gold from the basement (?), and possible theft electronically from computers inside the WTC;
To rectify the asbestos problem in the towers;
To fund Israeli efforts and operations;
To cover-up prior acts, crimes or destroy forthcoming legal action (see WTC#7, especially)."

Is it any of those?

Quote:

"To fund Israeli efforts and operations;"