Ruth said:
People who try to get others to believe that some things have been 'faked' when they weren't generally have a two-fold objective:
1. To distract people from the truth and all the little 'oddities' that either can't be explained or have been 'suppressed' or ignored by the media. (it also helps if you can get people to waste their time as well).
2. To discredit everyone trying to investigate what happened in 9/11 including and perhaps most importantly the ones who stumble onto something that has a high likelyhood of being correct (like Professor Jones).
Its called cointelpro. Why do you waste your time with it if you know what they're doing?
I'm not sure what this reply means nor into what category I'm being placed but the purpose of my post was to engage in specific discussion of the analysis presented by StillDiggin, in particular the rather glaring absence of an exit hole when I have seen 3 video clips at this point that show the "nosecone" of the aircraft emerging from the South Tower.
I take it as self-evident that the nosecone of a 767 would not be capable of penetrating through first one WTC facade and then another, to emerge in a whole condition.
Since it is not possible [unless someone wants to argue that the relatively weak nosecone of a commercial airliner *can* penetrate steel columns and retain its basic shape] for an airliner nosecone to penetrate steel columns and emerge intact, it is actually very important that the possibility of falsified video imagery be discussed. Not because I intend to present such evidence as my preliminary 9/11 argument but because the possibility must be discussed to be properly dismissed or validated.
My intent is discussion and revelation of fact, which I understand the purpose of this forum to be.
Now, as to your primary accusations [which I presume are directed at StillDiggin, the author of the blog in question]:
1. To distract people from the truth and all the little 'oddities' that either can't be explained or have been 'suppressed' or ignored by the media. (it also helps if you can get people to waste their time as well).
Certainly much time might be wasted but really there are some basic premises to StillDiggin's analysis which merit consideration because
a) They are simple: either there is an exit hole or there is not. If there is no exit hole in the available photographs but video shows an object exiting, then *one* of the two is falsified. This should not take a huge amount of time. The NIST document referenced by StillDiggin shows the facade of WTC 2 as intact in the area where the "nosecone" is show in various video footages to exit. One video clip shows the object as large enough to cast a defined shadow across the exit facade of WTC 2. Clearly an object large enough to cause a 190 or so foot long shadow should have caused a recognizable hole upon exit. This is not an irrational line of inquiry at all.
b) Little "oddities" are often how major crimes get solved. When careful criminals construct a crime, they are generally careful enough to avoid the obvious errors and so the "oddities" are potentially quite relevant in revealing the methodology of the crime. Certainly revealing the nature of this particular crime is not a "waste of time".
2. To discredit everyone trying to investigate what happened in 9/11 including and perhaps most importantly the ones who stumble onto something that has a high likelyhood of being correct (like Professor Jones).
Yet is it a rational perspective to assume that the footage could *not* have been modified given the size and complexity of the crimes of 9/11/2001?
For over a year I have resisted any interest in the idea of TV Fakery, however, in the NIST photo *I see no exit hole*. Given that the only argument I was able to accept regarding the WTC 2 "nosecone" exiting the WTC 2 facade was that of a pyrophoric material and given that such a pyrophoric material *would* have left a very discernible hole, I cannot refute StillDiggin's analysis and therefore his theory currently stands. Someone on this forum is very much welcome to refute his theory. I have engaged this thread for that explicit purpose.
Let me now turn this argument 180 degrees and ask Ruth one simple question:
There are three clips listed in StillDiggin's analysis which show a "nosecone" exiting the facade of the South Tower. Is it possible for the nosecone of a 767 to emerge intact after slamming into the WTC facade?
If it is not possible, then I submit that you have a quandary which merits investigation. To do otherwise would result in possibly falisfied video being used as the basis for analysis which can only ever be *wrong* if that analysis is based upon deliberately modified video footage designed to cause erroneous conclusions.
