Do you belive 9/11 was a inside job?

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="racer8dan"]No, He has shown 0 proof of "willfully hiding evidence". The video was about debunking his theory's, not calling him a deceitfully person, so He either can't debunk the rest of the topics or???

racer8dan

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

As the video states, one of the most secure facilities in the nation, and that crappy, low frame video is the only camera that caught the impact. Not to mention you can't even see the large plane in it, (how convenient I might add). Doesn't sound very secure to me, if that's the case, I could probably walk out on that field wielding an ak47 and no one would be any the wiser, unless of course they do have the video from those other cameras and there just not going to release them due to the evidence they hold. This alone should be enough, to at the least question the official story, no?

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

As the video states, one of the most secure facilities in the nation, and that crappy, low frame video is the only camera that caught the impact. Not to mention you can't even see the large plane in it, (how convenient I might add). Doesn't sound very secure to me, if that's the case, I could probably walk out on that field wielding an ak47 and no one would be any the wiser, unless of course they do have the video from those other cameras and there just not going to release them due to the evidence they hold. This alone should be enough, to at the least question the official story, no?

F1_2004

[QUOTE="F1_2004"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Now why would a secure building housing intell not want to release their videos? Hmmm?

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="F1_2004"] lol I'm sure US homeland security wouldn't be compromised if it showed 10 seconds of outside footage during the plane crash. I'm sure their security cameras shoot 1000 frames per second and could read the license plate off a car parked on the other side of the country.

F1_2004

[QUOTE="F1_2004"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Which of course shows what their security system is and the weaknesses therein.;)

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="F1_2004"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Which of course shows what their security system is and the weaknesses therein.;)

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

Read the information presented before just throwing something random out there.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="F1_2004"] Or that they're not releasing any of the footage from the numerous cameras they've got within range of the attack, for dubious reasons.F1_2004

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

As the video states, one of the most secure facilities in the nation, and that crappy, low frame video is the only camera that caught the impact. Not to mention you can't even see the large plane in it, (how convenient I might add). Doesn't sound very secure to me, if that's the case, I could probably walk out on that field wielding an ak47 and no one would be any the wiser, unless of course they do have the video from those other cameras and there just not going to release them due to the evidence they hold. This alone should be enough, to at the least question the official story, no?

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

Read the information presented before just throwing something random out there.

racer8dan

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

No, He has shown 0 proof of "willfully hiding evidence". The video was about debunking his theory's, not calling him a deceitfully person, so He either can't debunk the rest of the topics or???

GabuEx

No. Wrong. Sorry, but wrong.

0:13 "While the assertions that Von Kleist makes about some of the events in the New York attacks may at first seem convincing, they do not stand up to further scrutiny. In fact, as you'll shortly see, much of the material presented in 'In Plane Sight' by Von Kleist is intentionally misrepresented. It is not accidental, or the result of sloppy work. And with so many documented anomalies and unanswered questions surrounding the attacks of 9/11, one must question the intent of those who choose to publicize unsupported and misrepresentive, sensational theories. They only serve to obfuscate. They draw attention and support away from legitimate questions, and justify the media's portrayal of those who question the official story as a lunatic fringe of conspiracy nuts. In so doing, people such as Von Kleist propagate disinformation. The question then becomes one of motive."

3:34 "If he would have just shown ten or twenty seconds of earlier footage from the same shot, it would have been obvious that what he was showing us was an obscured view of the collapse of the south tower. Is it plausible that Von Kleist did not know he was showing us the collapse of the south tower behind the north tower? Is it possible that Von Kleist had never seen the ten seconds of footage prior to the clip he shows us? When combining this footage with other views, he had to know he was showing us the collapse of the south tower when he and the people who worked on this film reviewed hours and hours of footage."

You get the idea. The person who made "Not In Plain Sight" is not simply showing that Von Kleist's claims are false. He is specifically showing that Von Kleist knowingly and purposefully misled the audience by saying things he had to have known were false. To claim that this is not what the filmmaker said about Von Kleist simply shows that you still have not watched the video, and I am utterly baffled why you are making such definitive statements about it without having done so.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

As the video states, one of the most secure facilities in the nation, and that crappy, low frame video is the only camera that caught the impact. Not to mention you can't even see the large plane in it, (how convenient I might add). Doesn't sound very secure to me, if that's the case, I could probably walk out on that field wielding an ak47 and no one would be any the wiser, unless of course they do have the video from those other cameras and there just not going to release them due to the evidence they hold. This alone should be enough, to at the least question the official story, no?

racer8dan

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

No, He has shown 0 proof of "willfully hiding evidence". The video was about debunking his theory's, not calling him a deceitfully person, so He either can't debunk the rest of the topics or???

racer8dan

No. Wrong. Sorry, but wrong.

0:13 "While the assertions that Von Kleist makes about some of the events in the New York attacks may at first seem convincing, they do not stand up to further scrutiny. In fact, as you'll shortly see, much of the material presented in 'In Plane Sight' by Von Kleist is intentionally misrepresented. It is not accidental, or the result of sloppy work. And with so many documented anomalies and unanswered questions surrounding the attacks of 9/11, one must question the intent of those who choose to publicize unsupported and misrepresentive, sensational theories. They only serve to obfuscate. They draw attention and support away from legitimate questions, and justify the media's portrayal of those who question the official story as a lunatic fringe of conspiracy nuts. In so doing, people such as Von Kleist propagate disinformation. The question then becomes one of motive."

3:34 "If he would have just shown ten or twenty seconds of earlier footage from the same shot, it would have been obvious that what he was showing us was an obscured view of the collapse of the south tower. Is it plausible that Von Kleist did not know he was showing us the collapse of the south tower behind the north tower? Is it possible that Von Kleist had never seen the ten seconds of footage prior to the clip he shows us? When combining this footage with other views, he had to know he was showing us the collapse of the south tower when he and the people who worked on this film reviewed hours and hours of footage."

You get the idea. The person who made "Not In Plain Sight" is not simply showing that Von Kleist's claims are false. He is specifically showing that Von Kleist knowingly and purposefully misled the audience by saying things he had to have known were false. To claim that this is not what the filmmaker said about Von Kleist simply shows that you still have not watched the video, and I am utterly baffled why you are making such definitive statements about it without having done so.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"] Well, given that the vid's creator was a truther, he wouldn't debunk points he agreed with, would he?PannicAtack

That is not "proof" of him WILLFULLY hiding evidence, its his OPINION that he, intentionally misrepresented.

racer8dan

You said:

"The video was about debunking his theory's, not calling him a deceitfully person"

That was 100% incorrect, as I have shown. The video was absolutely calling him intentionally deceitful. You cannot claim one thing and try to act like you made a different claim when the first claim was shown to be incorrect. At least own up to your mistakes.

Furthermore, how do you propose that Von Kleist found that one instance of "smoke" without going through the rest of the video in which one can clearly see that it is from the collapse of the south tower? If you are to assert that Von Kleist was simply incorrect rather than wilfully misleading the audience, you must tell us how Von Kleist made that video without having ever come across the truth behind what he was showing.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I've read much of the information conspiracy theorists throw out there.....and none of it makes sense. As for you earlier plane videos...neither of those were the one I saw. The one I saw clearly showed a plane hitting the pentagon....

FrostyPhantasm

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

That is not "proof" of him WILLFULLY hiding evidence, its his OPINION that he, intentionally misrepresented.

GabuEx

You said:

"The video was about debunking his theory's, not calling him a deceitfully person"

That was 100% incorrect, as I have shown. The video was absolutely calling him intentionally deceitful. You cannot claim one thing and try to act like you made a different claim when the first claim was shown to be incorrect. At least own up to your mistakes.

Furthermore, how do you propose that Von Kleist found that one instance of "smoke" without going through the rest of the video in which one can clearly see that it is from the collapse of the south tower? If you are to assert that Von Kleist was simply incorrect rather than wilfully misleading the audience, you must tell us how Von Kleist made that video without having ever come across the truth behind what he was showing.

Great, seeing as how you see him as such a genius, maybe you should take a look at the "in plane sight" video again with an open mind! Sense he didn't disagree with the rest of it, it must be accurate.

racer8dan

Since the driving force of much of his video was showing the Von Kleist is a deceitful charlatan rather than simply showing why his claims are false, I think it's safe to say that, no, he did not feel that all but that which he directly addressed was perfectly trustworthy.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

That is not "proof" of him WILLFULLY hiding evidence, its his OPINION that he, intentionally misrepresented.

racer8dan

You said:

"The video was about debunking his theory's, not calling him a deceitfully person"

That was 100% incorrect, as I have shown. The video was absolutely calling him intentionally deceitful. You cannot claim one thing and try to act like you made a different claim when the first claim was shown to be incorrect. At least own up to your mistakes.

Furthermore, how do you propose that Von Kleist found that one instance of "smoke" without going through the rest of the video in which one can clearly see that it is from the collapse of the south tower? If you are to assert that Von Kleist was simply incorrect rather than wilfully misleading the audience, you must tell us how Von Kleist made that video without having ever come across the truth behind what he was showing.

His main purpose was to debunk it.

racer8dan

Which is why he introduced the video by basically calling Von Kleist a liar?

To be honest I don't even remember the claims VonKleist made on this particular subject nor do I care, fine lets call him wrong on one out of 20 now what? 19 to go?

racer8dan

Do you honestly have no problem with the fact that the video you have been referring us to again and again was put together by someone who purposefully misled his audience, and that you bought into what you have now concluded as wrong without a single thought?

Does it not give you a moment's pause that you accepted without question something that was wrong?

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

Great, seeing as how you see him as such a genius, maybe you should take a look at the "in plane sight" video again with an open mind! Sense he didn't disagree with the rest of it, it must be accurate.

GabuEx

Since the driving force of much of his video was showing the Von Kleist is a deceitful charlatan rather than simply showing why his claims are false, I think it's safe to say that, no, he did not feel that all but that which he directly addressed was perfectly trustworthy.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

Great, seeing as how you see him as such a genius, maybe you should take a look at the "in plane sight" video again with an open mind! Sense he didn't disagree with the rest of it, it must be accurate.

racer8dan

Since the driving force of much of his video was showing the Von Kleist is a deceitful charlatan rather than simply showing why his claims are false, I think it's safe to say that, no, he did not feel that all but that which he directly addressed was perfectly trustworthy.

Great, thats still not "proof".

racer8dan

Why are you treating this video as though everything in it is 100% true until proven false?

We have already seen that the person behind it misled his audience and you have even admitted that something which you directed us to was false. At what point can we not simply step back for a moment and basically conclude that, whatever the facts are, we aren't likely to find them in a video whose creator knowingly lies through his teeth?

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

His main purpose was to debunk it.

GabuEx

Which is why he introduced the video by basically calling Von Kleist a liar?

To be honest I don't even remember the claims VonKleist made on this particular subject nor do I care, fine lets call him wrong on one out of 20 now what? 19 to go?

racer8dan

Do you honestly have no problem with the fact that the video you have been referring us to again and again was put together by someone who purposefully misled his audience, and that you bought into what you have now concluded as wrong without a single thought?

Does it not give you a moment's pause that you accepted without question something that was wrong?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

Great, seeing as how you see him as such a genius, maybe you should take a look at the "in plane sight" video again with an open mind! Sense he didn't disagree with the rest of it, it must be accurate.

racer8dan

Since the driving force of much of his video was showing the Von Kleist is a deceitful charlatan rather than simply showing why his claims are false, I think it's safe to say that, no, he did not feel that all but that which he directly addressed was perfectly trustworthy.

Its called, losing interest in a "going nowhere argument".

racer8dan

The "going nowhere argument" being what?

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

Great, thats still not "proof".

GabuEx

Why are you treating this video as though everything in it is 100% true until proven false?

We have already seen that the person behind it misled his audience and you have even admitted that something which you directed us to was false. At what point can we not simply step back for a moment and basically conclude that, whatever the facts are, we aren't likely to find them in a video whose creator knowingly lies through his teeth?

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

Its called, losing interest in a "going nowhere argument".

GabuEx

The "going nowhere argument" being what?

I'm not. The only one that knows whether he was "intentionally misrepresented", is VonKleist himself, everything else is an opinion.

racer8dan

Then tell me how. How did he make that footage without seeing the footage only ten seconds earlier than shows the truth behind what he is saying? How did he put together that whole section of the film without ever once looking back ten seconds to see "oh, wait, that smoke is from the south tower collapsing, my bad"? Where did he get that film clip such that he would have been unable to know that what he was saying was wrong?

So again: How?

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

I'm not. The only one that knows whether he was "intentionally misrepresented", is VonKleist himself, everything else is an opinion.

GabuEx

Then tell me how. How did he make that footage without seeing the footage only ten seconds earlier than shows the truth behind what he is saying? How did he put together that whole section of the film without ever once looking back ten seconds to see "oh, wait, that smoke is from the south tower collapsing, my bad"? Where did he get that film clip such that he would have been unable to know that what he was saying was wrong?

So again: How?

Email him and ask. I'm sure you can contact him one way or another.

racer8dan

I am asking you to simply logically tell me how.

He showed the clip of the "smoke", and he declared it appeared before either tower fell. Ten seconds earlier in that footage, we see the south tower falling. How did he not see that? How did he extract this footage of smoke without seeing the footage only ten seconds earlier that shows what it is?

Is he the most insanely negligent filmmaker on the face of the Earth, to randomly select a tiny clip out of context and make all of his conclusions based on that without even looking at the footage surrounding it, or was he being wilfully dishonest? There can be no other answer.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

Email him and ask. I'm sure you can contact him one way or another.

GabuEx

I am asking you to simply logically tell me how.

He showed the clip of the "smoke", and he declared it appeared before either tower fell. Ten seconds earlier in that footage, we see the south tower falling. How did he not see that? How did he extract this footage of smoke without seeing the footage only ten seconds earlier that shows what it is?

Is he the most insanely negligent filmmaker on the face of the Earth, to randomly select a tiny clip out of context and make all of his conclusions based on that without even looking at the footage surrounding it, or was he being wilfully dishonest? There can be no other answer.

I can't believe this thread is still going.

This is great. 9/11 conspiracy theorists are almost, almost as entertaining as Flat-Earthers. OT is alwaysa great place for solid humor value.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

Email him and ask. I'm sure you can contact him one way or another.

PannicAtack

I am asking you to simply logically tell me how.

He showed the clip of the "smoke", and he declared it appeared before either tower fell. Ten seconds earlier in that footage, we see the south tower falling. How did he not see that? How did he extract this footage of smoke without seeing the footage only ten seconds earlier that shows what it is?

Is he the most insanely negligent filmmaker on the face of the Earth, to randomly select a tiny clip out of context and make all of his conclusions based on that without even looking at the footage surrounding it, or was he being wilfully dishonest? There can be no other answer.

Which would make him the most insanely negligent filmmaker on the face of the Earth. :P

Which would make him the most insanely negligent filmmaker on the face of the Earth. :P

GabuEx

Either way, it's a good enough reason not to take him seriously.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I am asking you to simply logically tell me how.

He showed the clip of the "smoke", and he declared it appeared before either tower fell. Ten seconds earlier in that footage, we see the south tower falling. How did he not see that? How did he extract this footage of smoke without seeing the footage only ten seconds earlier that shows what it is?

Is he the most insanely negligent filmmaker on the face of the Earth, to randomly select a tiny clip out of context and make all of his conclusions based on that without even looking at the footage surrounding it, or was he being wilfully dishonest? There can be no other answer.

GabuEx

Which would make him the most insanely negligent filmmaker on the face of the Earth. :P

This is great. 9/11 conspiracy theorists are almost, almost as entertaining as Flat-Earthers. OT is alwaysa great place for solid humor value.

Rekunta

[QUOTE="Rekunta"]

This is great. 9/11 conspiracy theorists are almost, almost as entertaining as Flat-Earthers. OT is alwaysa great place for solid humor value.

Vandalvideo

No, no it is not. :|

no, no its not789shadow