WHAT HAVE WE HERE?

UPDATE (from Dave of 911 Blimp):

Thanks for making me aware of that. Neat video. Probably too neat, by about half? Not exactly positive proof...

I'm unaware of any reasonable hypothesis for why, if the 2nd WTC aerial impact was mere virtual-aircraft video fakery, was there also a flash-frame, just very much muted compared to the first. Why video-fake that (or the apparent partial exit of something)?

I don't rule out [some serious kind/level of] video fakery but, as with thermite, I do not believe that it can account for all the evidence, particularly the flash frames, nor some eyewitnesses who said they saw smaller-than-Boeing aircraft.

As always, we can chase our tails endlessly wondering what 9/11 was, long after we're able to prove that it was not what we were told.

That the video will cause some people to think is good. That it could then prove to be otherwise-explainable would be bad (though the script they were both reading from, in practical harmony, is not easily dismissed by those of us who've given up on being coincidence theorists). But since the dots have already been connected on the use of exotic weaponry at Ground Zero, I think it makes sense to be wary of hypotheses which help keep people from considering the use of exotic/secret weapons systems, the (possible multiple) use of which on 9/11 I am about as certain of as I can be. (For all the recent chatter about "directed energy weapons", AFAIC, IMHO, the best indication there is of their use on 9/11 is the flash frames.)

So I wonder about the fact that video fakery hypotheses tend to do for the anomalous-looking aspects of the WTC impact[s] what Barrie
Zwicker's lies do for Bush's repeated voluntary incriminating 9/11 witness statements -- get them disregarded.



My further reflections:

At this late date, I am loath to jump on any bandwagons. I'm sure Herb feels the same way. And my skin crawls when I look at some of the truly strange bedfellows given a shout-out at the end of that video. This video fakery crew, whatever the merits of their arguments, have that "either you're with us or against us" mentality that (in this case) makes for a pocket-sized mini-dialectic. And some, like Nico, take an infantile delight in playing with feces.

In the scheme of things, "video fakery" is moot. It might have been all part of the high-tech magic show, but it's not integral to the way the buildings were destroyed. It's a distraction, proving only that (surprise, surprise!) the Media are rotten. It's also true that many of the people saying the Media are rotten are themselves rotten.

There are additional comments forthcoming, and there are more comprehensive "video fakery" videos I may post soon. Watch this space.