"9/11 split second" video

[wtc-wtf]

I watched this film just last night, its my first viewing but it seems like a relevant video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ow98TkNYJvk&feature=channel&list=UL

911 Split Second

[nonhocapito]

I watched this film just last night, its my first viewing but it seems like a relevant video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ow98TkNYJvk&feature=channel&list=UL

911 Split Second

Actually, despite the good intentions, I am not sure about the point made by this video.

I watched just the first part, mind you, so bear with me.

(BTW: The author of the video says the videos from the TV web archive cannot be downloaded, but actually they can be, I happen to have them all on my PC, as I am sure does Simon and many others.)

If you watch the part in question on the TV web archive (here: http://archive.org/details/abc200109110831-0912) you'll notice that the scumbags anchor people just then say they are about to show a replay of the plane hitting the WTC. So it is no surprise if a few seconds later an image is shown that "has nothing to do with the image we were seeing a split second before". It is the bleeding replay that, in a bad transition made by the fakers to make the "live" footage look more real, shows up below the "live" images for a brief moment. It seems to me that this might all be concocted to convey the illusion of real-time TV commotion.



I agree that the two images strangely line up, and that the line up might be due to the necessity for the faked replay footage to match the "live" footage (why?): but nowhere we see a tower "without the hole" or the "hole without the tower" like the author of the video states. And the "appearance" of the flames at the top is not strange since it is part of the "live" reel we were watching a second before, just like the tower "without the hole" is barely the lower part of the tower "live" -- moved above the "replay", for whatever mysterious reason, as in a pretend-mistake.

To sum up: all that happens here is that the "live" footage is moved to the upper part of the screen and the "replay" starts rolling below. The author of "split second" might be making it a bit more mysterious than it really is, unless I am missing something.
True, the zooming is eerily similar, and the fake smoke even seem to match the fake skid of the helicopter. But it's also possible to imagine that they zoom very similarly and they line-up just because they are both faked the same way, since they belong to the same fake reel.

[I have split these two posts from the chatbox just in case]

[wtc-wtf]

Hi nonho

I'd just like to say I by no means endorse this video, I am still at the stage were I’m doing many hours of reading on this site to get up to date and develop some reasonable research skills and other skills. I have only had one viewing late at night and ill look at it in depth over the weekend.
This video to me is confusing, like so many other 911 footage documentaries etc. Its so refreshing to be able to get the opinion (and facts) from experienced researchers. Big thank you

[truthseeker]

I watched this film just last night, its my first viewing but it seems like a relevant video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ow98TkNYJvk&feature=channel&list=UL

911 Split Second

When you say relevant. What does that mean? Relevant to what?
Thanks...

[wtc-wtf]

Re: "9/11 split second" video
by truthseeker on April 13th, 2012, 4:23 pm

When you say relevant. What does that mean? Relevant to what?
Thanks...

I said " it seems relevant".

seem   
verb (used without object)
1.
to appear to be, feel, do, etc.: She seems better this morning.
2.
to appear to one's own senses, mind, observation, judgment, etc.: It seems to me that someone is calling.
3.
to appear to exist: There seems no need to go now.
4.
to appear to be true, probable, or evident: It seems likely to rain.
5.
to give the outward appearance of being or to pretend to be: He only seems friendly because he wants you to like him.
Origin:
1150–1200; Middle English seme < Old Norse sœma to befit, beseem, derivative of sœmr fitting, seemly; akin to sōmi honor

Synonyms
4. Seem, appear, look refer to an outward aspect that may or may not be contrary to reality. Seem is applied to something that has an aspect of truth and probability: It seems warmer today. Appear suggests the giving of an impression that may be superficial or illusory: The house appears to be deserted. Look more vividly suggests the use of the eye (literally or figuratively) or the aspect as perceived by the eye: She looked very much frightened.

Relevant
adjective
bearing upon or connected with the matter in hand; pertinent: a relevant remark.
Origin:
1550–60; < Medieval Latin relevant- (stem of relevāns ), special use of Latin, present participle of relevāre to raise, lift up. See relieve, -ant

Related forms
rel·e·vance, rel·e·van·cy, noun
rel·e·vant·ly, adverb
non·rel·e·vant, adjective
un·rel·e·vant, adjective
un·rel·e·vant·ly, adverb

Synonyms
applicable, germane, apposite, appropriate, suitable, fitting. See apt.

http://dictionary.reference.com source

[fbenario]

Re: "9/11 split second" video
by truthseeker on April 13th, 2012, 4:23 pm

When you say relevant. What does that mean? Relevant to what?
Thanks...

I said " it seems relevant".

He very clearly asked you 'relevant to what'. He quite clearly did not ask for an overly-long definition of the word. Please focus a little bit better.

[wtc-wtf]

I stated that this video could be relevant because:

It makes claims that the live footage of 911 is faked.

In my opinion this could be because:

Its a video made with good intentions, but based on bad research.
Its a video made with good intentions, based on good research.
It could be a video which claims to be proving media fakery, but it is intentionally based on flawed research, so as to undermine the research on this site.

I have seen it only once late at night, the next day I came and searched this site to see if I could get any more information, I didn’t find any so I made a small post in the chat box. I wish I could determine the nature of this video alone and present some clear findings, but as yet I have only seen it once, and my knowledge of the footage this video use's is limited .

I will watch the video in more detail over the weekend.

[simonshack]

Dear wtc wtf,

Just a year ago, I posted a comment about "9/11 SPLIT SECOND" - by YT user SeeKnowEvil. I was briefly in touch with him by mail - and he even sent me a DVD by snail mail. I thought it was pretty good at the time - although some parts I found a bit dodgy. If you are going to watch the whole thing, please let me know what, in your opinion, sticks out as possible 'bad intention' of that research effort.

[nonhocapito]

Dear wtc wtf,

Just a year ago, I posted a comment about "9/11 SPLIT SECOND" - by YT user SeeKnowEvil. I was briefly in touch with him by mail - and he even sent me a DVD by snail mail. I thought it was pretty good at the time - although some parts I found a bit dodgy. If you are going to watch the whole thing, please let me know what, in your opinion, sticks out as possible 'bad intention' of that research effort.

Simon if I may what do you think of my observations posted above, about the first sequence investigated by that video? viewtopic.php?p=2368375#p2368375 ^
I just have seen the first part and I'm not disputing his good intentions, but maybe I am missing something important.

[wtc-wtf]

Hi guys

I’ve now taken a closer look at this video, I don’t believe there are any bad intentions with this research, I would agree that this is in the most part interesting and to the point, the voiceover is good and I find the guy likeable.
When I first watched this video, I was slightly confused by his analysis in part one, this had some questions in my head which I was still pondering whilst I watched the rest of the video, as a result of this the rest of the video didn’t receive my full attention first time around.
The confusion with part 1 has been explained by nonhocapito and I understand this to be that in a split second he compares live footage which is changing over to a replay but there is no mention of this in the narrative, (see 5:35 to 6:20 sec ofhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ow98TkNYJvk&list=UUz9U7jxifW6YCOewf05SCTQ&index=15&feature=plcp).
However the author makes an good observation about the black line stitching the different videos together and I think maybe this is more the point he’s trying to make that they are part of the same fake footage.The video as a whole is a good effort and very interesting
I hope that these videos, this site, and the efforts of everyone who realises the truth, encourages more people to wake up to what has happened, and what is happening still so that they can no longer be misled and misdirected by the media and the people behind them.

[Equinox]

(BTW: The author of the video says the videos from the TV web archive cannot be downloaded, but actually they can be, I happen to have them all on my PC, as I am sure does Simon and many others.)

thats right if anyone wants to know how here is ONE way of doing it... viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1295#p2368591