So perhaps, at a very late stage on Monday night, September 10 2001, some smarter supervisor of the TV fakery team burst in horror: "Naaah, guys - we just can't go with that shit! It's simply too silly! Tomorrow, I want you to patch up that nosecone sticking out of the tower as much as you possibly can!"
The WNYWFOX5 nose-out shot was aired - but a (failed) attempt was made to obscure it with a quick (15-frame) fade-to-black. CNN showed it a short while later - but hid it behind a large CNN banner. Other shots (such as the so-called "GAMMA shot") showing a cone exiting the WTC2 were also initially simply covered with large TV banners :
QuoVadis wrote:PS - I tried several time to post the video - is there no way to do it here? I followed instructions and attempted to do it 6 different ways with no success.
QuoVadis wrote:Thanks - I hadn't seen the detailed instruction - I merely went to the Embed Videos dropdown box.
QuoVadis wrote:Re: Fox 5 Nose out footage is back
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT1q0j5Pzr0
QuoVadis wrote:I@N wrote:QuoVadis wrote:[b]Re: Fox 5 Nose out footage is back.
It's a great job to me! Clearly inspired by Simon and SeptemberClues, really well done.
Your observations are well taken. You brought up an interesting point that I think deserves not a little attention with respect to the facts of "non-attribution" as to how and when an author fails to credit his/her sources and/or inspiration(s) that might have led to a particular idea or discovery on "9/11 Truth," especially in reference to previous work done, i.e., groundwork laid by predecessors without proper acknowledgement and credit to the originators of the idea or discovery.
I am not sure if Ace Baker is guilty in this regard though, but I do know of him as a forthright and honest researcher, and I might just call him up and ask him about the point you raised, mainly because I would be interested to know based on my own negative experiences with respect to E-plagiarism (which comes easily) and lack of acknowledgement for work done.
Of course we all build on one another’s work over time while sometimes unconsciously (or not) embracing the discoveries of others as though they were our own. I liken the process to a "literary distillery" wherein the ingredients for the ‘mash’ are all thrown into the same pot so to speak, and the resultant 'liquor' is savored by the creator and most often is taken to be of his own unique creation - and rightfully so I suppose.
I once was a member of a so-called “truth site,” and although I had posts way up in the hundreds – and many threads with at least 100,000 views etc., my work was never acknowledged - not even once. Solution? I am in the process of doing now precisely what Ace Baker has done, and is doing. And in so doing I doubt that I will be making all that many “attributions” inasmuch as my sources will have contained many of my own ideas and well thought out posts/threads. In other words - work that I have already produced along the way, but that I was never credited with I will now rightfully claim as my own. I smile
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests