Yankee, why would you think any government created/endorsed images are not
Earlier you said,
yankee451 wrote: Sure but we're saying the same thing...
yankee451 wrote:I don't represent LetsRoll anymore than they represent me. ... I only speak for myself
Could you please clarify which it is for us then?
yankee451 wrote: ...except I think the gash is the real deal. The smoke was probably added for more drama, but even with an EMP you cannot guarantee someone, probably dozens of someones, knowing camera aficionados, wouldn't have an analogue camera which would not have been effected by an EMP.
Why would any "EMP" be necessary if HERF could do the job without disabling essentials? HonestlyNow already covered the hypothetical "errant photograph" scenario — I would further suggest that if the 9-11 'production' did include anything physically visible in enough detail for local onlookers to see then all photographic processing labs would have had to be monitored and... oops, it just didn't turn out, overexposed, blurred etc.
However, the fact that the story of "FBI confiscating film, cameras etc." was circulated from the start actually convinces me that was nothing but a deliberate red herring (along with "on-site witnesses" to "bombs in the bulding", "jumpers", "dancing Israelis" etc. etc. ad nauseam).
yankee451 wrote: Well, with thousands of people looking at the buildings, and then the TV and then the buildings, I can only say that a whole city would call bullshit right then and there if they didn't match.
Really? I'll ditto Simon, "WELL, THE HOAX WORKED - AND MOST PEOPLE FELL FOR IT....the public at large was fooled (EPIC FAIL!) by a - now flatly exposed - 'cheap' magician's trick (EPIC FAIL!) - supported by a powerful media machine."
Sorry, but your inaccurate, unrealistic assumptions regarding people's perceptions sounds very naive, especially for a never-before-seen event when conditioned to trust 'news' images on TV as real, endorsed by all 'authorities' and reinforced by majority belief. That's just basic psychology and how Psy-Ops work.
e.g. Read this UK university study from 2009:
Fake video dramatically alters eyewitness accounts
Researchers at the University of Warwick have found that fake video evidence can dramatically alter people's perceptions of events, even convincing them to testify as an eyewitness to an event that never happened
In the study, published in Applied Cognitive Psychology
, Dr Wade found that almost 50% of people shown fake footage of an event they witnessed first hand were prepared to believe the video version rather than what they actually saw
yankee451 wrote:So without a smoke screen and unless they laid down an EMP so large it took out much of the east coast (and every analogue camera), they had to count on witnesses comparing what they could see with their eyes, telescopes and telephoto lenses, with what they could see on the TV. Once the planes hit, they'd all see the same thing, with some embellishments for dramatic impact.
Since the WTC area had to be evacuated beforehand & public access blocked, even if any could initially see smoking towers or the cutter charges' gash at a distance — whether through binoculars, telephoto lens or naked eye — how clear would that have been before being smoke obscured, and how many would have had exactly the same unobstructed perspectives as the TV images presented?
(I suspect upper floors of office and apartment buildings with any 'inconvenient' views would have been 'coincidentally' unavailable well ahead of time too (e.g. unrenewed/terminated leases, council ordinances for 'safety' renovations etc.)
Consider this: Isn't the first thing most people in this instant 'news' image-addicted culture do when something catastrophic happens in their vicinity, even if
in sight, is turn on their TVs to find out what's going on and if there are close-up views from a 'live' camera to watch that instead? The dramatic images and unfolding 'news' melodrama would have kept most New Yorkers glued to their screens (as intended) rather than trying to catch a distant glimpse through smoke that happened to be inconveniently blowing their way (i.e. actually everybody's
Have you been so programmed by the propagandized myth of people with split-second reflexes & prescience to whip out cameras & instant zoom to catch moments no one could anticipate?
It simply doesn't make any sense to me that the planners/perpetrators would have bothered with anything logistically elaborate or dangerous just to be physically visible for only a few possible observers when already proven psy-op, images & OODA loop effects were designed to overwhelm the majority and so paralyze/silence/ostracize any doubtful nay-sayers.
In other words, why risk anything subject to Murphy's Law in unpredictable reality if you can fake it all effectively with prefabricated images and well tested psychological trickery?
All they wanted was the easiest, most practical way to disguise
the demolition of redundant buildings for profit, ratify their war plans, enact restrictive legislation & fool
the majority of citizens into not only believing their 9-11 movie drama but endorsing it.