DISINFO CORNER: NO PLANES / VIDEO FAKERY / SPACE LASERS

[oyashango]

source of the footage?     

I obtained it from old footage that was published on YT two years ago.

9/11 Truth Documentary - Grave Implications
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMfHxoM07YM

[lovealexjones]

Don't suppress information man. If you don't care to discuss, that's cool, but don't suppress information. Nobody knows what really happened or why. Hence, we discuss. We all know Alex's research.. let's look at other peoples conclusions too. Doesn't mean we're saying it's true.


What if the answers are in the middle of it all?


Truth= going where the evidence takes you. Sometimes in circles, sometimes backwards, sometimes back to the beginning. But that's why it's a quest.

i wouldn't have replied less it had been posted by you a well respected member.
Respect

[matrixcutter]

I've heard the theory that is was a ritualistic sacrafice too. This information comes from a movie called Spiritworld.

And from the fact that thousands of people died and we were lied to about what happened, many times.

Waco was a ritual sacrifice.  They burned the people alive, and there is footage of some of the ATF men bowing to the flames, apparently - although I haven't seen that.

Really interesting watch at the very least but the info is at 22:00

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9194460464406571758&hl=en

This is a face in the smoke.

There are a couple more too:





I know that the second one is taken from the actual footage, because you can make it out yourself just after the second plane hits.

But if the TV footage has been editted, then these could have been added to the footage.  If not, then something else is going on here.

This is a picture of a sculpure by Rudolph Steiner "Ahriman" who is supposedly one of the trinity of Lucifer.

The name always brings to mind Averell Harriman, of the Skull and Bones society (among other things).

[den carts]

1. How many millions of people does NY city have to eyewitness?

2. What do you gain from not using planes?

Think Mcfly.

That alone should be enough to put this disinfo in the garbage. The disinfo is so much the better when it can get you to believe something that is outright daft. It discredits you completely.

[uwaf]

Hey, Chris, It's sad to see people talking theories down. I've seen a clip from September Clues. The clip that shows the nose of the plane coming out the other side. It's not possible since the nose is thin metal.

[oyashango]

I am glad this subject has come up again. I am still not at peace with the "commerical airline" plane speculation.
Here again, I captured the plane going into the second tower, and it still does not look like a commerical airline.
It looks to me like an auto-piloted figher jet. Can anyone please identify this plane?

The photo is authentic and so is the footage from which I obtained it. All I am asking is are there any military or skilled, knowledgeable person who can offer some clue as to what type of aircraft this is.
I used to work for the air force international logistic command in Texas, and it looks to me to be one of the older aircraft fighters that I managed.  It is not required that I am believed. Humor me with an intelligent response, please someone?

[matrixcutter]

1. How many millions of people does NY city have to eyewitness?

The number is irrelevant.

Either they all saw planes, or one or more of them didn't - either way, they certainly didn't see the planes from the official story.

If they did all see planes, that doesn't mean there were planes there - it still leaves the question of whether what they saw was real.

And of course, people who claim to have seen planes may be either lying or mistaken.

2. What do you gain from not using planes?

Reducing the possibility of major failure.

Think Mcfly.

Indeed.

[Atomgrad]

I agree with the Bill Cooper quote wholeheartedly.

I believe planes hit both towers that day. The reason behind it is simple.

In original footage you can see clearly a burst of light emit from both planes prior to impact, this I believe would have been pointless to fake, yet it`s clearly there, and in fact has been digitally edited out of later versions. I believe that the bursts of light are missiles to clear the way for the planes, in fact for the first plane, to create a Jumbo sized impact in the building.

I don`t believe the first plane is a Boeing 767, it is definitley smaller than a commercial airliner and sounds like a Cessna. No airliner that has ever flown over my head has ever sounded like a Cessna, and I live right on the flightpath for Liverpool Airport, I hear planes at the rate of one every few minutes, in fact, one just flew overhead, many flying lower than the first plane and its not even close to looking or sounding like one. Yes, I`ve heard the `Planes sound different in a built up area` story, which is true, but I live in a built up area, not in some leafy glade.

I don`t believe they thought anyone would get the first impact on film, but they knew, counted on the second being caught on film. So they used an airliner there, whether it was a Commercial or Military plane I`m not sure. There are enough eyewitness`s that can attest to the 2nd plane. Either way, I believe it is being controlled remotely by the white jet that can be seen flying nearby.

I`ve watched most if not all of the 9/11 videos out there, have got the first strike in high quality mode from a link posted on this forum, however the sound is missing from it for some unknown reason, and I`ve also read a lot of articles about it. It doesn`t matter whether I believe the premis of the video/article, I`ll still view it and, always with a disbelieving eye, or a closed mind.

Things I`ve viewed that changed my idea`s involve, my reaction to titles/propersitions is in speech marks

"Remote Control Planes? WTF?" then I read Flight of the Bumble Planes.

"Nukes used? Get to f***!" then I read, the Finnish Explosive Experts report and another, futher in depth report which someone `thoughtfully` cut n pasted and sent to Chris the other day.

"No plane struck the Pentagon? You are taking the piss" then read several articles on it, the most convincing being "Spot the Jumbo"

All these articles and many, many more are available at http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.htm

When I say I read them, I don`t mean I skimmed over them, looking for things I could disagree with and therefore dismiss out of hand. I mean I read them, every bit, and any links that they posted to back up their claim. Anything I either disagreed with or couldn`t see (If video), I got a 2nd person to view it to see if they would spot it. I`d give them a brief detail about what they were looking for, such as `Explosive Squibs like these` or `Apparently, there`s a tail of a plane visible in that`.

It was my brother, who was a non believer at the time, who spotted the woman seen clinging to the steell framework in one picture, the tail of a Cessna type plane in another, and even the squibs in a grainy video the first time I watched it. He is no longer a non believer as a result, and goes around showing other people the stuff that convinced him.

The only things I`m sure about from that day are, 2 planes struck the towers, types unknown. The towers were brought down by controlled demolition, devices unknown. Something struck the Pentagon, device unknown. And that the entire thing was planned and staged managed by Dick Cheney and the boys.

[Letsbereal]

I am glad this subject has come up again. I am still not at peace with the "commerical airline" plane speculation.
Here again, I captured the plane going into the second tower, and it still does not look like a commerical airline.
It looks to me like an auto-piloted figher jet. Can anyone please identify this plane?

This is clearly a F-18 Hornet

[BlueBaron]

Cruise missles have wings, tailwings and look very similiar to planes.

only 10 times smaller.

[oyashango]

This is clearly a F-18 Hornet

Thank you. I managed the spare parts for the F-16 and others for Isreal, Saudi, and the U.K., and I have seen so many that I often get confused. But, I knew it looked familair. It took a lot of time to slow motion the footage to capture it just before it hit the second tower. But I did it, and I knew it was not a comerical carrier.

[Atomgrad]

Cheers Chris, it took that long to write that there were no replies when I started it, 34 by the time I`d finished lol.

[911aware]

I'm with Alex on this one: the "no planes" theory was concocted by government disinfo agents for the express purpose of giving 9/11 truth a bad name.

Note: I'm not saying that anyone who entertains this theory is therefore an agent, just that that's how it originated.

now, THAT, i believe.

[Scootle]

the only thing i know for sure about the planes is that regardless of whether or not its possible to pull off a 330 degree downward turn and cruise 6 meters above the ground for half a mile at 500 miles an hour and regardless of whether or not its possible to crash into a 63 meter wide target at 500 miles an hour at a bank angle of 30 degrees ... a bunch of amateurs who could barely fly a small cessna, couldn't possibly have done it.

[Dig]

First of all, let me say this discussion doesn't really matter. This isn't information I would use to "wake" someone up with. But I feel it can be discussed amongst informed people.

I just watched September Clues again and well, they bring up some interesting points in the film. It really doesn't matter if planes actually hit the towers or not but they raise some interesting points about the footage shown on television.

What are some of your views on this subject? I watched the film with the idea of point out errors in the theory but there were very few that I can find. Some of the interesting things is how CNN put their banner over the plane actually hitting, the black out right at impact on two different shots, the poor quality film, and the weirdest, the 17 second beeps in all of the film counting down to impact. Some of the alleged "animation" does indeed look sloppy.

I can go on and on about errors that I saw in the medias version. The planes hitting at different angles, no plane seen 5 seconds before impact but then the camera zooms in and a plane come out of nowhere into the shot (right at impact)... it's one thing after another really.

So is it possible they used missles?





Concerning the moon landing, here is how I feel. I think the entire thing was a hoax. But not because we were trying to beat Russia in the space race or we weren't able to do it, simply because they wanted to cover up the secret space program, funnel a bunch of money into black ops and didn't want to show the public what is really there. So if you take that logic and apply it to 9-11, what do you get?




"Listen to everything. Believe nothing. Until you've researched it for yourself"- Bill Cooper

Dude, why are you determined that I continue to give your movie more credibility

Bill Cooper would be one of the first to bash this disinfo.

[Atomgrad]

I'm reading the link you posted . That's why I post this kind of stuff... get information flowing and open up new doors and ideas!

Cheers!  

Cool, that`s why I posted it.

It`s a good read, I was telling people a year ago that there was a recession coming because of an article over there. Of course, I got laughed at and called a `Tin Foil Hat Wearer` for it, and of course, those people were correct because there isn`t currently one going on....

 

[oyashango]

Thank you. I managed the spare parts for the F-16 and others for Isreal, Saudi, and the U.K., and I have seen so many that I often get confused. But, I knew it looked familair. It took a lot of time to slow motion the footage to capture it just before it hit the second tower. But I did it, and I knew it was not a comerical carrier.

Now, here are the two other videos that I viewed as well. Now, notice how the plane models seem to change. I am not sure if this is the footage for the first plane that hit. But, definitely, the second film shows the F-18 fighter plane.  Now, if this is so, what happened to the alledged airline that they claim hit the second tower?  If what I have captured is actually the F-18, this I believe, sheds an entirely different light on the many lies the state department has told the public. This involves the pentagon and the air command directly. Certainly they are not going to tell us these "terrorists" broke in a secured air base and high-jacked it.
http://www.veoh.com/videos/v15711469MdGYHa29?rank=5&jsonParams=%7B%22numResults%22%3A20%2C%22rlmin%22%3A0%2C%22query%22%3A%22911+new+footage%22%2C%22rlmax%22%3Anull%2C%22veohOnly%22%3Atrue%2C%22order%22%3A%22default%22%2C%22range%22%3A%22a%22%2C%22sId%22%3A%22156247381146760737%22%7D&searchId=156247381146760737&rank=6

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v15991613wDk9Zgkf?rank=7&jsonParams=%7B%22numResults%22%3A20%2C%22rlmin%22%3A0%2C%22query%22%3A%22911+new+footage%22%2C%22rlmax%22%3Anull%2C%22veohOnly%22%3Atrue%2C%22order%22%3A%22default%22%2C%22range%22%3A%22a%22%2C%22sId%22%3A%22156247381146760737%22%7D&searchId=156247381146760737&rank=8

[Dig]

Yea, but he would listen though right? Consider the info and research it first.  

And if you need to move the thread it's cool man . I just wanted to get some perspectives on this info before I go researching it for myself.

Many here have researched it including AJ and Paul Watson.

It is disinfo.

There are many threads in this forum dealing with it.  You may want to search using the "advanced search button" if you wish to see what PP forum members have posted about it.

[Scootle]

this video debunks the nose in nose out stuff

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=d1V7TovxzBc

check out the comments ... all the no-planers have agressively marked the comments from the no-plane debunkers as spam and lowered their rank.

[clearmyst]

I've heard the theory that is was a ritualistic sacrafice too. This information comes from a movie called Spiritworld. Really interesting watch at the very least but the info is at 22:00

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9194460464406571758&hl=en

This is a face in the smoke.



This is a picture of a sculpure by Rudolph Steiner "Ahriman" who is supposedly one of the trinity of Lucifer.

I have noticed the ritual aspect as well.
Hoagland attributes it to a symbolic gesture from the revitilized assasins against the modern templar/freemasonic west.
http://www.enterprisemission.com/tower2.htm

I think its interesting to look into but I subscribe that the image twice seen was Pan(notice the beard and horns)


 and keep in mind that the christian depiction of satan is based largely upon Pan.
Remember he is the god that gave us the word "Panic" after the state of fear and trepidation that he would inspire sudden fear or lonesomness.
Be sure to delve into the tradition of pan in ancient phallic worship and the target twin towers of jachin and boaz wil start to make sense.
Pan was also known as the pied piper...

Indeed on 9/11 the ritual of Pan created a mass panic and one know needs to figure out just who/what the projected panic created is being used to power?
*Hint*
*Hint*
The brightest amongst the night sky.

There's lots more on this account to look into,
we've just scratched the surface on the operational aspects of 9/11 being and inside job with even less devoted to its esoteric.

[ES]

I obtained it from old footage that was published on YT two years ago.

9/11 Truth Documentary - Grave Implications
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMfHxoM07YM

So you captured a jet fighter going into wtc and just decided to wait till someone brought no planes up to tell anybody? Ok.  So was this the first or second strike. I'd like to compare the footage to see if I can find the big rectangular shadow on the building that is shown in your picture.

[Neco]

Back to the topic of the original poster... Although I have heard theories about the planes being flown into the WTC being remotely controlled, I have never before seen that sort of "Lazer Targeting" that is implied in that video. 

It seems rather suspicious to me and more of a sort of dis-info agent then any real evidence. 

[grapecrusher1]

No, exposing the truth of 9/11 is. I hope you don't mind me sharing my findings for others to be aware of and agree with or refute.

Listened to Hoffmann on Wolsey's show, a little dated, but quite poignant as far as our past exchanges have gone.  I have been looking at 911 for a couple of years and much more so lately yet and have come to a revalation that one can be easily led astray.  This dog and pony disinfo/misinfo show that hoffman was mentioning is mitigating the movements impact.  It is insidiously effective how can it be combatted except on this small scale level.  Where someone who is curious and smart doesn't get discouraged with all the window dressing -- any sentient being would believe that planes hit the wtc but I still dont know what happened at the pentagon and will reserve judgement (ie I am not convinced it was a missile any longer and feel this is a distraction from the main integral issue).
 

[Atomgrad]

The truth is, it doesn`t matter what any of us believe, it`s what can be proven that counts.

Sometimes, we all forget that.

[grapecrusher1]

The truth is, it doesn`t matter what any of us believe, it`s what can be proven that counts.

Sometimes, we all forget that.

Yes I agree.  It has taken me a long time to realize the amount of pulp infecting this movement -- how bout you? 
My point is dismiss those with weak arguments whether innocent or otherwise and hoist those with credibility-- Steven Jones, hoffman, gage.  Get focussed and let the mediocrity fall or be forced to the wayside (fetzer, wood, siegel).

[Atomgrad]

I came to that realisation when I first read about WTC7. I didn`t so much realise it, as read it in the article and realise it was correct lol.

I`ve argued on another forum will non believers, and one of my staunchest allies was a guy with a differing opinion in 9/11, I`m a MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose) believer, and he was a LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) believer, but we never argued about our differences in belief, never even considered it tbh, we concentrated on the stuff we agreed on. Whenever people tried to get us to argue over our differences in belief we would just say that we understood why we each had differing views, but we both knew we were after the same goal, the truth, so our differences didn`t matter.

I believe that if someone posts Disinfo, it is generally better to let one or two people call it out, post something that proves your arguement and leave it at that. Rather than have everyone all bounce in with an opinion, as it`s this part that causes the splits and divisions among mostly similarly minded people, particularly when the guy posting the article isn`t actually a Disinfo Artist, just someone who has fallen for it.

I read a good piece by John Kaminski last night about it funnily enough, I`ll dig it out.

http://www.rudemacedon.ca/kaminski/04/0707-avalanche.html

I read stuff on here that I disagree with all time, I don`t post up that it`s disinfo, and that the person posting it is a disinfo artist. But some people on here can be very dismissive of other peoples opinions on the matter, which results in flame war. Pointless, and one of the desired results of disinfo. I`m not talking about Sane oor the other Mods there either, me and Sane have managed to have civil disagreements of opinion over several posts in a thread, neither has called the other out as a troll or disinfo artist for having a different viewpoint.

I agree about hoisting up the credible arguements, particularly the works of Jones et al, because they  know they`re stuff, it is scientifically provable/proven, but even the incredible has to be looked at, albeit with a critical eye. I`m trying to get a post up I made the other day about looking into everything and believing nothing, but the other page won`t load up Prison Planet Forum.

*edit Got it

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=82578.msg471203#msg471203

*back to original post

Like you, I believe that it wasn`t a 757 that hit the Pentagon, but I`m not about to get into a fight with anyone who believes otherwise because neither of us can prove our arguement. Like I said about the use of mini nukes, the guy makes a good case for it, but ultimately that doesn`t matter because we cant prove that either, the steel is long gone and the type of bomb he`s claiming could have been used doesn`t show on a Geiger Counter. That is how I would have responded to the post.

When I first started researching 9/11 I, like most people, I concentrated on the Towers, who wouldn`t?. It was the article I read about WTC7 that changed my mind. As I said in my previous post, my own viewpoint on what actually happened that day doesn`t matter, it`s what we can prove that does.

[grapecrusher1]

I will check out the links you have posted.
It is all well and good to discuss/argue/berate in the environment of these forums but if this movement is going to have a chance it must galvanize into a cohesive spear point.  To have morons spouting about no plane video trickery dilutes the effectiveness of the real argument and its evidence as laid out by real people.  For instance if someone who is intelligent and inquisitive sees or hears two "experts" up on stage or on the radio or on the internet bickering about nukes/holograms etc it looks like chicanery.  Yet in reality one has some well grounded substantive evidence and the other is in my opinion both morally and intellectually corrupt.
I think the proof is there that no nuke was used --- Jones is a nuclear physicist who pointed out the cars tires weren't fried apparently they would have been in a nuke attack
a lot of this has been studied and proven Thermite fits the bill on all counts and is not disproven by anybody -- not to mention being found raw
hear is the link for the hoffman talk which expresses what i am trying to say more acutely

http://cdn2.libsyn.com/visibility911/visibility911_hoffman.mp3?nvb=20090130171447&nva=20090131172447&t=0512947a7929b9a5b5dfa

Btw i have modified my thinking on the pentagon since digging a little deeper with jimd's guiding posts -- it is now modified to "I dont know."  I would like to talk about receptivity to rational ideas.  For me it seems that most minds are made up before they post regardless of evidence presented.  I have contributed to discussions about chomsky being an agent for the NWO.  This is fundamentally "dumb as rocks" and battles for the most affected by fluoride award with the no planers.  Unlike jimd I do not have the patience engaging in long  and usually unwinnable arguments with people when your position is more advanced and justified than the drivel being presented by others.

[Sapient]

I live in NYC.
You can not see airplanes with all the tall buildings.
The sound is echoed.

And the people are liars.   They hear a sound, think
it is a plane, see the plane on TV,  not for real.

They do not know reality.  I talk to people here and
there, it is true, they think TV is reality,  they like to
brag. 

CAN ONE PERSON AFTER 7 YEARS TELL ME THEY SEEN A PLANE???

They tell me they seen a plane hit the pentagon,  building 7, etc. 

Has ANYONE SEEN A PLANE FOR REAL???

I have been right here in NYC every since 911. 

Yes I am serious,  I never met anyone who seen a plane.
They really think TV is real,  tell me to my face that you
seen a plane.

[nycflag]

I seen with my own eyes the 2nd plane hit.  I also worked at ground zero for 3 weeks.

[Sapient]

I believe you,  I am not here to argue.

But,  most people who tell me they seen a plane, also told
me that there was a plane in Pennsylvania, a plane for the
pentagon.  I know there were no planes at those places, despite
the movie 93.

I have been hearing stupidity for years, now I would like to
talk straight.  If it was an airplane, it was NOT a commercial plane.
The planes were switched when they disappeared over a military base.
Then either a military plane or missile completed the run to the building.
With the WINGS appearing to go into the building like a hot knife into butter.
That was not a commercial aircraft.

[Doctor No NWO]

I seen with my own eyes the 2nd plane hit.  I also worked at ground zero for 3 weeks.

I'm a former New Yorker myself & what pisses me off is Good Americans are now dead because of a US Government Staged terrorist attack on the WTC...
 (Yes 9/11 was an Inside Job)
Are we any closer to bringing the US Government terrorists & those Co Ops  involved in orchestrating the 9/11 attacks on the WTC to face Justice?
That is what  I believe people should be totally focused on  
No rest for the wicked & let them evil bastards know (we the people) are not letting go on this diabolical criminal act they committed on 9/11

We the people stand to prosecute all involved in the 9/11 US Government terrorist orchestrated attacks on the WTC
These evil US government criminals will face  prosecutions for the Murder of innocent American lives who where Murdered in cold blood by the US Government  on 9/11.

All evil has to do to win is good people do nothing
Stand strong & we the people will win  

[grapecrusher1]

Exactly

Focus on the hard evidence which is preposterous enough and tough for average intelligent people to digest.  AND  leave the fantasy notions ie no-planes, pod, DEW's on the cutting floor where it belongs.  I would suggest ignoring the Pentagon until the ball gets rolling through the court system.  Credibility is key.

[BlueBaron]

Yeah this movie bends no-planers over a barrel and has no mercy.  Too bad the no-plane idea was spread around so effectively to media people early on.  That "This is an orange" 2 minute video is great too, thanks for sharing.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3898962504721899003&q=WTC7+-+This+is+an+Orange&ei=I14PSMGjL6iO4wL_wbWoBA&hl=en

You guys think you can fool me with double think saying that piece of fruit is an Apple when it's clear to those of us in the know that it's a Pear.

[Swmorgan77]

Here's a link for my video 9/11 Coincidence theory http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5236492071990669218&ei=_uOSSYXpDIaIqQO2kYmPDQ&q=911+coincidence+theory. 

I've shipped out about 100 of these since I made it and folks seem to like it for giving to friends because it is so calm and non-sensational, though honestly its pretty boring

[kushfiend]

First off, let me preface this by saying that if you haven't realized that CNN, Fox, ABC, and CBS put up fake news reports on 9/11, then please view "September clues" on Google video or you tube, which is an excellent documentary all about the fake videos major media outlets ran on 9/11.

Digging even deeper into this phenomenon, I have uncovered analysis done by fellow patriots on you tube showing how many news reports were actually done in front of a blue screen, by reporters pretending to be "on the scene."  It's obvious by the wording these reporters use that many of the reports had been filmed prior to 9/11.

For example, in the following clips: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTOaYSa37bY&feature=channel_page
and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL6aqNTLSFw&feature=channel_page reporters have to be told where to look, which would never happen in a real live shot.

Then, there are the obvious dubbing videos where the media is intentionally trying to hide the fact that the planes were def not as advertised.  I don't want to get into NPT here, because that is all circumstantial and I have seen many people get attacked for having those beliefs.  I, personally, do not believe 1 word of the official story.  I think the planes were military issue, and were auto-piloted into the towers, there prolly weren't any hi-jackers at all.  Many of the maneuvers that the supposed "jumbo jets" made were beyond the skill of an experienced pilot, which none of the hi-jackers even were.

[davidnay]

Those 2 videos don't prove anything at all. All they accomplish is to futher discredit the 9/11 truth movement.

[dissident99]

I am a No-Planer too .. But it does NOT Matter. What mattes is that it was FAKE. A False Flag Event destined to push the
Sheeple onto a Problem-Reaction-Solution Scenario to pass the Patriot Act and others. That is what you concentrate on.
Do not use this tactic with the sheeple, It is way out there, it defies all common sense for the Sheeple. Just concentrate on showing them the Issue as a Whole.

Either push "Wake Up Call" or "David Icke - Big Brother, The Big Picture"

Wake Up Call
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3149990642797444340&ei=3c6iSf7kA4rEqQL95LS-CQ&q=wake+up+call

David Icke - Big Brother, The Big Picture
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4788106431016278751&ei=Bs-iSfvyBZPiqQLMv_miBw&q=big+brother+the+big+picture

[kushfiend]

Those 2 videos don't prove anything at all. All they accomplish is to futher discredit the 9/11 truth movement.

How so?  You don't think the media was complicit at all on 9/11?  How about the fact that they were reporting Osama was the culprit responsible for the attacks within hours of the attack?

And how does this discredit the 911 truth movement?  

[davidnay]

How so?  You don't think the media was complicit at all on 9/11?  How about the fact that they were reporting Osama was the culprit responsible for the attacks within hours of the attack?

And how does this discredit the 911 truth movement?  

I do believe the media was complicit. As one example- the fact that they reported WTC7 falling before it actually did shows that. But in regards to those 2 videos, on their own merit they prove nothing. He may indeed have been standing in front of a blue screen but the videos don't show any evidence to support that. And even if he was standing in front of a blue screen all that proves is TV trickery but it doesn't prove the media to be complicit in 9/11. So in the end those videos only serve to marginalize the 9/11 truth movement as people who believe anything without real proof.

[kushfiend]

I do believe the media was complicit. As one example- the fact that they reported WTC7 falling before it actually did shows that. But in regards to those 2 videos, on their own merit they prove nothing. He may indeed have been standing in front of a blue screen but the videos don't show any evidence to support that. And even if he was standing in front of a blue screen all that proves is TV trickery but it doesn't prove the media to be complicit in 9/11. So in the end those videos only serve to marginalize the 9/11 truth movement as people who believe anything without real proof.

Very true, that's why in my original post I pointed out that all this evidence is circumstantial.  But, seeing as Ghoul-liani shipped all the WTC steel to China within weeks of the collapse, hard evidence is going to be next to impossible to come by.

These videos were just a small example of how the media was blatantly lieing in almost every report.  I have seen clips where victims that were interviewed are shown to be obvious psy-op CIA plants, there to spread the official story at the jump.

I have heard from unconfirmed sources that the video feeds on 9/11 news channels all went through 1 major hub, and they all got their pictures from there or something along those lines.  Has anyone heard anything similar to that?