Four words, folks...

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

...THERE. WERE. NO. PLANES.

You might want to do a download for your library. I suspect Youtube will come under some pretty serious pressure to disappear this one before too long -- it's dead bang irrefutable proof of video fakery via shadow analysis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwcZh42JMog&NR=1

[Bassman66]

1. Dear Mr Jefferson

Can you answer my question please.

Q) Why would they fake a second impact 20 minutes after the first with thousands watching the towers, some visiting from possibly all over the planet with an unknown number of cameras and videos and expect to control the images and videos after the event?

No one would do that. No one did.

There is not one single image or video from the public that shows an explosion and no plane, there are however 40+ videos alone showing a plane and explosion.

Answer the question please, don't do your normal dance.

No planes is COINTELPRO, a lot of money has been invested in this distraction crap.

[Bassman66]

7. Mr Jefferson has once again..

..avoided answering this question.
(Cue rolly polly smilies.)

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

9. .

:rofl:

Bassman

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

You're not like other OCTers, Bassman...

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Bassman66]

10. You try answering the question.

That would be nice.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

14. You try answering, instead of dodging these -- that would be nice.

How 'bout you tell me how an aluminum aircraft just melts into a steel and concrete skyscraper without exhibiting any discernible deformation, shearing of wings or stabilizer, or deacceleration.

And how the nose section makes it into, through, and out the other side of the building -- ONLY in a cartoon, Bassman.

And why no appreciable plane wreckage near the base of either tower, the Pentagon site, or at Shanksville.

And how a plane gets anywhere near the Pentagon without being shot down.

And why there's no video showing a plane flying into the Pentagon.

And how the Pentagon lawn on the approach side comes away virtually unscathed.

And why men in business clothes (no gloves or protective clothing) were immediately out collecting any debris they could find off the lawn at the Pentagon site. Is that part of accepted NTSB crash site investigation procedure?

And why so many of the first eye-witness accounts aired on 9-11 were media personalities, and why media conveniently forget to get the names of the other plane corroborators they interviewed.

And how building WTC 1,2, and 7 just collapses into their own footprints at roughly free fall speed, if controlled demolition wasn't used.

And why, when informed of the attack, that Chimpy just sits there with a guilty blank stare rather than leaping into action, and why he wouldn't have been immediately hustled off to a secure location.

And why, according to the Bureau of Transportation statistics, the four planes allegedly hijacked on 9-11 never took off, and why, according to the FAA, they weren't even scheduled to fly.

And why five of the 19 accused hijackers turned up alive and well.

And why there is so much first responder testimony of multiple explosions in WTC 1 and 2.

You're suggesting I'm engaged in COINTELPRO? That's rich. Like listening to Bush talk about the axis of evil.

[Bassman66]

16. No no,

this is the way it works.

You posted a video, the OP is about the video, I've clearly shown why the video is bogus. You have no reply about it.

Instead we now get the scattergun question response.

Let's keep it simple, let's stick to your video.

You answer my question.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

19. Bassman lays down the law.

:rofl:

Oh my, you're not like other OCTers, Bassman.

:rofl:

[Bassman66]

20. One last chance

Do you have an answer to my question or are you going to carry on looking like you have no integrity?

This is having the opposite effect to what you want, you are looking incredibly silly here.

[Bassman66]

40. I told you once before

you walked through my door
no reply

[Bassman66]

2. OMG!

"The most ridiculous shadow I've ever seen".

The maker of this video has no conception of secondary light sources! (Actually they probably have, but ssssush).

What a joke.

Who paid for that video?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

3. What's the matter, Bassman?

You sound a wee bit desperate. Something bothering you? Do you find the OP distressing?

A secondary light source?

:rofl:

Let's see, there was the sun...and then there was also ...hmmm... there was also the ___________________________.


Feel free to go ahead and fill in that blank, Bassman, I can hardly wait for this one.

[Bassman66]

4. Secondary light sources.

Why else can you see detail in the shadow of the building?
But I suspect you know that already.

Yes secondary light sources, the biggest one is ___ ?

You fill in the blank.

You're going to look very foolish.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

5. .

:rofl:

Bassman

:rofl:

Bassman, Bassman, Bassman, Bassman

:rofl:

You're making my side hurt, dude.

Help me keep this one kicked could you, buddy? Thanks in advance, and oh and by the way, welcome to DU.

:hi:

[Bassman66]

6. No answer?

OK I'll help you.

The reason you can see detail in shadows caused by the sun is that light hits the shadowed area from other sources, the light is either reflected from the sky (that's why you see blue) or it is from the ground. That is also why you can see shadows in shadows (the smoke cloud obscures the secondary light).

That is also why that video is bogus.

That is a very professional video, who made it? It's pure COINTELPRO because anyone with the ability to make that video would also understand these issues.

Are you the duped or the duper?

And please don't bother with the rolly polly smilies, you look very silly.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

8. "OK I'll help you"

:rofl:

Oh, Bassman.

:rofl:

Bassman, Bassman, Bassman, Bassman

:rofl:

"The light is either reflected from the sky or it is from the ground..."

:rofl:

I don't know how much more of this I can take.

:rofl:

Explain that one more time, real slow, could you, buddy? I'm trying to take good notes here, and we really do need to keep this thread kicked.

:rofl:

[Bassman66]

11. OK, it's like this

Go outside and hold you hand up.
Look at it, one side will probably be in shadow, but you can see detail in the shadow, how is that possible?
It's due to secondary light sources, light reflected from the sky, from the ground, even from you.

That's why you can see detail in the shadow of the tower, that's why you get a shadow in the shadow when the secondary light is obscured by the smoke from the explosion.

If you persist in answering with stupid smilies I will carry on making you look silly.

Is that what you want?

You could of course answer properly and I will be happy to debate this with you in a reasonable way.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

12. Still way to fast, Bassman.

Slow it down. Slow it WAY down.

I don't want to miss a thing. Now, you were saying?

[Bassman66]

13. OK, maybe this will help.

The reason you can see detail in shadows caused by the sun is that light hits the shadowed area from other sources, the light is either reflected from the sky (that's why you see blue) or it is from the ground. That is also why you can see shadows in shadows (the smoke cloud obscures the secondary light).

That is also why that video is bogus.

Feeling silly yet?

Would you like to answer the above question anytime soon?

Is there any reason why I shouldn't question your integrity?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

15. Still too fast, Bassman.

I mean slow it down -- way way way way down.

[Bassman66]

17. It's simple

The reason you can see detail in shadows caused by the sun is that light hits the shadowed area from other sources, the light is either reflected from the sky (that's why you see blue) or it is from the ground. That is also why you can see shadows in shadows (the smoke cloud obscures the secondary light).

That is also why that video is bogus.

If you are going to respond the same way as previous then you will have demonstrated your complete lack of integrity.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

18. I've said it before and I'll say it again...

...you're not like other OCTers, Bassman -- you're one helluva lot more fun.

Unfortunately, I have to go to work now, but I'll be back in a few hours. I hope you'll be back to help me keep this thread kicked.

Thanks again.

:hi:

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ghost in the Machine]

25. Secondary Light Sources

Yeah, they *could* have been cause by.... ohhh, I don't know... ummm... maybe all those big mirror tinted windows on buildings in the area??

But shhhhhhh.... someone thinks the only light source was the sun...

[Bassman66]

26. No, I don't think they are that stupid.

You have to question their motives though.
Maybe I'm doing them an injustice and they realise how they have been duped and have now seen the light.

[Flatulo]

33. "No, I don't think they are that stupid."

Why on earth not?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

39. Had a feeling you'd show up sooner than later.

Don't forget to check out post #37.

[Flatulo]

60. I see there aren't many buyers of the 'no-plane' theory.

Your stubborness, belligerence and rudeness with folks who have responded with patience and civility do not make your case any stronger.

Unfortunately, you'll need some logic and evidence to make your case. Snideness is not a very compelling tactic.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

61. The frightening prospect of "no planes" continuing to gain acceptance...

...is the only reason your here.

Why does it frighten you so, Flatulo?

[Flatulo]

62. Please show me how 'no-planes' is gaining acceptance. As far as

I can tell, no-plane theories are being widely rejected here as pure nonsense.

If you really believe your own statement, why not do a poll?

As to whether or not I am frightened by 'no-planes', please indulge me while I elaborate...

This is a good board, and I have met a lot of very intelligent people here. I have also met a lot of people who I believe do not think through things very well, but at least their hearts are in the right places.

Then I see people who espose idiotic theories that are an embarrassment to the board. So yes, I jump in and try to debunk them when I can.

There is a very good case to be made that the administraion may in fact be criminally culpable in the 9/11 attacks. I did not come into this board believing this, but some of the more eloquent posters have gone a long way towards chsnging my thinking, using logic and reason, so that I now believe that a fresh investigation is warranted.

But no-planes are just embarrassing. Not frightening, just embarrassing.

[Bassman66]

64. No planers won't answer questions.

I asked you a simple question and you repeatedly refused to answer.

No planes is a logical absurdity.

There is no way that a second impact would be faked 20 MINUTES after the first with THOUSANDS watching including visitors from all over the world carrying any number of cameras and video recorders and the fakers could control the images and videos on the internet afterwards. NO WAY!

Unless you can explain why it's not logically absurd.

Add to that the fact you are happy to post clearly fraudulent no plane videos here (the unsynched one) and you have to wonder what your motives are.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

30. So what are your saying, Ghost?

Is that supposed to pass for a debunk of the OP video?

[Ghost in the Machine]

36. "Is that supposed to pass for a debunk of the OP video? "

No, it's supposed to show a source of secondary lighting... just like the subject line says... You *do* know that mirror tinted windows can, and do, reflect light, right?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

38. And therefore what?

Do you post with no point relevant to the video?

Or are you suggesting that indirect/secondary light accounts for no visible shadow on the vertical stabilizer as it disappears into the building?

[Ghost in the Machine]

41. And therefore I answered another post of yours. Do you remember it?

Mr_Jefferson_24 (1000+ posts) Wed Jun-18-08 04:44 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. What's the matter, Bassman?
Edited on Wed Jun-18-08 04:47 AM by Mr_Jefferson_24
You sound a wee bit desperate. Something bothering you? Do you find the OP distressing?

A secondary light source?



Let's see, there was the sun...and then there was also ...hmmm... there was also the ___________________________.


Feel free to go ahead and fill in that blank, Bassman, I can hardly wait for this one.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your blank got filled in. Does it distress you? As for relevance, if you can't remember questions you asked, maybe it means that *they* aren't relevant, huh?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

44. Ghost, you're not coming anywhere close to passing...

...the smell test for someone seriously interested in exploring alternative theories to OCT, which his how you always posture here in the 9-11 forum.

The more you post, the more transparent you become -- kinda like a ghost. Imagine that.

[Ghost in the Machine]

52. Mr Jefferson, you're coming close to someone who can't pass the smell test

for being a sane, rational human being capable of critical and/or rational thoughts. I've tried to stay cordial with you, but your last comment made it impossible to do so. You're a whack-job, plain and simple, when it comes to your views of the events of 9-11. You're an embarrassment to those of us who are seeking *real answers* about the events of 9-11, and you're a disgrace to the memories of everyone who died *on* those planes, and *because of* those planes.

Please stop the nonsense, Mr Jefferson. I can understand, sort of, where you might get the idea of no planes. It was laid out in the Operation Northwoods document.

b. On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly tail-end Charley at considerable interval between aircraft. While near the Cuban Island this pilot would broadcast that he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down. No other calls would be made. The pilot would then fly directly west at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary. The aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The pilot who had performed the mission under an alias, would resume his proper identity and return to his normal place of business. The pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared.

c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately 15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart. The pilots returning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods#Content

BTW, my interest isn't in "alternative theories", but in indentifying ALL of the perpetrators/planners. I believe factions within the highest levels of our government were involved. My personal opinion is that 9-11 was the "New & Improved!" Operation Northwoods V2.0 ... but they simply COULD NOT fake a plane flying into the World Trade Center Towers. Period. Now, if you want to talk about *switched planes*, that's a different story. I can go down that road with you....

Ghost

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

56. "...but they simply COULD NOT fake a plane flying into the World Trade Center Towers..."

They not only COULD, they DID.

And now it's all coming undone even without any help from corporate MSM or left gatekeeper media, and they're absolutely desperate to suppress those working tirelessly to expose the truth.

This is why we have so many "ghosts" haunting the 9-11 forum.

[HamdenRice]

23. A simple question

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that your video and many other videos, show enough anomalies that we could clearly state that such videos were faked.

How is that inconsistent with the reality of the planes crashing into the towers? Couldn't the plane crashes have happened, and then someone created fake videos to confuse the issue? Couldn't there be both faked videos and real videos?

The only video fakes that would prove your point would be if the fake videos came straight out of the mainstream media's video archives.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

28. If large commercial jetliners had crashed into...

...the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon, and at Shanksville there wouldn't be any doubt. There would have been wreckage strewn everywhere at all three sites. The Pentagon would have released video irrefutably confirming the story of AA flight 77. There would be believable video of UAL flight 175 crashing into WTC 2 exhibiting all the real world crash physics (bending, crumpling, shearing) that would be expected.

No appreciable plane wreckage at WTC, the Pentagon, or Shanksvilles, clearly faked plane video aired on 9-11, alleged recorded cell phone conversations of flight 93 that are obviously bogus, Bureau of Transportation statistics that say the four planes never took off, and FAA records indicating they weren't even scheduled to fly, all add up to one inescapable conclusion -- there were no planes.

[victordrazen]

69. Agreed.

planes would smash against, then fall down in parts (what was left of them), they wouldn't fly through a steel columned building.

[SidDithers]

24. You need some new material...

your one-song act is getting old.

Sid

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

29. Yet you just keep coming back, empty handed as always , to offer...

...your lame and meaningless input -- why is that, Sid?

[SidDithers]

34. I post here for shits & giggles...

Why do you post here? Do you really think you're accomplishing anything from behind your keyboard?

Sid

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

46. "Truther Logic"....

If my post is so stupid it triggers negative reaction from both sides of the aisle, that proves it's "threatening" to the established order.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

53. Both sides of the aisle?

I don't think so, Sdude. While brigade members such as yourself who make not even a half hearted effort to hide what they are can be sized up rather quickly, the fact is that even the more intelligent and determined pretenders who come in here and posture become readily transparent over time.

No, Sdude, it's not both sides of the aisle.

[SDuderstadt]

58. Dude...

you're being ripped by other truthers for your absurd theories. What does it take?

[Bassman66]

42. Shits and giggles...

...is that like death and destruction?

Just wondering.

It's all so funny, don't ya just love it.

Everybody's got something to say 'cept me and my monkey.

[SDuderstadt]

27. It should be readily apparent to you that even...

the "truth movement" is getting tired of your act. It's patently absurd to claim hundreds of witnesses did not see a plane crash into at least the second tower, as well as the ground. I don't know where you get thises deluded notions, but you are making the "truth movement" look silly with your obviously preposterous claims.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

31. Hundreds of witnesses?

What happened to the "thousands" of eye witnesses? I'm pretty sure nuisance/distraction brigade members routinely like to claim thousands. Have you revised your estimates?

Alright, Sdude, let's have their names and testimony. Wait, let me guess, you forgot to bring your homework? Or maybe the dog ate it?

If I am, as you claim, making the truth movement "look silly," then why aren't you absolutely delighted with my "no planes" threads. Would you have us believe you are now a friend to the truth movement?

Why is it that brigade members are ALWAYS the ones so upset about "no planes?" Gotta be a reason for that, Sdude. What is it?

[HamdenRice]

32. Here is a site where dozens of eyewitnesses post their stories

These are the survivors of the hotel at the WTC, the Marriott, who decided to post their individual stories.

Several of them link to hometown newspapers where they had their stories published.

Not all of them saw the plane, but many did. They were evacuated from the Marriott, which was to the west of the WTC plaza, fronting on West Street. They were herded across West Street, and several report hearing the second plane, looking up and seeing it hit the south tower.

http://www.sept11marriottsurvivors.org/survivors_stories.php


Denise Campbell

http://www.sept11marriottsurvivors.org/survivors_stories.php?storyfile=DeniseCampbell

"... The uniformed men signaled for our group to run across the street. As we started running and my fear starting setting in the man in uniform screamed "don't look up, run" and then ran himself. A huge noise came--we ran across the street. That was when I heard and saw the second plane hit the building directly above where I was standing. There was concrete evidence that my fear was justified. I started shaking terribly. I can't explain the explosion--other than comparing it to a human fireball. People screaming, the sound of enormous breakage, the smell of smoke. Absolutely terrifying. "


Joyce Ng

http://www.sept11marriottsurvivors.org/survivors_stories.php?storyfile=JoyceNg

"... I couldn't bear to look anymore at the looming death all around me. As I walked, a large plane flew over me. For a second, I felt relieved because I thought it was the US military Air Force making its way to rescue the people in the burning tower. Then I heard people wondering why a passenger plane would be flying this low towards the World Trade Center. That was when I heard a deafening crash in the sky - the plane had crashed into the second tower. The ground seem to shake with the crash. The streets were filled with screams and everyone started running. It felt like the end of the world."


Jill Davis

http://www.sept11marriottsurvivors.org/survivors_stories.php?storyfile=JillDavis

"Then I realized why they were trying to get into the mall was because things were falling from above. We didn't know what to do but with GOD's help we made it across the street and eventually to the pier after several other scary events...the second plane... "


Bill Vaughn

http://www.sept11marriottsurvivors.org/survivors_stories.php?storyfile=BillVaughan

"...As we stood at West and Liberty, the second plane came in over our right shoulders and we, like everyone else ran for cover, any cover. I hear today that wave of moan work its way from Wall Street down Church and Liberty over the thousands of us as we try to comprehend one nightmare plowing into and overriding the previous one."

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

35. Thanks, I'll take a look at it.

[HamdenRice]

63. To be fair, one eyewitness there says it was a "cruise missile"

That's what he thought he saw. But the people next to him tell him it was a commercial plane. It's actually kind of funny (if there can be any humor in this matter) because he goes on about arguing with people all the way to the ferry about it being a cruise missile, but everyone he meets says it was a plane.

I'll try to find it for you.

But the majority clearly identify it as a plane.

No one says, "OMG nothing went into the WTC and it blew up!"

[SDuderstadt]

47. Thanks, Hamden...

unfortunately, I think this will only make Mr. J. dig his heels in even further. It's called "true believer syndrome".

[victordrazen]

70. I researched that before and there were a number of "former" CIA,

military and government people in that group. For some reason there were a number of people from the census bureau. In fact the first guy on the list, Patrick Anderson, was former CIA.

[victordrazen]

71. first guy on your link list - CIA - Patrick Anderson

Before founding Anderson Economic Group, Mr. Anderson was Chief of Staff at the Michigan Department of State, and a deputy budget director for the State of Michigan. He also worked as an Assistant Vice President at Alexander Hamilton Life Insurance Company; an Economist for Manufacturers National Bank; and a graduate fellow for the Central Intelligence Agency.

http://www.mackinac.org/bio.aspx?ID=19



Patrick Anderson Economic Consultant (hotel guest - 5th floor)
September 11, 2001 - The escape
December 31, 2001 - Reflections of attack
September 11, 2002 - 1 year later
http://www.sept11marriottsurvivors.org/survivors_stories.php

(yes, it's the same guy)

[SDuderstadt]

43. Because it's a stupid claim....

Mr. J. I would love for you to find any post in which I have claimed that there are thousands of witnesses to the planes and it probably does approach thousands, but I suspect even having hundreds is, in itself, sufficient, especially when one takes into account that there are exactly ZERO witnesses who saw anything other than a plane hit the Pentagon and, at least, one of the towers.

Your credibility is being increasingly called into question by others in your same basic movement. I wonder why that is?

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bassman66]

48. "troofers" for no planes

is that a new movement?

Nah, where's the fun in that?

"9/11: Press for Truth".

Deal with it.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

49. None of it is MY research...

...and I've never claimed that any of it was. Yet, time and time again, when I or anyone else post these kind of presentations, you and the rest of the nuisance/distraction brigade come out of the woodwork to spew nothing but ridicule laced BS, never offering any intelligent commentary or counter-argument relevant to the content of the OP.

Why is that, Sdude? What is it that frightens you so about the Truth movement that you invest such time and energy into this forum?

[Bassman66]

50. Answer my question. nt.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

54. I'm still waiting

...for your answers to my post #14.

And when I get them, I'll take a look at your some of your inane nuisance/distraction spam questions.

[SDuderstadt]

51. The only thing that frightens me is your ignorance....

Mr. J. How do you explain the eyewitnesses who saw a plane hit the Pentagon and WTC 2, irrespective of whether there were hundreds or thousands?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

57. How do you explain the physical evidence...

...which rules out any possibility of a commercial jetliner being what crashed into the Pentagon. Eye witness testimony does not trump physical evidence.

How do you explain the first hand, on the scene, report of CNN reporter Jamie Mcintyre?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=k4-_2pUEZGw&feature=related

[SDuderstadt]

59. Dude....where did (as McIntyre described it) the thousands of small pieces of a plane...

come from if they didn't come from a plane? And I find it funny that that video you link to only includes PART of Jamie's newspiece. Of course, the makers of the video leave out the part where he talks about what he saw inside the Pentagon. Unless you're cluelss enough to claim that the plane parts must have already been stored at the Pentagon/WTC so it would spill out hwne thye were hit, YOU'RE the one who needs to explain the physical evidence because it abolsutely contradicts your claim. If you have any witnesses who saw anyone planting plane parts, it's time to produce them.

[LanternWaste]

65. What about the victim's families?

What about the victim's families? Without resorting to video or links-- simply of your own account, can you explain to me why I should believe your positions over that of the families of the victims?

Thanks-- I look forward to reading your reasoned response in your own words. :hi:

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

66. Did you even bother to watch the video linked in the OP?

...Can you explain how your question relates to its content?

Thanks-- I look forward to reading your reasoned response in your own words. :hi:

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

67. Well well well, what a shocking surprise...

... youtube member, RasgaSaias, who originally posted this video seems to have had his/her account closed.

So here it is from another user, at least until their account also gets shut down:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJL91tfFJ9Q


The commentary of youtuber, Shrunkensimon:

Simple, but so fucking obvious. Yet another solid piece of evidence to add to the growing mountain of CGI fake planes.

From youtuber, Imymanz99:

100% plane fraud. Nothing to see here folks, let's go back to plane-hugger fantasy playtime land.

[victordrazen]

68. I agree - no planes

The tv stations that showed it are owned by defense contractors and corporations who profit hugely from the war which would not have been possible without 9-11. Their boardrooms and executive positions are filled with people from former intelligence, military, defense contractors, and large financial institutions which have been in the news of late. There is no reason to trust them, think back to the Soviet Union and their propaganda system. Look at the supposed real time "planes". The "amateur" planes were not shown live and you have to ask yourself why these amateurs could take better footage than professional newsmen.?