Current Issue
Back Issues
 Subscribe to BartBlog Feed
How to Read
Members ( need password)
Subscribe to BartCop!
Contact Us
Advertise With Us
Link to Us
Why Donate?
The Forum  -
The Reader
Poster Downloads
Shirts & Shots
BartCop Hotties
More Links
BFEE Scorecard
Perkel's Blog
Power of Nightmares
Clinton Fox Interview
Part 1, Part 2
Money Talks
Cost of Bush's greed
White Rose Society
Project 60
Chinaco Anejo


Search Now:
In Association with

Link Roll
American Politics Journal
Barry Crimmins
Betty Bowers
Consortium News 
Daily Howler
Daily Kos
Democatic Underground 
Disinfotainment Today 
Evil GOP Bastards
Faux News Channel 
Greg Palast
The Hollywood Liberal 
Internet Weekly
Jesus General
Joe Conason 
Josh Marshall
Liberal Oasis
Make Them Accountable 
Mark Morford 
Mike Malloy 
Political Humor -
Political Wire
Randi Rhodes
Rude Pundit 
Smirking Chimp
Take Back the Media
More Links


Locations of visitors to this page

Subject: about those 9-11 videos


Thanks for being patient with me on the TV Fakery issue.
I have been spending a lot of time in the past few days trying to correct my mistakes, 
trying to understand exactly how I waswrong before.

Here it is:

The videos I'm talking about fall into two categories:

Videos of the supposed impact of a plane into WTC 2.
All other videos.

The videos of the impact of a plane into WTC 2 do not depict a real plane impacting a real building. 
This is almost undeniably true. I am not changing my opinion on these videos.

With respect to the other videos, there has been a theory that has grown over time that all or nearly 
all of the videos of the "plane hit" and subsequent burning and final destruction of the buildings are fake. 
And I got caught up in that line of thinking.

There is a theory called "The Matrix" which claims that all the videos broadcast that day came from the same camera.
This has been shown false, and I was wrong when I believed it and promoted it. There is a theory that the Verrazzano 
Bridge moved inappropriately in a video (leading to a "video layering" theory), but this has been shown to be a natural
effect from a camera being many miles away from a particular place using heavy zoom.

A man named Simon Shack has gone too far, and I have no more trust in him.

I want to thank you for telling me that you smelled a rat. He is a rat! He's not a real researcher because real researchers
are grateful when you point out their mistakes. Real researchers retract errors, as I am trying to do now.   Shack will 
not correct his mistakes, and actively censors people who criticize him.

I have recently been banned at for criticizing Shack's work and my posts asking questions have 
been removed from the forum. This explicitly goes against the rules of the forum which allow polite questioning and 
emphasize no censorship. I got fooled by those people. I believed that as long as I was polite that I'd never get banned. 
As soon as I started questioning Simon Shack, though, I got banned.

The shrapnel is heaviest above the target, I suppose. 
Something is weird about Simon Shack.

Your friend,

  Back to

Send e-mail to Bart  |  Discuss it on The BartCop ForumComment on it at the BartBlog

Privacy Policy
. .