This is part one (duh) of a five part series, and "socialservice" definitely leads with his/her strongest arguments. Having watched this part several times, I would now definitely entertain the idea that some faked video was broadcast on 9/11.

What did I just say? Well, note carefully what I did not say: I didn't say there were no planes or that all the video is fake. I said this video makes a good case for FOX's local affiliate having broadcast one very, very weird shot. Remember that FOX also brought us Harley Guy -- that is, these are the folks for whom reality just doesn't quite do the job. It can always use a little embellishment.

From a "meta-Truth" perspective, it is interesting that this series was made. Until now, arguments of video fakery were most often made by people who couldn't seem to string together two cogent thoughts, let alone make a video without migraine-inducing music and extraneous shots of people with digestive difficulties. Although parts two through five are not nearly as convincing as part one, they are careful and clear. "socialservice" is not your average no-planer. So what does that mean? Has disinfo central finally put enough money in the budget for someone who is not cognitively impaired? Or does the video fakery argument have some merit, and has some reasonable truther (apparently in Norway) decided to out his or herself as something beyond the pale in truther circles?

I am always uneasy when an idea is beaten into submission by the rabble. As many of us have heard, controlled demolition itself was subject to very harsh opposition from "respectable" truthers -- but some people carried on with their "crazy talk" for long enough that among the open-minded, persuasion was possible. (And thank God -- because without someone pointing out to me that the Towers were blown to smithereens, I would have filed my LIHOP-ish 9/11 skepticism with Iran-Contra under "I'm too jaded to care how evil the government is.") I don't necessarily believe that convincing people that video was faked would bring down the whole house of cards (substitute cliche of choice), which some of the tv fakery advocates do. On the other hand, perhaps there are proto-Truthers out there who haven't met the argument that finally sparks their curiosity and their outrage. If this shot was faked, I would like to know, and maybe they would, too.