9/11 was there a plane ?

[sock muppet]

12 minutes ago, zArk said:

Everything was in place to turn New York into a theatre of operations.

 

This i agree with.

 

12 minutes ago, lake said:

You don't save a drowning man by telling him "Don't worry the water is only an illusion!"

 

Correct, but in this case the salvation was false, deliberately so.

 

13 minutes ago, lake said:

So .... one image is manipulated and the other correct .... or both are fake?

 

I can not say, only that variations exists and that should not be so.

Found the vid i was on about and it's part of All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace by Adam Curtis, DUH i should have known that, anyway the experiment is known as Loren Carpenter’s Pong experiments.

https://forum.davidicke.com/index.php?/topic/7147-adam-curtis-bitter-lake-and-hypernormalisation/&do=findComment&comment=391860

 

[zArk]

On 10/13/2022 at 5:13 PM, lake said:

We all know that the mainstream media is mainly bullshit (so much of it over the last 3 years) but this thread is about Planes or No Planes.

hang on, he was interviewed on the day and read the script.

everything he said was reiterated by all authorities all the way through to the commission report 3 years later

most due to structural failure .... hes supposed to be a reporter right? (freelancer for fox).. lol .. i remember Alex Jones doing piece on piece about military installing their people in the media. all absolutely factual. This fella mark walsh was military / security agency

 

he also saw the plane ream right into the building and out the other side

 

and out the other side

 

the cock up.

 

On 10/13/2022 at 5:13 PM, lake said:

Which image is fake or are both fake?

said before they are both fake.

 

also... just because Scott Myers is attributed the video doesn't mean its his. I am sure he was happy enough to take the credit just like Evan Fairbanks and others.

 

hey , i am sure he was somewhere holding a camera and filming but the required position of the camera to make that scene was not where Myers was standing.

either a limitation of the software being used or a perspective so the mirror of fireball could be justified or just to get enough angle to justify seeing a plane at that height from that position

the 'artistic' license of the creators always pokes through... ego .. probably and having a good laugh while doing the job

 

Edited October 15, 2022 by zArk

[sock muppet]

8 minutes ago, zArk said:

i remember Alex Jones doing piece on piece about military installing their people in the media.

 

C_A, it has already been proven that this group is involved in all media the world over, project Mocking bird, controlling the narrative, as for just coincidental camera positions then take another look at JFK Zapruder film, all connected, all manufactured, no coincidences, the more you know.

[zArk]

11 minutes ago, sock muppet said:

n take another look at JFK Zapruder film, all connected, all manufactured, no coincidences, the more you know.

the missing scenes? the passengers shifting in the car?  you betcha ass

 

[sock muppet]

24 minutes ago, zArk said:

the missing scenes? the passengers shifting in the car?  you betcha ass

 

 

And the film was stretched in a very crucial point to make the vehicle seem to increase speed at the vital time but in fact slowed down.

[lake]

52 minutes ago, zArk said:

said before they are both fake.

 

Thank you.

 

So that I get this right ....

 

You consider that both images as I have posted (from different videos) are fake?

That all three main WTC buildings (1,2 and 7) collapsed by controlled demolition at the same time?

That any images of WTC 7 after that are fake?

That anyone who was there and saw WTC 7 still standing after 1 and 2 collapsed is an actor?

That anyone on camera stating what they saw that day is an actor?

That all videos of anything happening on that day are fake?

That No Planes were used in 9/11?

That anyone who states they saw a plane is an actor?

 

I won't go on .... Is this 'near' what you consider correct?

[zArk]

39 minutes ago, lake said:

 

Thank you.

 

So that I get this right ....

 

You consider that both images as I have posted (from different videos) are fake?

That all three main WTC buildings (1,2 and 7) collapsed by controlled demolition at the same time?

That any images of WTC 7 after that are fake?

That anyone who was there and saw WTC 7 still standing after 1 and 2 collapsed is an actor?

That anyone on camera stating what they saw that day is an actor?

That all videos of anything happening on that day are fake?

That No Planes were used in 9/11?

That anyone who states they saw a plane is an actor?

 

I won't go on .... Is this 'near' what you consider correct?

if both those images are claimed to be on 9/11 , yes

no, i say all the wtc plaza was demolished in the morning, not at the same exact time

yes

either that or as most that day, pretending that what they saw on tv was a real experience

either deluded by what they saw on tv, an actor, a player or carefully selected with their experience

all videos we have are within the story line of the day

no, there were no planes crashing into wtcs or the pentagon but there was a plane landing at airport (like at cleveland) flight 93 blown out of the sky?

 

*youre obsessed with the word actor*

people saw a plane land at cleveland. people saw planes on tv. anyone who states they saw a plane crash into wtc is full of shit. looking for attention or summit.

 

Now allow me.......

Edited October 15, 2022 by zArk

[zArk]

30 minutes ago, lake said:

 

That any images of WTC 7 after that are fake?

 

 

So its your assertion that Wtc 7 was standing until late afternoon. Then with the eyes of the world on the scene, it 'collapsed' how it appeared on tv?

Do you not find this situation disconcerting?

 

The script is set for planes, heat, weakened supports, pancake collapse ... hijackers, middle east, ... the end

 

but then suddenly , a building is filmed and predicted (beeb) to be demolished live on tv. Bit of a give away after all the other planning.

 

Heres what i would have suggested the planners *could* have done ....

announced the building unsafe, give it a day or so with pretend demolition squads in the controlled crime scene,

then demolish the WTC 7 in an awkward ceremonial way.

 

no-one thinks anything odd. the building is damaged, it needs pulling down .. the end

the hijackers, pancake collapse etc etc remains intact

 

They deliberately put that WTC 7 demolition in front of the worlds media for everyone to watch. They deliberately put it there for us to look at and hold up as evidence of 'inside job'.

 

Only after the commission report did the truthers begin to talk of WTC 7. Prison planet and infowars ... arguably the biggest focal point for critics of the official story only began running the story in 2004-5.

 

then suddenly an interview with silverstein in 2002 is found where he said "pull it".

 

I say its because WTC 7 was designed as a failsafe in the event that the 'lets get angry at the hijackers and the NWO' starts to fail.

 

I say that when the plane story was falling apart and forums were alive with the chatter that the plane crashes were nonsense , WTC 7 was dragged out as a manageable criticism point.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 15, 2022 by zArk

[lake]

13 minutes ago, zArk said:

Now allow me.......

 

Now allow you what?

 

You are not stopped in any way!

 

I consider that the only thing you have to backup your claims is a single video!

 

Please prove me incorrect and show the wealth of evidence you have collated?

 

2 minutes ago, zArk said:

So its your assertion that Wtc 7 was standing until late afternoon.

 

I am only asking for your evidence against the people who saw it standing afterwards? The ones who were there!

 

4 minutes ago, zArk said:

The script is set for planes, heat, weakened supports, pancake collapse ... hijackers, middle east, ... the end

 

but then suddenly , a building is filmed and predicted (beeb) to be demolished live on tv. Bit of a give away after all the other planning.

 

Heres what i would have suggested the planners *could* have done ....

announced the building unsafe, give it a day or so with pretend demolition squads in the controlled crime scene,

then demolish the WTC 7 in an awkward ceremonial way.

 

no-one thinks anything odd. the building is damaged, it needs pulling down .. the end

the hijackers, pancake collapse etc etc remains intact

 

They deliberately put that WTC 7 demolition in front of the worlds media for everyone to watch. They deliberately put it there for us to look at and hold up as evidence of 'inside job'.

 

Only after the commission report did the truthers begin to talk of WTC 7. Prison planet and infowars ... arguably the biggest focal point for critics of the official story only began running the story in 2004-5.

 

I say its because WTC 7 was designed as a failsafe in the event that the 'lets get angry at the hijackers and the NWO' starts to fail.

 

I say that when the plane story was falling apart and forums were alive with the chatter that the plane crashes were nonsense , WTC 7 was dragged out as a manageable criticism point.

 

All of this is but wind and air .... What is YOUR proof of your statements?

 

Anyone can type and post anything without any proof .... which you above have done.

 

For each of your statements above .... Please give any proof of such, else you come across as "Making alternative thinkers look like nutters!"

[zArk]

19 minutes ago, lake said:

For each of your statements above .... Please give any proof of such, else you come across as "Making alternative thinkers look like nutters!"

who says? you or some zombie ? bollocks to em anyway. they arent interested in anything.

 

19 minutes ago, lake said:

All of this is but wind and air .... What is YOUR proof of your statements?

 

Anyone can type and post anything without any proof .... which you above have done

there is no proof of WTC 7 existing in the afternoon or WTC crashes or proof of controlled demolition or pancake collapse

there is proof of nothing.

all shipped away with choice pieces left to support the official story

the entire day was theatre. New York did not exist in real life on 9/11.

 

 

 

19 minutes ago, lake said:

I am only asking for your evidence against the people who saw it standing afterwards? The ones who were there!

 

 

the same argument about planes. Which people? Who? Loonies who want attention or cant differentiate between tv images and real life

 

The witnesses who were no-where for 3 years but then were everywhere when the truth movement determined WTC 7 was an issue.

 

i remember the forums back then.

 

I reiterate ;

 

i find WTC 7 illogical in the scheme of the day and scheme of the progressed research back between 2002 and 2005

and frankly so should you

 

its a red herring.

 

 

 

Edited October 15, 2022 by zArk

[lake]

5 minutes ago, zArk said:

bollocks to em anyway. they arent interested in anything.

 

I am interested in them as some of them I fucking love! (even if they can be silly in their actions and thoughts)

 

7 minutes ago, zArk said:

there is no proof of WTC 7 existing in the afternoon or WTC crashes or proof of controlled demolition or pancake collapse

there is proof of nothing.

all shipped away with choice pieces left to support the official story

the entire day was theatre. New York did not exist in real life on 9/11.

 

There is NO proof of what you post .... You have nothing do you except your limited consideration (defined by a single video)?

Give us something .... some proof for your claims!

 

9 minutes ago, zArk said:

the same argument about planes. Which people? Who? Loonies who want attention or cant differentiate between tv images and real life

 

The witnesses who were no-where for 3 years but then were everywhere when the truth movement determined WTC 7 was an issue.

 

You have no idea if I was there at that time or if someone I loved was .... You have a single video and it would seem Nothing else and that video is based on everything you consider to be fake!

Thus anything in your video .... is also fake!

 

But that you continue to promote a single point of thought shows that you will not 'move' from your indoctrination .... you won't think of other concepts.

 

13 minutes ago, zArk said:

its a red herring.

 

I think that the concepts you promote are "Red Herrings" .... and that it is done to belittle alternative concepts and thoughts!

 

 

[zArk]

14 hours ago, lake said:

There is NO proof of what you post .... You have nothing do you except your limited consideration (defined by a single video)?

Give us something .... some proof for your claims!

no proof the building came down in the morning, thats fine, i have already stated the entire day is fake. I accept it.

and i further say the WTC 7 falling over in the afternoon is a red herring and part of the fakery.

 

you have no legitimate proof of anything that day, never mind the ridiculous WTC 7 demolition.

 

its ludicrous, the images are ludicrous, the story is ridiculous, silversteins comment, the beeb footage

 

and you claim there are legitimate witnesses to it, who?

 

post the witness statements that they saw WTC 7 drop in the afternoon (not wtaching it on tv)

 

 

Edited October 16, 2022 by zArk

[zArk]

14 hours ago, lake said:

You have no idea if I was there at that time or if someone I loved was ....

 

correct-a-mundo

 

14 hours ago, lake said:

But that you continue to promote a single point of thought shows that you will not 'move' from your indoctrination

 

for gods sake, get a grip.
 

Quote

 

You have a single video and it would seem Nothing else and that video is based on everything you consider to be fake!

Thus anything in your video .... is also fake!

 

 

no, i have a reference point. i checked the original videos and drew my own conclusions.

additionally i looked at WTC7 , i looked at the response online, i looked at surrounding issues, i looked how the authorities viewed WTC7, the comments, the witness statements and the of course the GLORIOUS AUNTY footage...

 

and then, i made a conclusion.

 

youre holding onto WTC 7 like a babies security blanket.

 

post your witness statements

[zArk]

14 hours ago, lake said:

and that it is done to belittle alternative concepts and thoughts!

 

You think WTC 7 is an alternative stonghold? you're deluded.

 

its a plant by those that designed 9/11. The truth movement gobbled it up and promoted vapourised metal and thermite.

 

They controlled both sides and the majority of groups/forums/members followed on

 

 

 

[lake]

9 hours ago, zArk said:

you're deluded.

 

nice ....

 

 

 

Anyway .... I am doing my 'due diligence' and I shall get back to you!

[sock muppet]

9 hours ago, zArk said:

The truth movement gobbled it up and promoted vapourised metal and thermite.

 

Whats thermite got to do with it?

[zArk]

11 hours ago, sock muppet said:

Whats thermite got to do with it?

a single video (dodgy as f) was the basis for Professor Cold Fusion but he was granted a stage, a position at the directors table, the ears of the research community and many many years.

 

but when i point out

in the context of the day

the context of the years after

the lack of supporting evidence

the highly questionable reliability of 'pull it'

the clean drop video

 

i am somehow being an arsehole

Edited October 17, 2022 by zArk

[zArk]

11 hours ago, lake said:

nice ....

well, come on, dont imply WTC 7 must be ring fenced from criticism

 

[lake]

Trying to be fair I have been looking at the 'No Planes' concept - There are some interesting points but I still consider that 2 drones hit WTC 1 & 2 and that the Pentagon was hit by a missile (right in the monies) and Shanksville was a badly constructed bullshit site.

I will continue looking but a few bits I will put below (long walls of text in quotes so you can scroll past with ease).

 

I found this interesting .... It is from January 2000 and is an article from the Independent

 

 

Full text in quote:

 

Quote

When TV brings you the news as it didn't happen

Broadcasters are using virtual imaging technology to alter live broadcasts - and not even the news is safe from tampering

Monday, 24 January 2000

Viewers tuning into American broadcaster CBS's recent news coverage of the millennium celebrations in New York witnessed a televisual sleight of hand which enabled CBS to alter the reality of what they saw. Using "virtual imaging" technology, the broadcaster seamlessly adjusted live video images to include an apparently real promotion for itself in Times Square. The move has sparked debate about the ethics of using advances in broadcast technology to alter reality without telling viewers that what they are seeing isn't really there.

While it's little surprise that advances in TV technology enable broadcasters to better manipulate existing images and create new ones, what is surprising is that this was done during a live broadcast and in a news programme. The CBS evening news coverage involved replacing the logo of rival network NBC with the CBS logo on a large video screen in Times Square. NBC was "outraged" by the use of the technology, and even CBS's evening news presenter, Dan Rather, admitted it was a "mistake".

The technology to do this comes from the defence industry where, following the end of the Cold War, a number of companies have developed new ways of commercially exploiting their military navigation and tracking expertise.

The system CBS used was developed by a United States company called Princeton Video Images (PVI). Other players in this field include Symah Vision - part of French defence to media group Lagadere; Israel-based Orad Hi Tech Systems, and SciDex, another Israeli firm with offices in Europe and the US. Each system, while similar, has its differences. None of the companies will publicly discuss how their's works. But the principle is common: each alters the live video image in the split second before it is broadcast.

"The prime use of our system is to insert promotional images into live coverage, or as a post-production application for pre-recorded (TV) shows - for example, to insert branded goods into the action that weren't really there, for product placement," Denny Wilkinson, PVI's chief executive officer, explains. "Advertising, however, has by far and away the biggest potential for this. It's where the money is."

The use of this technology is already becoming familiar in sports coverage. A number of international sports organisers have recognised the potential to generate more advertising revenue by - in effect - re-selling the same perimeter advertising billboards at their stadia. Through virtual imaging, different advertisers' brands can be seen in different countries that take the live broadcast feed.

A number of European broadcasters including Sky TV have already run "virtual advertising" trials. Mexican broadcasters, meanwhile, have fully embraced virtual imaging systems. And different sports - notably Formula 1 - now acknowledge the potential to deal with restrictions on tobacco advertising in certain countries by replacing cigarette branding in some territories with other images.

The use of this technology for editorial purposes however is more contentious. Already, other media owners - notably newspapers - have had to deal with concerns about digitally manipulating photographic images used in news pages. The Mirror's doctoring of photographs of the Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed holidaying together was perhaps the highest profile example.

Now concern is being voiced over TV viewers believing they can see something which is not actually there. Which is why it is hard to find anyone in UK broadcasting ready to admit that they - like CBS - are considering the potential of this technology beyond advertising. Sky, however, sees the technology's use as a way of enhancing "the look" of its sports coverage. "We use the ORAD system for a combination of editorial and promotional use," explains Phil Madge, Sky TV studio graphics supervisor "We are using it now to build virtual screens which hang down from the roof of various football stadia to highlight upcoming events, pre-recorded footage and Sky Sports promotions."

Sky purchased the system at the start of the current football season, although it had run a number of trials previously, Madge adds. It has been used less for virtual advertising due to a combination of Independent Television Commission restriction and Football Association concerns. However, it was also used by Sky News to create a virtual studio for the channel's millennium coverage.

"There is great potential to use virtual imaging in other ways but it remains a tool whose biggest advantage is for live broadcasting," Madge says. "There are obvious advantages in virtual studios as you don't need a physical set, just a blue screen against which the presenter is shot and a three-D computer model. You can change it over very quickly - there's no need to shift scenery. The downside is it can look quite computer `graphicsy', and a bit naff."

CBS's problems arise from the fact that its use of the PVI system went one step further than "enhancing" the look of its presentation: it tampered with the reality of an actual event it was depicting in a news show, raising the spectre of TV news reporters reporting "live" from around the world when they're actually far closer to home. The broadcaster - which has also used virtual imaging to modify the New York cityscape - defended itself by insisting: "CBS News' internal standards prohibit digital manipulation or other faking of news footage."

However, a CBS spokeswoman admitted that virtual insertion technology is yet to be covered by the broadcaster's guidelines. But Dan Rather, for one, thinks it should be. "At the very least we should have pointed out to viewers we were doing it,'' he told the New York Times. "I did not grasp the possible ethical implications of this and that was wrong on my part.''

CBS is not the only broadcaster to use this technology in news broadcasts. Rival ABC recently included a report on Congress by a reporter wearing an overcoat in front of what to viewers seemed to be the US Capitol. The entire report was taped in a studio.

UK programme makers, however, doubt virtual imaging technology requires guidelines any different to the ones they already have relating to editorial balance, accuracy and fairness. "Any form of factual programme-making involves some form of editing of events. It's not hard to present the same situation in a number of different ways," one documentary maker explains. "But it is up to the integrity of the programme-maker to do so with integrity in a way that is both responsible and accurate. The same approach must apply to any production method."

It is a view which seems to be shared by the ITC, whose guidelines relate to the use of virtual imaging by advertisers - none specifically relate to editorial use. "It is an issue that crosses a number of regulatory areas - it could be a matter of inaccuracy, or undue prominence, or fairness. If it arose, we would have to consider each case on its own merits," a spokeswoman says.

Trouble is, for the time being at least, the onus is on the viewer to draw any example of tampering with reality to the attention of the regulator which then would investigate retrospectively. Assuming, that is, that they realise what they are seeing isn't real.

 

The page has of course gone but it is on archive here:

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20080420045800/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/when-tv-brings-you-the-news-as-it-didnt-happen-728236.html

 

So before the year 2000, live tele could be altered in real time and additions/changes made.

 

With the above in mind .... the images we all saw (over and over) that day of the planes from the TV channels, never showed a plane actually impacting the WTC buildings. The ones replayed all day were of the second plane moving toward the South tower:

 

 

That was it (as far as I know) and any other videos/images came later from 'street people'.

 

 

This below is the supposed video of the first plane striking the North tower .... It is the only video of that plane actually hitting the tower. (there is meant to be a single pre-impact still image out there some where as well):

 

 

 

This below is a remastered and upscaled (so changed) video of the above:

 

WTC 9/11 | First Plane Hit in North Tower | Jules Naudet Video (Remastered 60fps AI Upscaled)

 

 

 

In the quote below there is the opening page of Leslie Raphael’s work : Jules Naudet’s First Plane Shot Was Staged .... who did believe that there were planes but considered that Naudet's film was setup.

 

Quote

 

Leslie Raphael’s work : Jules Naudet’s First Plane Shot Was Staged

 

 

 

The photograph above is instantly recognisable as coming from a day twelve years ago when the world changed. In fact, this particular frame captures the very moment it changed: one second before this, "9/11" was unheard of, and about 1,500 people behind and above that distant puff of smoke were getting on with their work and their lives. What most folk reading this will not know, because the fact has never been widely publicised, is that the piece of film from which it comes is the only record we have : when a Boeing jet ploughed into the joint tallest building in New York City that morning, in broad daylight, in front of potentially millions of witnesses, only one person in the city recorded the impact on film, and the picture above is from that unique record. Two other people produced images that show the plane - a pre-impact still and a video shot from the blind side of the tower - but none that captures, as this one does, the actual collision of the plane with the north face of the tower, followed within two seconds by close-ups of the damage. The very uniqueness of the shot is of enormous significance.

 

Most people might assume that the story of the cameraman who captured the shot, allegedly by complete luck — right place, right time would end there : he was probably on his own, filming with his camcorder, did the deed and moved on, having made his mark on history. This bears no resemblance to the story we are asked to believe — firstly, that the cameraman, French-born "film-maker" (with the grand total of one previous) Jules Naudet, was not alone. He was in the company of, would you believe, firemen, as they watched one of the biggest fires in New York history suddenly break out — firemen who instantly provided transport down to World Trade Center One, where his saga continued. He there became the only person filming in that building for the next hour, until it was rapidly evacuated when Trade Center Two (victim of the second plane) collapsed - a collapse from which Naudet and his cohorts miraculously escaped ; and then, hanging around outside, for no apparent reason, they all had another miraculous escape from the collapse of the other Tower.

 

Miraculous and Unique Film Shot 8:46, Miraculous Escape Number One 9:59, Miraculous Escape Number Two 10:28: three miracles in 102 minutes. Some folk might think anything more than just the one miracle happening to the same person, the same day, in the space of less than two hours, would be stretching credulity — or maybe belonged more to the world of Hollywood than an alleged documentary like the one Naudet was making (with his brother Gédéon and their co-director, actor-fireman James Hanlon) about a New York firehouse. Not just any old firehouse: the closest Fire Department unit to the north of the event in the above photograph, seven blocks closer to us than that explosion — half-way, since the shot is from fourteen blocks away — was the one the Naudets selected, by pure serendipity (or yet another miracle, or whatever) from a field of 200. The story's credibility takes another knock. In fact, the more I examined the circumstances that gave the world its only shot of the first 9/11 plane impact, the more ludicrously improbable they became : the Naudet scenario had obviously been cobbled together on the back of an envelope, by people who either are complete idiots, with not the first clue about how to make a story credible - a Hollywood scriptwriter, for instance - and/or folk who think we are the complete idiots.

 

The premise of this article is not just the one in the title — that Naudet's shot of the first plane was set up by people with foreknowledge of the event — but that those people planned the entire full-length film as a spin-off from the main 9/11 propaganda event. Those usually blamed for 9/11, Al Qaeda, we are told, had planned to video their earlier attack on the USS Cole, although the plan was aborted. Would they credibly have aborted, or never even considered, filming what they planned to do to the Trade Center and its occupants (or some of them)? Would they have assumed that they hardly needed to do it, because hundreds of New Yorkers would have done it for them? That assumption would have been a major blunder, and you don't need to be a genius to work out why : the first plane would have the element of surprise, on top of speed and very brief visibility — and, in the event, only one person did film it. Why would Al Qaeda, having managed to carry out this massive operation, and with all their subsequent fondness for cassettes and videos, conveniently and mysteriously turning up all over the place, not have made plans to film the Big One ? So where's their film? Why, instead of that, do we have only the Naudet film ? Because who would want to watch a film made by the perpetrators, as opposed to one made by a perfectly innocent French observer ?

 

The Naudet brothers have made only one film since their 9/11 documentary, "In God's Name" in 2008: as I write, their latest project is being broadcast on TV - interviews with most of the living holders of the office of White House Chief of Staff, a list that includes three people intimately associated with 9/11 — Gerald Ford's two Chiefs, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, and Andrew Card, seen whispering to Bush in that Florida classroom in yet another staged shot, since only staging and a refusal to believe Card's alleged words can explain Bush's reaction. In 2001, not many would have suspected any link whatever between a pair of French immigrant film-makers and the American government. Twelve years later, those same film-makers, with the help of CBS, who were also involved in their last two projects, have made a series in which they have been granted access to senior members of American governments over the last 40 years. The links between the US Government and the Naudets go back to before the day the picture at the head of this page was taken - or it never would have been taken.

 

This article, updated and rewritten as a work in progress, looks in detail at the case only outlined above. I repeat my longstanding challenge, never answered, to name one other film shot in photographic history comparable to Naudet's of the first plane : an accidental capture on film of an event that changed the world. The Zapruder film from Dallas is not analogous : he was there to film Kennedy, and did - it was not accidental. The accidental shot never happens, and if it ever did, it would not be to a man who claims to have survived two skyscraper collapses, the same day, half an hour apart - but not, strangely, to have also been sold the Brooklyn Bridge, while climbing Mount Everest with the world's fattest man on his shoulders. My article does not speculate : it looks at what is there in the Naudet film, and makes what I regard as the only logical deduction possible — that these anomalies and stupidities and bizarre coincidences are there because the folk who made the film, the Naudets and others, were complicit in the events shown in it.

 

I wrote this because virtually nobody else was saying it, and I still find that fact baffling - as much as the fact that so few people have taken this up in the last twelve years. Failure of imagination, preconceived ideas, whatever :I wish I could present a scientific thesis proving my proposition, for those impressed by formulas and diagrams, or a document newly leaked from the Department of Defense, for those who refuse to believe anything until they can see it in print from some official source — or Al Qaeda posts a video claiming the credit. People like that - idiots, in a word — are never going to uncover the truth about 9/11, as demonstrated by their failure for twelve years to do it. The key to 9/11 has been sitting there all along, staring us in the face : the Naudet film. Buy a copy, read this article, check out the scenes I describe and give timings for, and see if you can come up with a better explanation than mine. For those who have another non-argument at the ready — that all this is irrelevant in the face of the current American threats against Syria — my answer is that Syria, like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan before it, are all consequences of 9/11 and of our failure to expose those who committed not just that crime, but all the others that use it as an excuse. Nailing the Naudets as complicit in 9/11 offers at least a possibility of exposing those behind them, all the way to the ones threatening Syria — and Iran, and elsewhere. These people have to be put out of business, and this is one way of doing it.

 

This video below is by Gerard Holmgren and apart from being 'potato' quality, it is him stating (in effect) that we who believe planes were used are suffering .... well the term now would be 'Mass Formation Psychosis'!

 

 

 

This below quote contains a 5 page pdf which gives an overview of why people consider 'No Planes' maybe correct:

 

Began to format it correctly but got bored .... the short pdf is here:

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Why-they-didnt-use-planes.pdf

 

Quote

Sometimes people ask me "why would they use missiles or whatever and run the risk of being caught out ?

If they're going to sell a story about planes, why not make it as convincing as possible and use real planes" ?
It's a silly question, because in the face of direct visual and forensic proof that they didn't use planes (mostly supported by what little witness evidence we have), speculations about their thinking and planning are meaningless.

Nevertheless, since we live in extremely silly times, I'm going to address this question on its own terms.
Put yourself in the position of the perps. You have to think through what could go wrong in each possible scenario and then decide which scenario poses the smallest risk.
You want to sell a story about hijacked planes.
At the first level of decision making, you have two choices.
1) Actually use planes.
2) Use missiles or whatever the blobs 11 thing is, and convince people that they were planes.

Lets first look at the second scenario.

 

You have the media on your side to tell the story. What could go wrong?
1) Witnesses might see that they were not planes and report it.
Well this has actually happened, but it seems that nobody takes any notice. The myth of "thousands of witnesses" to a big plane strike keeps getting trotted out on the basis of a circular assumption. "Because big jets were there, then people must have seen them - because people saw them, that proves they were there."
Clearly the perps thought about how to minimize the problem of contrary witness reports, and came up with a simple but effective plan.
This problem is easy to minimize. The first strike happens, and because the object is small and fast and unexpected, no-one is too sure what it is, or whether they saw it correctly. A few witness reports go to air reporting missiles or small planes or no craft at all, but there is only an 18 minute
window for this to occur before the whole world sees a big jet live on TV - using commercially available real time animation technology. This distracts the media from interviewing many witnesses to the second strike, because everyone is fixated on the video replay. Those few witnesses who might get a moment with the media, then lack confidence in what they saw, because once again, the object was small, fast and unexpected. Seeing the TV replay - which was instantly available - would make most people think that they just didn't see it properly. The few who remain unshakable in their belief that it was not a large plane are easily shouted down and drowned out by the endless replays. In addition the airlines release a statement saying that they've lost two big jets and any witness dissent is *instantly* - the moment the second strike happens - marginalized almost to the point of oblivion.

This is not speculation. Read through the transcripts of broadcasts as they unfolded between about 8.47 and 9.30 and you will see that this is *exactly* what happened. From the moment the second strike occurred, anyone who tried to say that it was not a large jet immediately had a TV replay shoved in their face.
What little witness evidence was gathered in the brief time available between the two strikes was not enough to do any real damage, and
everything after that was corrupted by everybody having TV replays of the second jet shoved in their face as soon as they opened their mouths.

In that brief period between the two strikes, there was only one witness who said a large jet - and that just happened to be the vice prez of CNN, which of course is a major player in the scam - just as pivotal as the govt. So we can see that the problem of contrary witnesses, while a minor
inconvenience is easily overcome with some good planning.

Again, this is not speculation. The successful execution of this plan has been tested ion the real world - and it works. The scenario I have outlined exactly fits with the documented record of the events.

Once the sheeple factor sets in, everyone is chanting "what about the people who saw it ? " without ever bothering to check what those people
actually did report. And if they do check, the numbers of reports are not high enough to inflict major damage on the official story. What little there is overwhelmingly supports something other than a big jet, but there wasn't enough time to gather enough numbers for this to be a significant evidence factor. And as for the ordinary person on the street - most of them would be easily convinced that they just didn't see it properly. Some might have lingering doubts or suspicions, but would be quickly silenced by ridicule and denial from the overwhelming pressure of the TV footage, and the whole world trying to convince them that they just didn't see it properly. Most would eventually come to believe that themselves.

So - that problem is easily dealt with. No cover story solves everything, and doubtless there are still some mutterings of doubt and suspicion amongst some people who were there, but it isn't enough to cause a serious problem.

Now to the other problem.
Someone might look at the videos and see what's really there. Which is exactly what Rosalee has done. And people just go into mind controlled
denial. The alternative media is flooded with endless debunkers. The perps knew our collective psychology well. They certainly wouldn't be happy with the groundswell of awareness which Rosalee has kick-started, but it looks very manageable compared to the problems I'm about to outline with the strategy of using real jets.

Again, this is not speculation. The way that both of these problems have been handled has been tested in the real world, fits exactly with the
documented record, and the fact that I am even needing to write this, 3 years after Rosalee first busted the video evidence, is testimony to how
wisely the perps judged the choice of strategy.

Now lets look at the other choice - using real jets.
This immediately splits into two sub-choices

1) Pilot them with suicide pilots
2) Remote control them.
The problem with the first choice is obvious and I think most people on this list have already accepted the absurdity and the monstrous difficulties of such a scenario, so I won't go into them here.
Remote control.
Before addressing the problems with that, the scenario splits into more - sub-choices.
1) Hijack a real flight with real passengers aboard.

2) Launch a plane from somewhere else and pass it off as a real flight.

Basically, the choices here split into the option of crashing a plane with passengers aboard or with no passengers aboard. Both possibilities create potentially insurmountable problems in the cover up - and a reduced likelihood of the crash being successfully targeted to begin with.
Let's look at the latter problem. While it's certainly feasible to remote control a large jet into the towers, it's a high precision targeting job for an aircraft with very limited maneuverability. There's a significant risk that the plane won't hit its target properly. That it will hit some other building, just clip its wing on the tower and crash into the streets or cause a cascade of damage on other non targeted buildings, miss altogether and finish up in the Hudson, still reasonably intact - all kinds of risks.

Whatever the calculated likelyhood of a successfully targeted crash, it would have to be significantly lower than that of a missile or blobs- thing,
which is specifically engineered for such precision strikes. Even the smallest increase in risk of the target not being hit properly would
be completely unacceptable, given the easily manageable nature of any problems associated with the alternative scenario.

And missing the target is only the beginning of the problem. What about the aftermath ? Once it misses the target, there's a significant risk that the aircraft may crash in such a manner that it's reasonably intact. Rescue workers and emergency services who are completely innocent of the scam, and ordinary people wanting to help out are going to reach the wreckage before any perpsters, given that where it crashed couldn't be foreseen.

And what are they going to find ?

Two choices. A plane with no -one in it. How are the perps going to explain that, huh ? Or a plane with passengers.

This raises even more problems. Using a plane with passengers creates two more sub-choices.
1) Hope that all the passengers get killed in the crash, so there's no survivors to talk or hope that the perps can get to them first and knock them
off before they do talk.
2) Kill them before the crash with a timed release of gas into the aircon system. Which of course leaves more forensic evidence to cover up, when the bodies are examined. Imagine the massive operation needed to get enough perps swarming over the wreckage quickly enough to control what the media,innocent rescue workers or survivors would start blabbing before the spin sets in. Far worse than anything a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the two tower strikes.

These problems are not limited to the scenario of the aircraft not crashing as they were meant to. If the planes were successfully crashed into the towers, its still possible - although not very likely - that there could be survivors. Nevertheless, even assuming that everyone was killed, real
crashes with real people leave real bodies, they don't just vapourize like in the S11 cartoon. So you have hundreds of retrievable bodies to worry
about. If they were killed with gas prior to the crash, then you have the same forensic cover up nightmare as in the scenario where the plane
misses its target.

And if you avoid this problem by hoping that everyone is killed in the crash, you face the horrible risk that there will be dozens of survivors to try to shut up - unlikely if the plane hits the target properly - but you don't know that for sure.

In addition, real planes leave real wreckage - unlike the S11 cartoon - which means real flight recorder boxes to be found and more stuff to hush up, involving more innocent officials to pressure. Of course, enormous pressure can be brought to bear, but the problem is how much would spill out before the spin gets into action. All of this is far worse than what a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the strikes, and what a marginalized researcher can post on her website, hoping that people take notice.

As you can see, the scenario of using real planes creates a logistical nightmare compared to the piddling problem of a few witnesses to the craft, and easily marginalized conspiracy nuts analyzing video - easily suppressed by a compliant media.

In committing a crime, the idea is to leave as little mess as possible, because every bit of mess is a potential clue. Even in the event of a successfully targeted crash, real aircraft, scattering wreckage and bodies everywhere creates an enormous amount of mess to cover up  compared to the relatively neat problem of a few witnesses and a few conspiracy nuts trying to tell people what the video shows.

The problems of the real plane scenario are enormously compounded by the possibility of a botched crash, which itself is a significantly increased risk when using big lumbering jets not specifically designed for that task as opposed to precision weaponry which is far more reliable. In the unlikely event of a missile going off course,  here would be far less mess to leave clues, and an easier co-opting into a plan B story - like terrorists stealing missiles and firing them at NY.

This explanation should hopefully put an end once and for all to the plane hugging fantasy - but then, these are very silly times in which we live.
 

 

This below is also of worth to watch as it has lots of 'old' TV footage ....

 

 

Adding to this on a slightly different angle .... this is slightly off topic as it is old footage 3 days after and a news report asking where the buildings had gone ....

 

Quote

This report from ‘ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings’ (RIP) was aired three days after of the events of 9/11, and it appears to be free of much of the BS which has encroached upon the topic in the succeeding years.

Where is the missing 1,200 feet of heavy building materials? It was vaporized, according to the engineering firm that built the buildings.

 

 

 

As said I will continue to research the concept of 'No Planes'.

[sock muppet]

7 hours ago, zArk said:

i am somehow being an arsehole

 

Only if you insist, but that is not my question which was, whats thermite got to do with it?

[peter]

On 10/14/2022 at 12:42 AM, sock muppet said:

 

I agree, the target concrete is of the material used in construction of nuclear power plants, but reading back in thread it has been suggested that with the right kinetic energy a paper tissue could cause just as much damage moving at high velocity, but the velocity required for it to do that kind of damage would have to be near the speed of light, so we could theorise with the above demonstration, and bear in mind that jet was filled with water for extra kinetic damage on impact, that as the speed is reduced so too could we reduce the strength of the material to that of the type used in the towers.

I read when the first ever  shuttle landed,  upon inspection they noticed that the wind screen was nearly punctured by a fleck of paint ,where that fleck came from was never elaborated on.

All you need is speed

[sock muppet]

23 minutes ago, peter said:

I read when the first ever  shuttle landed,  upon inspection they noticed that the wind screen was nearly punctured by a fleck of paint ,where that fleck came from was never elaborated on.

All you need is speed

 

Indeed, everyone has the false assumption that the vacuum of space is empty, but this is far from the truth, every second of everyday the Earth is struck with cosmic rays which are particles moving close to the speed of light and capable of shredding anything it comes into contact with because they have Mass.

[zArk]

33 minutes ago, sock muppet said:

 

Only if you insist, but that is not my question which was, whats thermite got to do with it?

i guess it was just another diversion for researchers to waste time with.

[sock muppet]

Just now, zArk said:

i guess it was just another diversion for researchers to waste time with.

 

Waste time with what?

[webtrekker]

5 minutes ago, sock muppet said:

 

Indeed, everyone has the false assumption that the vacuum of space is empty, but this is far from the truth, every second of everyday the Earth is struck with cosmic rays which are particles moving close to the speed of light and capable of shredding anything it comes into contact with because they have Mass.

 

This is why some say that human immortality is impossible because cosmic rays would knock out most of your irreplaceable brain cells in a couple of hundred years, leaving behind nothing but a vegetable.

 

Mind you, I know many people in their 20's and upwards already walking around in that state so maybe these cosmic rays are more powerful than we think!