911 Logic
More intense analysis of 9/11 TV coverage-- this time the editing of the CNN Pipeline of the 9/11 morning footage.
It looks like "Still Diggin'" has found something interesting, but frankly, the post is a bit confusing and not easy to follow.
It's probably not so bad if you have quite a bit of time to spend going through it carefully, but unfortunately I don't have that kind of time.
It looks like "Still Diggin'" has found something interesting, but frankly, the post is a bit confusing and not easy to follow.
It's probably not so bad if you have quite a bit of time to spend going through it carefully, but unfortunately I don't have that kind of time.
posted by spooked at 10:28 AM
6 Comments:
There's clearly a media hoax on 9/11. But I'm not sure on no-planes at all. How about this? The laser plane flies by, zaps the tower creating the scar and then they cloak the plane (but not perfectly.) Then, because of the fancy nature of the plane, they have the fox guys black out the video. (So the nose out is really the nose of the plane flying by.) Next they doctor the various 2nd hit footage to show a bogus "crash".
Thoughts?
I think the media hoax is fact, but I'm not sure that we can conclude no plane at all, and that all the eyewitnesses are lying or just mindkontrolled.
Fred
Fred--
that scenario is possible but I don't think the cloaked fly-by explanation is very satisfying... I think it would have shown up in more videos.
...but I'm not sure that we can conclude no plane at all, and that all the eyewitnesses are lying or just mindkontrolled.
this is a conclusion detractors often jump to. just because one might not believe a legit plane crashed at WTC2, does not mean those claiming to have witnessed a plane are lying-- a plane certainly could have flown by and simply not crashed. evidence for no plane crash at WTC2 is based on video evidence, analysis of impact 'hole', flight path analysis, etc.. it has been illustrated before that equal numbers of eyewitness' can be found supporting a plane crash and supporting just an explosion at WTC2 without a plane. furthermore, eyewitness' are inherently unreliable because their opinions can be altered or influenced very easily-- especially with a significant event such as 9/11. any psych 101 class is gonna teach you the same thing and any investigator knows this!
additionally, people often seem to forget that there was ~18 minutes from WTC1 event to WTC2 event, but still claim that 'thousands of people' witnessed the crash. this is assumption outrageous. NYC is a busy place and prior to 9:00 AM, all that was happening was a smoking WTC1 and lots of questions. furthermore, take a stroll in downtown manhattan and find how many places you can actually get a decent, semi-panoramic view of the sky-- you can't. it cities without enormous skyscrappers, it is possible, but the streets in NYC are like canyons, and from down there you can't see much of the sky except directly above.
all that one can conclude from the eyewitness reports is that they are significantly conflicting and inherently unreliable. keep that in mind at all times.
The laser plane flies by, zaps the tower creating the scar and then they cloak the plane
with due respect, you should go back and revist the keep it simple, stupid principle. one needs theory which explains of the available evidence while not overcomplicating anything. laser plane and cloaks seem overly complicated, while adding little.
my favorite breakdown and ups and downs of using legit planes is from Gerald Holmgren and is titled Why They Didn't Use Planes
Hi Shep,
I've read Holmgren's stuff, I'm just pointing out that the Air Force's own Directed Energy Directorate has pictures of their Boeing Aircraft outfitted with laser weapons, so suspecting an airborne platform isn't all that crazy.
A girl I know well (and consider credible) was driving into work in New Jersey, and had a clear view of the towers from the freeway. She was watching all the smoke coming out of the tower, and then saw another plane flying towards the WTC, which she thought would fly by, but which just disappeared.
With respect to KISS, how would using cruise missiles create the "plane shaped cutout"? I guess they would use either preplanted explosives, or else they would use a beam weapon to give the "Zorro" effect of a slash on the building that looks vaguely plane-like.
Honestly, KISS would reject anything but the OGCT. A hijacked plane crashed into the building, there was a fire, and it caused the building to collapse. Very simple (and wrong). If the planners wanted to keep things simple, they could have just said that terrorists smuggled explosives into the building in the first place and blew it up. Why bother with hijackers?
I'm not sure we add complexity by having a plane buzz the towers and zap out the scar. It seems like there is some currently available optical cloaking technology for these planes (basically they use their directed energy devices to spew out some plasma around the plane.) I'm not sure why we would believe in beam weapons and not believe that they would use their existing stealth technology, too.
Fred
Spooked, I think there's a risk of expecting things to show up in the videos, when it's pretty clear that the videos are fake (or at least mutually inconsistent). If they're able to put a CGI plane in the videos on TV they're able to edit real low-visibility plane out. Right?
Some other thoughts: if you're inserting a CGI plane, why have it change colors and do all the weird things we see on the videos? Maybe they're using the actual footage as a base, and then they're cosmetically altering the image. For example, you may have some real footage up until it the plane turns black and then they're using CGI from that point on. My guess would be that there's totally separate artwork for the different phases. The CGI nose-out plane isn't the same CGI in the "Ghostplane" footage. Perhaps they're compositing real footage with animation.
Also, what about the "third White Elephant plane" that Diane Sawyer saw and that generated death threats for the Journal of 911 truth. Is it really that unlikely that it could be zapping out the scars? What form of explosives would create the cutout that was observed? And since the cut out was by the windows, people would probably notice the things planted there. It's not back in some broom closet or riser.
Fred
Fred,
With respect to KISS, how would using cruise missiles create the "plane shaped cutout"?
If the perps planned enough to make the plane shaped cutout, for the psyop effect, then I imagined they'd go with a shape in the buildings, coming from the explosives-- missiles seems a bit less effective. I suspect some sort of internal wiring of explosives within the building to create the cutout. Dr Debug has some interesting research where he has examined which offices primarily occupied the floors where the 'planes' hit in each building (Marsh in WTC1, Fugi Bank in WTC2) and, in a nutshell, supports the idea the specific floors and companies had to be taken out, IMO.
Honestly, KISS would reject anything but the OGCT.
The only reason KISS might reject anything but the OGCT, is because of how the OGCT has been sold (and sold to whom). I would love to ask Mr. KISS how he explain where the additional energy required to pulverize two 1/4 mile tall buildings came from, given the available gravitational potential energy contained with the structures prior to 'collapse' (destruction). Keep that simple and stupid! ;-)
Post a Comment
<< Home