In Your Face, Suckers!
Ningen raises a very important point:
This is something I have thought about a lot and I totally agree with the mind-fuck aspect.
Think about just SOME of what we've been presented with:
a) the bizarre fake Pentagon crash
b) the blatantly obvious faked flight 93 crash site
c) several fairly clearly fake 2nd hit videos
They are shoving it right in our faces and just daring us to question it-- because they know they can get away with it.
Not to mention the IN YOUR FACE aspect of the WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 demolitions.
It's the psy-op aspect of this all at play.
*this logic is of course completely circular and designed to reinforce the idea that the 9/11 perps couldn't have faked anything: if it looks fake, it can't be fake because they would have done a better job. But of course if evidence DOESN'T look fake, then of course they didn't fake it because it doesn't look fake.
An answer I got at 911 Blogger about this fake debris in general is that if looks faked it can't be fake because if they faked it they would do it so it didn't seem faked.*
Crazy, but it raises the question why all this is so obvious. One theory is that the perps made it obvious for those who question, to fuck with our heads, and to show that the non-questioning will believe anything.
This is something I have thought about a lot and I totally agree with the mind-fuck aspect.
Think about just SOME of what we've been presented with:
a) the bizarre fake Pentagon crash
b) the blatantly obvious faked flight 93 crash site
c) several fairly clearly fake 2nd hit videos
They are shoving it right in our faces and just daring us to question it-- because they know they can get away with it.
Not to mention the IN YOUR FACE aspect of the WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 demolitions.
It's the psy-op aspect of this all at play.
*this logic is of course completely circular and designed to reinforce the idea that the 9/11 perps couldn't have faked anything: if it looks fake, it can't be fake because they would have done a better job. But of course if evidence DOESN'T look fake, then of course they didn't fake it because it doesn't look fake.
posted by spooked at 4:26 AM
34 Comments:
it is truly right in everyone's face! i think they get away with it because they don't even have to explain any of it no matter how ridiculous it is - they can ignore all skepticism entirely while the likes of the sword in the truth squad simply distract and deflect skeptics with nonsense.
any real perps are not sweating it as long as the only skeptics of their obvious fairytale remain safely ineffectual in front of their monitors. i bet that if all the 9/11 doubters suddenly unhooked from the internet altogether and dropped off the electronic radar some monitoring perps would totally freak out.
see what i'm saying?
"i bet that if all the 9/11 doubters suddenly unhooked from the internet altogether and dropped off the electronic radar some monitoring perps would totally freak out.
see what i'm saying?"
Yes, I know what you mean.
Maybe we should have a day like this. Though I doubt we could get enough people to go along.
Ok. So if it's not obvious, they're trying really hard to make it not obvious, therefore... conspiracy.
If it IS obvious, they don't care, therefore... conspiracy.
That's dash cunning of them.
I agree, certain claims appear to be deliberately absurd. These overall story is very widely believed, nevertheless. It is interesting to speculate on the psychology at work. Do logical absurdities have a 'spiking' effect on the human mind? That is to say, once one absurd claim is accepted, rational thought becomes extremely hard.
This is speculation. To proceed on concrete grounds, I would like to see examples of real, documented psychological attacks. The U.S. military maintain psychological warfare units. What do they actually do?
In particular, assume getting away with depends on psychological reasoning. How did they know they'd get away with it? To have that confidence, they must have pulled off earlier, less high-profile operations. What were they?
Check out Vincent Salandria's work on the JFK assassination for a more complete take on the "in your face" aspect.
It is the "I saw it on TV therefore it must be real" syndrome.
"So if it's not obvious, they're trying really hard to make it not obvious, therefore... conspiracy."
There is not much about the government's 9/11 story that is not absurd when viewed critically. I would not be here if the story made any sense. Of course there will be unanswered questions. I'm looking for answered questions in the government's story and can't see very many.
Maybe an operation like this is just too complicated to foresee all questions, but it doesn't seem difficult to plant evidence in plausible locations.
Other planted evidence was obvious from the beginning. Flight manuals in Arabic found in a car and the like.
how could that 7 ton section of perimeter columns have been propelled all that way by the small explosion when the "plane" hit and landed there without breaking the sidewalk? and yet how could someone have busted it carefully off the back of a truck without someone else realizing what was going on? both scenarios are equally implausible.
then again who really has seen this and photos of other ridiculous "evidence"? only the fool jury of the moose-owie trial (it's a safe bet that the members of that jury did not come from the neighborhood of church st.) and so-called "conspiracy theorists" who see this bullshit on the internet.
the rest of the world including manhattan has absolutely no idea that photos of foolish pieces of phony plane fuselage and stupid little phony 76? engines have been pored over by a handful of "conspiracy theorists" on the internet.
the handful of people who are calling foul are easily dismissed by a bushco mcmedia and even more easily ignored by a john Q public who is firmly ensconced in his collective "i see nothing" comfort.
maybe that's how they have gotten away with it: nobody really knows anything about it.
How do you plant evidence in Manhattan? The previous post with the outer columns and the tire... It was postulated that it could've been planted.
HOW?
The towers are on fire. Everyone in lower Manhattan is in the streets watching what's going on. You meen to tell me that some truck just up and dropped it off without anyone noticing?
You people are fucking retarded!!!
And drop the photoshopped bit. There's a pub two blocks away from Ground Zero called O'Hara's. I suggest you go in there, ask for their photo album of 9/11, and then tell them that the debris in their personal photographs was photoshopped.
h-- well there's definitely the publicity aspect to this that the media refuses to spend any time talking about this sort of evidence, and even if they did show it, they would never treat it skeptically. Meanwhile the latest celebrity break-up or sports trade gets plenty of media attention.
To paraphrase what 911blimp said, a controversial call in football gets far more media play than those strange flashes that preceded the "plane" impacts on the WTC towers.
You get the idea, I'm sure.
Not only does the media actively cover-up 9/11,but they studiously ignore any strange 9/11 evidence.
anonymous said:
"The towers are on fire. Everyone in lower Manhattan is in the streets watching what's going on."
Everyone was looking up. It was planted at 4:00 a.m under a cover. Whatever.
"You people are fucking retarded!!!"
That's convincing. And the proper term is "developmentally disabled."
"There's a pub two blocks away from Ground Zero called O'Hara's. I suggest you go in there, ask for their photo album of 9/11, and then tell them that the debris in their personal photographs was photoshopped."
Since you are the one saying they refute what is being discussed here, I suggest you go there and ask them for permission to scan their photos and post a link to the ones you think relevant.
I see you have no reply to the main argument, which is that it is physically impossible for the debris in this picture to be where it is before either tower exploded. Thought so.
Come back when you have something meaningful to say.
"It was planted at 4:00 a.m under a cover." I was thinking of an engine part or wheel, but I guess that could have been done here with the street blocked off. Whatever.
The main point is that it could not have gotten here the way NIST says, so physical planting and/or Photoshop is more likely. Do you understand the concept that if something is impossible, then you have to consider alternatives that are possible even if they seem implausible? That's what we are doing. If you have another suggestion, I would like to hear it.
Do you know what NIST is? Have you read their reports? Thought so.
Go to O'Hara's and find a photo of this object on Cedar Street before the buildings were destroyed. If it is authentic, that might rule out Photoshop. It won't explain the fairy tale told by the government.
I see you have no reply to the main argument, which is that it is physically impossible for the debris in this picture to be where it is before either tower exploded. Thought so.
Where is the evidence that this was seen in the streets before either tower exploded?
Where is the evidence that it was planted at 4:00am under a cover?
Do you have anything other than blind speculation?
anonymous, the damned thing weighed 7 tons and supposedly dropped from 1000 ft up before it came to rest on church st.
you see in those photos that it didn't so much as crack that sidewalk or parking lot.
how is that possible?
i have a 16 lb hammer with which i could bust that stupid NY concrete into a thousand pieces with only a few waks. do you dispute my claim? because i will be more than happy to come to your house and demonstrate.
all of our skepticism is not about looking for conspiracies but rather seeing things that are patently absurd and then saying what the fuck.
what is your anonymous explanation for the absence of damage to that 3" thick asphalt parking lot and 4" thick concrete sidewalk by a 7 ton piece of steel dropping out of the sky from a 1000 ft height?
you can either explain it or you can shut the fuck up but when i see you and others ignoring things like that while simultaneously pretending to yourself and the world that it is ridiculous to wonder what the fuck i will call your ass on it every time.
Anonymous said:
"Where is the evidence that this was seen in the streets before either tower exploded?"
Good question. The evidence is the condition of the church in both pictures, because the church was completely destroyed when the first, South Tower exploded.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week902/feature.html
"Mr. PITSIKALIS: That day was a nightmare. The debris from the south tower literally pancaked our church. You know, it was an unbelievable amount of debris on it."
"Where is the evidence that it was planted at 4:00am under a cover?
Do you have anything other than blind speculation?"
When I said "whatever," I meant that this is just a quick speculation and it doesn't matter how it was done. You said it would be impossible to do that on the morning of 9/11, and I offered a possibility. As I said, it doesn't matter how it was done, because it had to be done or the panel would not be there. Photoshop is another possibility. There could be more. For all we know the photo was taking long before 9/11 and tweaked with Photoshop.
Based on your first question, I tkink you now understand why I say the panel is fake.
I agree with h about the lack of damage. The photo here looks up the parking lot and I don't see any damage there, either.
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/little-wheel-that-could-not-part-2.html
http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/5459/522/1600/752143/7-70_tire-embedded-wtc1-panel.jpg
That's one of the photos Spooked posted.
Look at the asphalt around the furthest column to the right.
Tell me that asphalt's intact.
The problem with analyzing these photos is that no one knows how this panel hit the ground, where it hit the ground, or anything like that. You see a few pictures and EXPECT to see damage, but don't and so it's a conspiracy.
Maybe the corner of the section hit first and it toppled end over end for a while. Maybe it hit flat at the other end of the parking lot and slid. There are hundreds of possibilities that can easily explain why you don't see that much damage in those few photos.
"The problem with analyzing these photos is that no one knows how this panel hit the ground, where it hit the ground, or anything like that."
True. But we know that NIST is saying that it came from the North Tower, at least 500 feet away, and was propelled here by impact of airplane debris, not the engines according to NIST, that had passed through the core of the North Tower and would not have going very fast. This could not have knocked this thing here, whether it hit the ground and bounced here or not.
Is NIST wrong and this came off the South Tower when a plane hit? Maybe, I don't know the physics and mechanics of that. I can't see it flying over 200 feet to get here, and it seems it would have been driven in, not out of the building.
Plus this is the excuse for a wheel flying to Recter and West---that this paneled opened a door in the North Tower for the wheel to exit. The story was ridiculous to begin with, for many reasons, but this fake panel makes it more ridiculous.
"You see a few pictures and EXPECT to see damage, but don't and so it's a conspiracy."
We are talking about whether one picture shows what it is supposed to. Quit saying "conspiracy."
All these little things add up, but we take them one at a time.
Look at the asphalt around the furthest column to the right.
ok there is damage right there but it is almost so minor that it can't even really be called damage - remember, each section of perimeter columns weighed 7 tons when they installed them and this one supposedly fell from 1000 ft up.
Maybe the corner of the section hit first and it toppled end over end for a while. Maybe it hit flat at the other end of the parking lot and slid.
again, the thing weighed 7 tons and supposedly fell from 1000 ft.
"maybe this... maybe that..."
right. and maybe it was photoshopped and maybe it was unloaded from a truck while the streets were closed off at some point.
i am more inclined to believe one of those explanations than that a 7 ton steel fell from 1000 ft and did no damage.
you referred to a pub called o'haras - why don't you go there and ask them why a 7 ton steel fell from 1000 ft and did no damage to a 3" thick pavement and a 4" thick sidewalk.
I can't see it flying over 200 feet to get here, and it seems it would have been driven in, not out of the building.
Just because you can't comprehend how it got there doesn't mean it couldn't have happened. Unless you could further expound how you came to the conclusion that it would've been impossible.
And I'm sure the sections of columns on the north face of the Tower 1 were blown in. But the columns on the south face, where debris exited, would have been blown out, following the force and trajectory of the plane impact.
I can understand why you guys look at this and question why you don't see damage or whether or not the photo is faked, planted, whatever.... But given the circumstances of that day, the mountains of other photographs of building and plane debris in the streets, why would the government bother to fake or set-up THIS particular photograph?
It's not as if this is the key in explaining what happened that day. If these couple photos were never taken, the official story would remain the same.
What would the motive be behind faking them?
you referred to a pub called o'haras - why don't you go there and ask them why a 7 ton steel fell from 1000 ft and did no damage to a 3" thick pavement and a 4" thick sidewalk.
I've been there many times and have talked with the people who were working there that day. I see no point in asking them what you suggest since, as I've said before, there are many different possibilites for what we see or don't see in those couple photos.
You guys seem to have latched on to them as if they're key in exposing something. Explain to me what the government would have to gain by doctoring or setting up these pictures.
and what's up with that long twisted pipe looking thing? if it was a 4" dia drain pipe then it would have elbows and joints etc where other drain pipes flowed into it but it doesn't and it would be very brittle and would have snapped off in a million rusty pieces.
maybe it was a 4" dia rebar in which case it might actually look the way it does in those photos but a 4" dia rebar as long as that would weigh many hundreds of lbs and after falling 1000 ft would have smacked that blue truck a lot harder than the photo seems to suggest.
maybe they should have built the wtcs out of the same magic9/11concrete that the sidewalk must have been made with that way both wtcs wouldn't have turned completely into powder.
the entire 9/11 affair is a lie from beginning to end.
the mountains of other photographs of building and plane debris in the streets,
you mean like the engine that is too small to be from a 767 and somehow managed to land on a sidewalk beneath a scaffolding again without cracking the sidewalk?
or like the pieces of aluminum fuselage that didn't even have a scratch on them after somehow destroying the steel/concrete wtc and supposedly found on the roof of a neighboring building?
if you want to see analyses of officially released yet obviously phony 9/11 photos here is a good start:
http://www.911studies.com/index.html
Please tell me the logic of making up a story about 767s crashing into buildings and then not using 767 parts to plant at the scene. Is the government brilliant enough to pull this off, but stupid enough to overlook THAT minor detail?!?!
Please provide your source that it wasn't a 767 engine.
And stop thinking that it's final resting place was where it hit the ground. New York streets are not magnets, and they're not made of super-glue.
Have you honestly not allowed for the possiblity that the engine hit the ground and then rolled/skidded/slid/whatever to the point where it was photographed?
I will simply say that the probability that these columns rolled, skidded or tumbled form where they first landed is unlikely in the extreme, given their shape.
And anon, why are so you bent out of shape by this analysis?
google search: 911 street engine
9/11 was all bullshit from beginning to end.
could 19 arabs highjack 4 boeings and fly around for over an hour without being shot down? and why were there no arab names on the passenger lists yet an arab passport that was supposedly found on the street below the wtc was used to identify these 19 evil geniuses within 24 hrs?
and could these 20 yr old moron arabs with boxcutters seriously pilot 2 767s at 500mph into the wtcs after leaving their arabic copies of "how to fly a 767" in a taxicab? and why were the holes in both wtcs smaller than a 767 yet no pieces of either 767 broke off and fell to the street below?
and why did both wtcs completely turn into powder and much of the steel disappear before it even hit the ground in only 10 seconds and 13 seconds?
it's all bullshit. do you think that we're making all this shit up? or that we are simply confused?
i admit to being confused as to how both towers could completely disintegrate in the same length of time that it would take a bowling ball to hit the ground if dropped from the same height.
1/4 mile. that's how tall each tower was yet after 10 seconds the top AND the bottom of each tower was turned completely into powder and the whole foundation wasn't damaged.
how convenient for someone to build new ones now rather than having to spend billions removing all the asbestos from each tower before demolishing them safely as they would have legally had to do.
every aspect of 9/11 was a farce. you might not care about that but some of us do.
your anonymous efforts at wasting our time are superior by far to those of the regular swords of mctruth that pretend that they are not the ridiculous ones and we are.
you should demand a promotion and an increase in salary.
Anonymous said:
"Just because you can't comprehend how it got there doesn't mean it couldn't have happened."
Gee anonymous, I saw Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon the other day. I guess those people really can fly. I thought it was special effects. Looks like I chose the wrong martial art.
"But the columns on the south face, where debris exited, would have been blown out, following the force and trajectory of the plane impact."
Read before you comment. I was considering the possibility of the South Tower impact propelling them to Cedar Street. As you say, they would have been blown in, not out. It wasn't worth considering.
It was an engine fragment allegedly from one of the types of engines used on a 767-222 (GE or Pratt&Whitney or maybe one other). I don't know if there is reason to question whether it is from a 767-222, and would agree that if parts were planted, one would think they correct parts would be used.
Asphalt in early September would be pretty soft. I don't see sliding damage in the parking lot. I have allowed for the possibility of it hitting closer and toppling sliding etc. That would result in less distance, not more. It's called resistance.
"But given the circumstances of that day, the mountains of other photographs of building and plane debris in the streets, why would the government bother to fake or set-up THIS particular photograph?"
One at a time, anonymous. You are assuming the other pieces of debris will strengthen your argument. I believe they will weaken your argument, but haven't shown that yet.
As for these O'Hara's photos, don't waste our time and your time citing to evidence you can't produce. I don't know that those photos exist, what they show if they do exist, and whether you might think differently of the photos if you viewed them critically. If I make it to New York I will go to O'Haras and ask to see them. Until then, they have no weight in my court.
Anonymous, maybe you could help with an inertia problem. How much force would it take to dislodge that panel and accelerate it to 40 mph?
h said: "do you think that we're making all this shit up?"
Yep. Thomas Barnett still had the best explanation for you wacked out conspiracy freaks - when your mind can't understand what the hell is going on, you make up shit that your little pea brains can wrap around (my paraphrasing). Its been ol' Spook's modus operandi ever since I first found this hilarious font of comedic fiction.
Come on Pinch, a Navy pilot can do better than that. You're still alive, so you know physics. Prove us wrong.
Maybe they used the RAY GUN FROM OUTER SPACE to move the debris to the area? The tens of thousands of bystanders could have all been put into a trance by a discombobulator (they've been working on it for years!) which is why they didn't see the debris planted right in front of their nose. This makes sense to me....
tens of thousands of bystanders
right. and every one of them saw a 7 ton section of steel fall 1000 ft to earth where it landed like a leaf without cracking a 4" thick concrete sidewalk.
---
when your mind can't understand what the hell is going on,
i don't understand how each tower could be rendered completely into powder and much of the steel simply disappear into thin air before it even hit the ground. all at the rate of 11 floors per second.
Come on Pinch, a Navy pilot can do better than that. You're still alive, so you know physics. Prove us wrong.
Pinch and his compatriots will NEVER give an explanation for how the columns didn't damage the ground when they fell from a thousand feet and they will never explain how a wheel barely stuck in between columns stayed stuck through the massive impact.
All they will do is call us crazy for questioning it.
Which is intellectual dishonesty.
Not that they care.
Post a Comment
<< Home