Humint Events Online: Life Is Strange, Continued

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Life Is Strange, Continued

I realize that the idea that no plane hit the WTC and the videos were faked is hard to believe. In my daily life, indeed it is strange to think that this level of fraud was pulled off. But still, after 124 posts on this thread, you would think SOME shill would have an explanation for the official story.

28 Comments:

Blogger BG said...

Oh come on. There's no reason to think some kind of aircraft / missile didn't hit each tower. Certainly I agree there weren't commercial jetliners.

10:27 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

I disagree-- there is plenty of reason to think that no flying objects hit the towers. And you seem to be missing the point about the hole.

6:55 AM  
Blogger nickname said...

Why do you say that Simon Shack is

a disinfo agent? What exactly has

he said that makes you feel that

way?


He's provided ample proof of

video fakery and media complicity,

and my understanding is that you

agree with both of those.


Please explain.


BTW - why do you assume that the

DU shills "SHOULD" have an

explanation for the impossible?

9:44 AM  
Blogger nickname said...

Forgot to say that you, Spooked,

have a lot of patience (yes, I

know, so do MOST physicians) and

I'm certain that you know that

anytime someone posts an idea or

fact that shills don't respond to

substantively, means exactly what

you think: whatever you posted

is true. Otherwise, you'd get

substantive responses and not

just insults.

10:33 AM  
Blogger BG said...

Here's my evidence based response:

I'll focus in this comment on the second hit.

1) The video is alleged to be the 2nd hit.

http://billgiltner.blip.tv/file/2197726/

2. This video shows slow motion. from the above.

http://billgiltner.blip.tv/file/2197600/

There are many points of reference one can use to compare the videos that were taken "live" and appeared after the fact.

Discussion of points in somewhat random order:

1. The so-called live feeds contradict each other (with respect to flight path) = prima facia evidence of TV Fakery / after the fact manipulation.

2. From the above, one can logically deduce: some or all of the videos are faked.

3. However, I don't think one from a practicable standpoint wants to say that building was not damaged, and a huge fireball was not part of the reality. If you are saying even the fireball did not exist in reality, that is a separate argument I would have to dig deeper on, and is beyond my comments here.

4. So assuming we didn't part ways on #3, the damage to the building (WTC 2) and the fireball is something we would like to further document and associate with cause.

5. It is possible that all the damage and pyrotechnics were from devices explosives in the building.

6. It is possible that energy weapons operating at a distance played a role.

7. It is possible that a projectile played a role (not ruling out a combination of #5 and #6.

8. In sorting out what the most likely event was, one can rule out the impossible the idea that Flt. 175 was the causal factor, as all documented damage and explosive events fail to match many aspects of how the Commercial Jet would behave.

Based on the above points, we are left with trying to put together the puzzle pieces that fit.

I fully subscribe to the idea that the WTC 1 "hit", and the WTC 2 "hit" show building damage completely inconsistent with Flt. 11 and Flt 175.

However, the "noseout" type event, associated possibly with a 2nd hit is rich area to be studied.

Let me grant:

1) On some live feeds, there certainly does seem to be a fade to black / signal cut as someone in a control room seems to not want the video to be shown.

2) People, such as Ace Baker, has claimed this was to hide the residue of TV fakery (e.g. the "plane's" "nose" accidently poking out due to imperfect layering.

With further study, and by using many sources for the video shots, one can find a alternative conclusion.

All shots and pictures either reveal little about the "exit" from the other side WTC 2 or they reveal a solid missile like object which remain "solid" with a length of perhaps 15 ft., follow by a massive explosion.

Certainly I'm not claiming that this is the nose showing from any ordinary aircraft. If you watch the video, one seems to see the "missile" penetration in coordination of huge explosives blowing out the side of the building and being associated with the "fireball". The idea that this is jet fuel exploding is not supported in my estimation.

Whether or not the "exiting" missile is the causal factor in the blowing out the side of WTC 2 is not something I have a stance on.

However, the consistency of the video with a projectile going at the measured speed is a much cleaner solution to the question rather than saying there was no explosive projectile exiting the building, or that somehow that project was simply fired from inside the building.

It is in part because of the above that I resist the idea of "no planes", and think others should continue to dig as well.

11:55 AM  
Blogger nickname said...

The video shows what has to be

a fake plane (CGI) melting into

the building. Therefore, what

exited the building cannot be a

real airplane nose or missile.

1:20 PM  
Blogger BG said...

I simply don't get your contention that this can not be a actual object hitting the tower. (fake plane / object). Certainly are are any number of high tech bombers / missiles that are consistent with this videoed impact.

1:50 PM  
Blogger nickname said...

The "videoed impact" shows an

airplane gliding into a building

as though the building was made of

whipped cream.


Real "high tech bombers/missiles"

don't, indeed can't do that.

2:39 PM  
OpenID camjnbp said...

nickname said:
The video shows what has to be a fake plane (CGI) melting into the building. Therefore, what exited the building cannot be a real airplane nose or missile

i concur with this assessment, yes the alleged ua175 is observed (on no less than 3 officially produced and sanctioned vids) to enter the wtc2 without any resistance (crash physics), however, the term melting is not appropriate in this instance.
maybe the term gliding into or melding might be more accurate.

3:53 PM  
Blogger nickname said...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/melt

5:11 PM  
Blogger BG said...

This web page explains how you get penetration that looks like a "melt":

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/02/26/221842/video-raytheon-tests-bunker-busting-tandem-warhead.html

5:33 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

"Why do you say that Simon Shack is

a disinfo agent? What exactly has

he said that makes you feel that

way?


He's provided ample proof of

video fakery and media complicity,

and my understanding is that you

agree with both of those."


I have posted reviews of his videos here before. The main idea is that he makes about 50% good points, and 50% really dumb points that are too easily debunked. My thinking is that anyone smart enough to make his high quality videos, and make good points, should be smart enough to not make dumb easily debunked points. Thus I think he is intel of some sort. Further, most recently, there was some disturbing stuff going on between him and Stevenwarran that was posted at 911movement. I posted the link here a few days back.

8:14 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

Thanks about the patience. But I am not a physician.

8:15 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

This web page explains how you get penetration that looks like a "melt"-- that's hard to say as there is no slow motion video of the missile to compare it with the plane entering the south tower.

8:22 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

Certainly are are any number of high tech bombers / missiles that are consistent with this videoed impact.

I disagree, in the absence of further evidence, and I do not think your link is evidence of that.

In any case, the videos show a Boeing 7X7-- not a high tech bomber/missile. I think it is extremely unlikely that every second hit video was edited to erase the high tech bomber/missile and put in a Boeing 7X7. This is a very cumbersome way to do it, and essentially impossible to do in real time-- i.e. the live shots.

8:36 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

Response part I:
There are many points of reference one can use to compare the videos that were taken "live" and appeared after the fact.

I don't know what you mean here. Why don't you spell out some specific reference points and what the significance of this is.

1. The so-called live feeds contradict each other (with respect to flight path) = prima facia evidence of TV Fakery / after the fact manipulation.

I'm actually NOT convinced that the live feeds show contradictory paths. Do you have a good reference for this point?

2. From the above, one can logically deduce: some or all of the videos are faked.

Well, since I doubt the first point, I don't deduce that.

3. However, I don't think one from a practicable standpoint wants to say that building was not damaged, and a huge fireball was not part of the reality. If you are saying even the fireball did not exist in reality, that is a separate argument I would have to dig deeper on, and is beyond my comments here.

I agree the bldg damage and fireball was real.

4. So assuming we didn't part ways on #3, the damage to the building (WTC 2) and the fireball is something we would like to further document and associate with cause.

Of course.

5. It is possible that all the damage and pyrotechnics were from devices explosives in the building.

6. It is possible that energy weapons operating at a distance played a role.

7. It is possible that a projectile played a role (not ruling out a combination of #5 and #6.


OK.

8. In sorting out what the most likely event was, one can rule out the impossible the idea that Flt. 175 was the causal factor, as all documented damage and explosive events fail to match many aspects of how the Commercial Jet would behave.

OK.

Based on the above points, we are left with trying to put together the puzzle pieces that fit.

I fully subscribe to the idea that the WTC 1 "hit", and the WTC 2 "hit" show building damage completely inconsistent with Flt. 11 and Flt 175.


Again, OK.

However, the "noseout" type event, associated possibly with a 2nd hit is rich area to be studied.

OK.

9:08 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

Response part II:
Let me grant:

1) On some live feeds, there certainly does seem to be a fade to black / signal cut as someone in a control room seems to not want the video to be shown.

2) People, such as Ace Baker, has claimed this was to hide the residue of TV fakery (e.g. the "plane's" "nose" accidently poking out due to imperfect layering.


Yes, I agree.

With further study, and by using many sources for the video shots, one can find a alternative conclusion.

Err, maybe.

All shots and pictures either reveal little about the "exit" from the other side WTC 2 or they reveal a solid missile like object which remain "solid" with a length of perhaps 15 ft., follow by a massive explosion.

OK.

Certainly I'm not claiming that this is the nose showing from any ordinary aircraft.

Yes.


If you watch the video, one seems to see the "missile" penetration in coordination of huge explosives blowing out the side of the building and being associated with the "fireball". The idea that this is jet fuel exploding is not supported in my estimation.

I agree it is not likely jet fuel. I'm not sure about the "missile" aspect-- in some videos it looks like the nose of the plane, which is clearly impossible.

Whether or not the "exiting" missile is the causal factor in the blowing out the side of WTC 2 is not something I have a stance on.

Well, there was no blow out of the exit face (north face)-- just a broken column and blown away cladding. Clearly, the huge plane nose object shown in some videos can't have exited from there.

However, the consistency of the video with a projectile going at the measured speed is a much cleaner solution to the question rather than saying there was no explosive projectile exiting the building, or that somehow that project was simply fired from inside the building.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

It is in part because of the above that I resist the idea of "no planes", and think others should continue to dig as well.

I think no plane or missile hitting the tower, coupled with video fakery plus a flyby event, is the cleanest solution given the evidence we have.

9:09 PM  
Blogger nickname said...

SPOOKED:

What are some examples of "really

dumb" points that you believe

Simon Shack has made?


I too have had moments of doubt

about him, for various reasons:

high quality videos, even though

videography isn't his profession,

family background, fluency in

English and apparently in at least

two other languages, insistence

that all of the 9/11 videos shown

on TV are fake etc.


Back to you.

8:29 AM  
Blogger BG said...

Thanks for everyone's contributions here. I realize that questions have been posited to me which I haven't responded to. I'm not trying to weasel out... just not sure if I'll have time until this weekend.

As a general statement of approach, I continue to look for a way to validate rather than invalidate the "witnesses" who heard sounds of aircraft, and who reported seeing aircraft headed toward the towers and/or "disappear" into WTC 1 or WTC 2. As a practical matter I don't think they are that many "plants" or people simply confused by watching TV.

I am a huge supporter of making the no / no plane discussion mainstream and value this blog highly for that reason alone.

We are having an impact. Not that what Alex Jones says / doesn't say is that meaningful on any given day, but he has recently said that "drones" hit the Towers, which is a big improvement, even if wrong, over Flt. 11 / Flt. 175.

10:27 AM  
Blogger nickname said...

"I am a huge supporter of making the no / no plane discussion mainstream and value this blog highly for that reason alone."


That would play into the hands of

the perps. It legitimizes a known

falsity. Many people believe that

Israel is behind 9/11. Would you

also support making THAT a

legitimate issue for mainstream

discussion?

10:42 AM  
Blogger BG said...

Re: Israel behind 9/11 (mainstream discussion)

Any reasonable discussion of 9/11 necessarily includes the huge number of points of evidence, and the points of control / causality which point to inside the US cooperation. Almost all the hard core finger pointing (which I've seen / read )at Israel avoids comprehensive discussion of the evidence of the actual destruction causing injury.

Therefore; I support discussion of Israel via 9/11 as it begs the question of how Neocon or other Zionist influences might have such a stranglehold on our MIC. For me, the answer is that there is an interlinking power structure inside / outside the US which cooperates tightly at times and loosely at others manipulating many aspects of Western action.

I would be interested to see what readers think of this vid:

http://billgiltner.blip.tv/file/1863375/

10:57 AM  
Blogger nickname said...

"Almost all the hard core finger pointing (which I've seen / read )at Israel avoids comprehensive discussion of the evidence of the actual destruction causing injury."

Does that mean you believe that
Israel is who carried out 9/11?


"there is an interlinking power structure inside / outside the US which cooperates tightly at times and loosely at others manipulating many aspects of Western action."


Does that have anything to do with
Israel being the main 9/11 perp?
Sounds like you're implying that
Israel pulls the strings.

1:58 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

Here is my last review of "September Clues":
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/10/grading-new-september-clues.html

7:11 AM  
Blogger BG said...

Nickname,

In gerneral I think most "jews" and most Israeli's are decent well-meaning innocent people. I don't think any amount of planning or corruption within Israel or the so called Israeli Lobby in the US, or any amount of Mossad and other spy infiltration could have caused 9/11 to happen, if it were not approved by non-Jewish, non-Israeli chains of command, businesses, intelligence agencies, etc. including agencies in Germany, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, US, and possibly other Countries.

7:56 PM  
Blogger BG said...

Below is a link to my assessment of 14 of the LIVE clips of the 2nd hit on 9/11/2001. I list which clips contain a fake or the actual plane. I realize just saying something is true doesn't make it true... so this is just a way of "putting a stake in the ground" that supports the general opinion I am expressing here.

Here's the link:
http://twitwall.com/view/?what=0708050000

8:02 PM  
Blogger nickname said...

"if it were not approved by non-Jewish, non-Israeli chains of command, businesses, intelligence agencies, etc. including agencies in Germany, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, US, and possibly other Countries."

Clear as mud.

1:35 PM  
Blogger BG said...

Nickname,

What are your thoughts on the matter?

1:56 PM  
Blogger Chad said...

After 124 posts, I'm sure there has been an explanation. But since your mind is already made up that anyone who supports the official story is automatically a "shill", I highly doubt you gave it any consideration.

But since we're spitting out numbers, why is it that after 8 years (96 months or almost 3,000 days) you're still just blogging about no planes and nukes on the internet?

10:49 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger