911 was three events - WTC, Pentagon, and Shanksville. WTC was two events each differentiated by time but otherwise both resembling each other. Shanksville was two mutually exclusive events differentiated by location, neither resembling the other.
Germane aspects taken at face value (loosely in order of timeline occurrence)
WTC
- Numerous and sundry witnesses and footage of wide-body jets striking buildings, exploding, and leaving plane shaped holes. Extensive media coverage.
- Numerous and sundry witnesses and footage and seismic evidence of explosions leading to the unprecedented and complete destruction of three buildings involving the pulverisation of steel-reinforced concrete and the melting of both steel and concrete. No media coverage.
Pentagon
- Numerous witnesses of a wide-body jet striking the Pentagon. Extensive media coverage.
- No footage. No plane shaped hole. Scant debris and that inconsistent with a 100 tonne wide-body jet. No media coverage.
Shanksville location A
- Numerous and sundry witnesses and footage of a small hole in a field. Extensive media coverage.
- No witnesses or footage of a crash. No debris. No bodies. No fuel residue. No media coverage.
Shanksville location B
- Numerous and sundry witnesses (no footage) of a low-flying wide-body jet breaking up in mid-air, an explosion and mushroom cloud, a white chase plane, and plentiful debris scattered over a wide area. No media coverage.
Questioning of official narrative (in loose order of argumentative usefulness, ha ha)
Pentagon
This began with Thierry Meyssan who not unreasonably asked where the 100 tonne wide-body 757 had gone. Where was the debris and litter that accompanies every jet crash ever witnessed? Why was the hole in the face of the Pentagon so small and the damage so slight? These were reasonable questions that would have to prompt any thinking person to wonder if the story of a wide-body jet inflicting such damage was factual.
There were pieces of evidence to support this idea. Flight 77 was the only flight of the four to have its course plotted as a dotted line on all maps reconstructing the courses of the four planes, this on account of it 'having disappeared from the radar'. Wide-body passenger jets, transponders turned off or no, do not disappear from radar. Usually if a given flight disappears from radar the automatic assumption would be that it is thus no longer in the sky. Furthermore the black box allegedly recovered from the plane indicated an attack angle that experienced pilots declared impossible. In addition to this the FBI confiscated all CCTV video footage of the attack and released nothing until three years later. The release consisted of two near-identical clips neither of which showed a plane of any sort.
Counter to Meyssan's question was the evidence offered by numerous witnesses some of whom saw nothing at all (and wondered at it) and some (almost entirely apparatchiks of the military industrial complex) who were adamant they'd seen precisely the plane the government had declared had been there.
It should be kept in mind that in spite of the fact that the government sat on the two clips for over a year, and in spite of obviousness of video fakery being in their best interest, it's clear that they either failed to insert any digital element into either of the clips, or they did so very badly, ie. in a fashion that it wouldn't convince anyone of anything.
Shanksville
Here too, no fakery was ever proffered. Admittedly it would've been a little bit more difficult than the photoshopping of a single frame of the Pentagon video, but not much. If I were a death cult FX guy, I'd have gone to a nearby recognisable shanksville location (after the event, sure enough), swung a simple handicam up to an empty sky as if following a streaking plane and followed the imaginary plane down to the horizon right next to the stated location. I'd then put the footage into the laptop, track in an off-the-shelf 3D model of a 757, quick textures, lighting, render with motion blur, and load to youtube. Fast, simple, cheap, 1 all-nighter = 2 days @ $500 a day (cash money), $1000 thanks very much. But as we all know, no such thing happened.
WTC
The events we saw in New York prompted many questions (mostly around buildings doing a vertical drop into their basements at free-fall speed) but in regards to planes, the first and most obvious question centred on how men who couldn't fly cessnas could successfully steer wide-body passenger jets travelling at over 700 km/h into targets 100m wide.
Extraordinarily, it turns out that the dual-Israeli financial comptroller of the Pentagon, one Dov Zakheim, who'd the day before 9/11 announced that 2.3 trillion dollars of the Pentagon's money had vanished, also happened to own a company, System Planning Corporation, that specialised in the remote control of aircraft. Further, the remote control of jet aircraft was not any kind of new science but had been perfected in the early 60's.
Given the technological advances that have taken place since then, with cruise missiles capable of following roads, turning at intersections, and hitting targets with a 5m accuracy, the guiding of a passenger jet into a 100m wide building becomes the simplest thing imaginable. Were confirmation needed, many examples of passenger planes being accurately remoted-control crashed into small targets can be found on youtube.
Regardless, many people were troubled by what they considered to be faults and errors in much of the footage of the planes that day. The first consisted of a discussion of pods. Does everyone remember that? Where is it now? Next up was talk of holograms. This too was abandoned, probably on account of the perfect stupidness of the whole idea. Finally we've arrived at a workable proposition to explain the undeniable fakery in the footage: there were no planes, or holograms, or any other thing in the sky at any time in New York and everything we saw on TV was digitally inserted, either in real time or as a post event. And all the eye-witnesses were either bullshit artists, à la the Pentagon, or mistaken.
Wait, let's rewind to the beg-the-question: ie. that the various youtube shots we all saw, displayed evidence of 'undeniable fakery'. I couldn't be fagged tearing apart all of them. I'll just do one and see if that doesn't say something about every other one. Have a look at this astounding example of obvious fake footage -
What a give-away! Such obvious fakery!
Groan. What happened to the assertion that the US military skunkworks magicians are capable of making holograms so perfect that they could be projected into clear blue sky and fool cameras, witnesses, everyone? Now they seem to be the very opposite of that. Now they seem incapable of doing something so simple that if it had been my job I'd have palmed it off to the work-experience boy and expected him to finish it before lunch. I can't tell you how basic this is as a CG shot. Something like this would qualify as tutorial 1, lesson 1, and the only way you could fuck it up is if someone hit you over the head with a pickaxe handle half way through. But somehow the vaunted US military did precisely that. Go figure. (Mind you, they do groove on violence. Perhaps they actually were beating each other with pickaxe handles and that's why it looks so bad?)
Enough of that, just go play that youtube thing again but this time don't look at the where the magician is pointing. Instead look at the top left hand side of the image. See the aerial / antenna thing at the top of the building? Watch it as the foreground leaves move backwards and forwards in front of it. And wait for the slo-mo. Wait for it! There did you see it? Holy shit! They've faked that too!
Yeah, right. Does everyone get it yet? You're looking at compression. Do we need me to explain that? Surely not. Let's just say nothing gets more compressed than youtube images. They get compressed to one step shy of complete incomprehensibility. Or beyond, as is the case here.
But the thing is, we don't even need compression. Every ad, every TV show, and every movie gets put into post because raw footage looks like shit. If I had a buck for every shot that had us remarking, 'Gee that looks weird doesn't it?' I'd have enough money to get that penis shortening surgery I so badly need. As is, I'll just have to struggle on I guess. Never mind.
The thing is, footage gets put into post precisely to clean this sort of shit up. Or to put it another way: to make it believable. And yet for the no-planers this raison d'etre paradigm is turned on its head. For them, all these artefact-laden shots are proof that they have been put into post, when the truth is, it's proof that they haven't.
How about this guy?
How's that for logic, eh?
- I can fake footage of a plane crashing into a building
- 9/11 has footage of a plane crashing into a building
- Therefore the 9/11 footage is fake
God help us. That's what Aristotle would have called a 'syllogistic fallacy'. Or to put it another way, 'crap'. It's proof of nothing beyond that silly boy's desire to show off.
But forget the little pictures. We'll be here all day otherwise. Let's gun for the big picture. This was best encapsulated by what I learned in University, year one, product design, age seventeen. The golden rule of rendering was If it looks wrong, it is wrong. And sure we were told this to stop us whinging that we didn't deserve the lecturer's criticisms because "technically it's correct". No one gave a shit. If it looked wrong, it was wrong. But forget us as spotty youths making silly arguments - it's not the output of this rule that counts, but the input. Which is to say, why did this rule exist? It existed because this sort of shit happens all the time. It's beyond common. Technically correct images can and do look wrong. All the way through college. All the way through prop and model-making. All the way through CG.
Inversely, I could take you through dozens of shots I've worked on, that would look completely normal to you but were in fact no such thing, each of them being so bent out of shape that they made no sense from any other angle. If I swung the camera around and showed you the side view you'd have been amazed at how abortionate it all looked. And the reason I had to cheat that thing was because when we did it the first time (correctly) it looked wrong. Do we get it?
In every discussion about 9/11 video fakery it's always the same - I dutifully follow the links to the examples cited and never have I found anything that impressed. All of it was the same old shit that I'd seen my entire working life and was, as far as I was concerned, the kind of thing you put into post in order to be fixed. To declare that these not-cleaned-up images were the result of fixing demonstrates an arse-about understanding of the logic of the whole process. Not to mention an eat-your-cake-and-have-it-too argument whereby the light-years-ahead, scifi-wunderkind Pentagon suddenly become hapless amateurs that couldn't organise a shitfight in a pigsty.
And this same inverse logic follows the no-plane argument from the micro to the macro. Back to me as post production supervisor: as supervisor it was my job to decide, for any given shot, what we do for real (in-camera) and what we do as CG. In-camera (no, not the latin meaning) is always preferable. It's cheaper, quicker, and the client couldn't endlessly fuck with it like he could with CG (which is to say, ruin our lives).
So! I'm in a production meeting and the brief says we need to put two planes into the twin towers and have them come down. Obviously you'd do that in post because it's not like we can use real planes and real buildings. Except, that we can. We have an unlimited budget! We can do any fucking thing we like! We're the Death Cult! Not only do we have no compunction about mass fatalities but as far as we're concerned, the more dead the better. We fucking love it.
But never mind that, just in terms of whether we go with CG or a real plane there's only one question. I turn to the RC guy -
"Can you guarantee that those planes will hit the building?"
"Mate, we've been doing it since the sixties. Have a look at these quicktimes. See that 707 nail that fucking camera? And that was in the sixties. And 707's are lumbering elephants compared to 757's and 767's. You've no idea. Think of cruise missiles. They can turn right at street corners, you know. And they're twenty years old. It's no problems, forget about it, accuracy under 5m."
Yeah, yeah, that's me being hyperbolical. Forget me. Why don't we just go to the only attempt by a no-planer to answer the question of why bother with CG when you could use real planes instead. ...impressed? No, me neither. Well, at least he tried. For comedic value why don't I paraphrase the four bullet points he gives as to why there's no way you'd use a real plane and would have to go with CG.
- what if it missed?
- what if it didn't go into the building?
- what if it missed and didn't go into the building?
- what if it missed and didn't go into the building?
And that's it is it? That's the best he could come up with as to why you'd reject forty year old technology in favour of some mad fucking idea no one has ever tried before? God spare me. It's a good thing there's no one asking the flip-side question: "So what happens when there's no planes and in the twenty minutes between the two strikes a bazillion people all grab their handicams and film a building that explodes for no apparent reason apart from air pressure? How's the FBI going to find all those fucking cameras and insert a plane in each of them?"
Back to the bullet points, it's this chap's opinion that the likelihood of the plane missing its target is unacceptably high. Cue the obvious question - Well is it or isn't it? So far it's just an assertion, something he just made up. Mind you he posts a little youtube clip to prove his point. Let's have a look at that. Blogger doesn't do animated gifs, so here's the key frame as a still. (You can see it moving at the above link).
Sure enough, it's the least accurate piece of footage of a 707 being crashed that he could find. In case anyone thinks that he might be onto something there, just think about what you're looking at. You're looking at a forty year old plane aiming at a 20m wide target and absolutely knocking the living shit out of it. It's easily accurate enough to nail a 100m wide skyscraper. And that's the best example of inaccuracy he's got is it? So much for what-if-it-missed. A pointy hat for that boy - go sit in the corner until you get some arguments that aren't crap.
And do we have to address the old 'what if it didn't go into the building' bit? I think the only sensible response to this is - What the fuck else is it going to do? Bounce off? Like a squash ball? Fuck that - you line up a 100 tonne jetliner travelling at 700 km/h and aim it at, hell... Ayer's Rock! and it's only going to do one thing and that's to pile-drive itself into oblivion. It'll have no hope at all.
As for 'no evidence of jet-liners' we all roll our eyes - it's just too desperate for words, isn't it?
Honestly, between a question that didn't need to be asked based on a shit reading of shit evidence, and a bullet-proof in-camera effect that perfectly fills the brief, what the fuck are we talking about this for? Not forgetting we're discussing a bunch of people who, when they really needed some fakery at the Pentagon and Shanksville, were utterly incapable of producing the goods. A single shot would have done it. But, nope! Not a sausage. And yet, somehow in New York, they knew where every camera was, took them, and inserted a CG plane into every bit of footage and no one said nothin' bout nothin'.
Man, I shake my head.
Now, go read this piece by Paul Craig Roberts. (Thank you Aangirfan) It's a helluva read, ain't it? Now ask yourself: what function does the no-planes meme serve within that discussion?
The answer isn't pretty is it?
34 comments:
PS. That link just under the pic of the disintegrating F4 is really worth checking out. Not only do we get to see a no-bullshit fighter jet turn itself into a pancake but you can also see the wing slice right into steel-reinforced concrete.
Keep it in mind, the next time you hear someone say there's no way 'flimsy aluminium' jet-liners could cut through the steel outer of the WTC. Fucking bullshit they couldn't.
Good job, noby. You're really a talented bullshit slasher.
making people get all tangled with nonsense serves the culprits well. still, all I can really say is - yawn.
yawn, indeed - that's the response aligned with my initial reaction to the whole nine eleven tv drama. I remember myself playing playstation in my room when my brother came rushing in, urging me to come to the living room to see what is happening in manhattan.
so I stood in the living room and stared at the tv for a few minutes, thinking "there's nothing new to see here. oh god how boring," and went back to my room and continued playing spyro 2: ripto's rage, which I by that time had played through several times already, for the rest of the day.
years later, after seeing few collections of clips from movies and tv shows and cartoons and such with predating references to the above mentioned tv drama, coined as "subliminals," I began to understand my reaction better. having consumed a huge quantity of media products all through my young life by the time of the live broadcast, I had already been conditioned to relate 9 + 11 to mayhem. thus the reaction at the time of the grand premier was but indifference.
and that's how I still feel about the whole matter. it's as if I would have in advance accepted something which had not yet happened, accepted as thoroughly as I've accepted as reality the fact that the sun gets up every morning while I shave ockham's beard.
some 'credentialed experts' are on the perp payroll.
their job is to push for a new never ending investigation complete with-
confessions, recants, delays, mistrials, re trials, appeals, prison suicides, fake executions etc etc all giving the perps time to die of old age. Anyone who thinks there were planes on 911 is in the slow typing class. There were no planes.
I agree, there were no boeings - anywhere.
First Anon - Is that an argument? I can't tell. It sounds like crankiness to me.
Second Anon - Um, is that an argument? Or just an attempt at weight of numbers? Anons have no weight of numbers you know. Off to statcounter I go...
(In case anyone is wondering, yes, I edit and repaste my own comments. i'm an inveterate proof-reader who can't abide his own spelling, grammar, and syntax errors so I fix 'em. All this under the rubric of 'because I can')
Otherwise if you have an answer to the question of 'why would you bother with CG when real planes will do the job nicely' that consists of something other than 'what if they missed' I'd be interested to hear it. That aside, the pursuit of the no-planes meme is a trail that leads to nowhere useful with whomever it is that's pursuing it looking to all the world like some variety of loony. And yeah, yeah, it's a sheeple world but that's the only world we got.
Or alternatively, if someone can demonstrate clearly that those plenty-accurate-enough RC planes of the sixties and seventies were flukes and that since then the technology related to such things has stagnated or gone backwards (a bit like our ability to go to the moon, now that I think about it) then I'm up for that too.
Between the aforementioned meme and RC planes, Dov Zakheim, and the thrust of what Paul Craig Roberts was on about, one of them seems to be a purposeless (indeed counter-productive) waste of time.
Can anyone who grooves on no-planes provide a clear raionale as to where they think it will lead and how they think it will drag a many-minds juju along with it? If you can't drag the majority you ain't got nothin. Not in this world. That Paul Craig Roberts piece is easily capable of turning a minority into a majority. It's the kind of thing I can show to... I don't know, my mother for instance, and pretty much give her no option but to concur.
No-planes on the other hand would consist of me waving my hands about, spouting suppositions, and all to no useful effect. Between a series of crummy quicktimes (which are easily shot-down) and the entire media telling them another story it's never going to make it. Paul Craig Roberts' piece WILL. Can we dig it?
Speaking of the moon - Hullo Gallier! Nice of you to pop in. I did reply to you back at the moon piece. But not in any fashion you'd care for I expect.
A bit like this piece here is for everyone else. Weirdly the big hits it's getting in statcounter are in inverse proportion to the comments. Everyone's struck dumb it seems. I'm not going to pursue what that means because I have a feeling I'd be in amongst a hundred variations of 'This piece sucked because...'
...oh, hello P. Ayah! Cynic of cynics - you make me look like a dizzy, bleeding-heart softie. It's not that I'm not of course, I just don't want to look that way, ha ha. And 'shaving Ockham's beard'? That's not some feminine hygiene euphemism is it? No? Thank God for that.
Otherwise mate, idiocy aside, I do get what you're on about. People will hate me for saying this but it's my intention to one day arrive at a point where I'm no longer subject to 'the red mist'. At the moment however I succumb all too easily and behave like a self-propelled puppet. "I don't need anyone to pull my strings. I can do that perfectly well on my own thank you very much."
No idea who the first anon is (lost in the mix) but the second is, drumroll... that Swedish arch-fuckwit who's been hanging at Kenny's, Aang's, and my very own haiku blog (where he made some idiotically pointless comment about jazz and masturbation - no, not 'jizz', he's not smart enough for low-brow double entendres) Anyway he exists for one purpose - to insult everyone and pick fights. He has no coherent position on anything.
That's why he left me with no choice but to write him up in that last Pedophocracy Disinfo piece. He was it. I suspect he has tag-team partners as well but they're not quite as obvious and dumb as he is.
What was in your fucked up, stupid head mate? "I'll sneak in here and pretend I'm normal. I'm so clever no one will ever know! Hee hee, clever, clever, clever..."
Fucking hell... you haven't got a shred of wit mate. You are the most spectacularly inept and incompetent bullshit artist I've ever seen. And I've seen a few.
If I was you, seriously, I'd keep an eye over one shoulder. Eventually the people who pay you those peanuts will realise you ain't even worth that and you'd be more value to them dead than alive.
Otherwise I'm off to check out what's involved in banning anons. Are there any anons who post here and aren't bullshit and have an opinion? I'm all ears.
BTW If anyone's curious here's our Swedish scumbag:
Stockholm, Stockholms Lan, Sweden Tele2 Swipnet (83.183.49.159)
First Anon - Is that an argument? I can't tell. It sounds like crankiness to me.
--
dude, i wont argue planes. there were none. anyone pushing planes in 2011 is up to no good
Operation Northwoods had planes.
Those spooky people who blame everything on Tel Aviv seldom mention Operation Northwoods (or Operation Gladio, or Salem bin Laden and Iran Contra...)
- Aangirfan
Many thanks for this very detailed entry.
- Aangirfan
John Friend wrote:
Dear nobody,
First off, I do hope you address the points I made on your last piece.
Second off, I'd like to address your characterization of the article you linked to in this piece written by the blogger Killtown, who has done a lot of very interesting research regarding 9/11. You write:
-snip-
cut and paste from my article
-snip-
This is utterly ridiculous man, you've got to be kidding me. You must not have actually read Killtown's brilliant article, because the main bullets in the article are
-snip-
loooong double-post cut and paste of entire killtown article to which I'd already provided a link and which still exists on the front page
-snip-
Hullo John,
Like it says at the top of the page, I do blitz comments occasionally but I always say who was blitzed and why. The 'why' in your case is because I've had with you as a broken record.
You gave the killtown link at Kenny's and we all went and checked it out and I and several other people came back utterly unimpressed. Which you took as your cue to post it again. And then you came in here yesterday and posted it again. And then today, not satisfied with me posting that very link on the front page, you cut and paste the whole fucking article. God fucking spare me.
You're like some wind-up toy, a Chatty Cathy, a parrot that only knows one sentence. One more time - we checked it out mate and it's a load of suppositional, what-if crap that he's pulled out of his arse. It's not based on anything.
"What if they used drones?!"
"What if they used a yellow submarine?!"
"What if they used a midget on a fucking tricycle?!"
Well, did they, or didn't they? Who the fuck knows? Killtown's got nothing. Nothing but his own say-so. Pathetic. What's wrong with fucking planes? There's heaps of youtube movies demonstrating that they could do the job just dandy, and nothing to demonstrate otherwise. So why on earth would anyone pick 'the otherwise'. Who the fuck would do that? And why?
You can view those two questions as rhetoric if you like, or you can view them as fair questions about a situation that only makes sense as some variety of bullshit.
I've had a thought. Back in a sec...
...yeah.
Just back from statcounter and John... well let me just say that when you posted those links at Kenny's I clicked on them and checked them out. And - do you know what I'm going to tell you now? Can you guess? - sure enough there you were in statcounter, a bloke who only seems to have one barrow, your 'no-planes' barrow, and you love that fucking barrow and you push it on everyone over and over till they're sick of it, it's like an obsession with you, in caps! OBSESSION! - can you see where I'm going with this? - and in spite of being obsessed with the whole no-planes thing, you arrived at this blog, to a post entirely devoted to no-planes, your favourite topic, and... wait for it... you didn't click on a single link.
Well. Fuck. Me. What sort of obsessed, one-trick-pony-riding bloke comes to a place and ignores everything that's connected with his obsession? I'll tell you - one who utterly lacks any curiosity about the subject he's allegedly interested in.
I've seen this before you know - in hasbara Jews and pedophocracy disinfo scum. Pretence aside, neither of them is actually interested in the topic under discussion. There's nothing anyone can tell them about it that they don't already know. They're just there to push their barrow. Subsequently I don't even bother fucking around anymore, I just cut to the chase because as far as I'm concerned such an impossible incuriosity is a dead give-away.
So, you can consider yourself burned John. I never trusted your glib bonhomie and flattery and I reckon your 'enthusiasm for the cause' is now laid bare. Enthusiasm be damned, you just weren't interested were you? If only you'd clicked on a link or two. Hell, just one! Anything. But you didn't did you? And it's too late now mate. Still you can keep it in mind for next time, eh? Chalk it up to experience.
Now off you go to scream bloody murder in every blog you tirelessly frequent. I really don't give a rat's. Or maybe I do? Maybe I put you on the front page. It's a thought... it'd make for an interesting piece. I'll call it 'Incuriosity'. One word, punchy, not bad. But whatever, you'll troop on regardless, you and your rhinocerous hide, and you'll push your barrow and push your barrow and you'll keep going because that's what you do. That would be 'do' as in What do you do? as in I'm a librarian or I'm a paramedic. I'm sure you can dig it.
Anyway that was most instructive. Thanks for stopping by. Oh, and no doubt you'll be in here for one more effort involving anger, disappointment, incredulity, you know, the usual. Let's hope it's unintentionally funny because it's getting blitzed otherwise.
Bye John.
And Aang, always a pleasure.
You know, I hadn't a lot to add to what you said. You noticed may be that I introduced the moon picture link with New photoshops of the moon ;-) which is a dead giveaway of the fact that I don't think that they will be able to convince anyone not already convinced. When following the comments there, one can see exactly that.
From an interesting blog, there's this picture which backs up P2P's point
Well, I'll be damned. First time I've ever been censored here on blogger to my knowledge. Apparently, not the last time either, since this will be blitzed, too. I find that rather cowardly.
I did click on your links by the way. You only had two or three in the entire piece anyways. Your characterization of Killtown's article was absolutely pathetic, and you know it. As you've said, I have made my points regarding the alleged Boeing 757s/767s on 9/11 (there were none), so I'll stop carrying on like a broken record. There is plenty of good info out there regarding this subject for anyone to look into anyways.
You characterize me as:
"I've seen this before you know - in hasbara Jews and pedophocracy disinfo scum."
That's certainly a hell of a thing to say about me man. It's a good thing we're doing this over the internet, I'd knock your fucking teeth out if you said that to my face. If you can't tell what side of this struggle I'm on then you're clearly not paying attention.
Hey Aangirfan, Operation Northwoods did have planes, but they talked about switching the planes, using drones, faking passengers deaths, ect. Besides, Operation Northwoods had nothing to do with 9/11.
John Friend said:
Hey Aangirfan, Operation Northwoods did have planes, but they talked about switching the planes, using drones, faking passengers deaths, ect. Besides, Operation Northwoods had nothing to do with 9/11.
Which can perfectly apply to what was done on 9/11.
Mentioning Operation Northwood has the purpose to counter the claim that "government would never think about such a thing". The paper shows exactly that, that they have no hesitation in envisioning something like and we should not forget that this paper dates from the late '50s, early '60s, a time were government was supposed to be more virtuous than today.
gallier2, I agree with your statement regarding Operation Northwoods. Clearly, governments have schemed diabolical plots in the past and continue to do so, and have developed them all throughout history. Operation Northwoods clearly proves this. The point I was trying to make is that Operation Northwoods and 9/11 are two separate black op/false flag operations. We can make comparisons, and point Operation Northwoods out to people that otherwise wouldn't believe governments operate in this evil fashion, but that's about it.
Good article Nobs. I've never been terribly interested in the planes - they were only window-dressing, an incidental; whether the planes were highjacked, drones or illusionary the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. I've tried to be open-minded towards the no-planers but as you said Nobs all you ever get is wild speculation based on grossly compressed Youtube vids. The evidence just isn't there.
I came rather late to the truth party, but what convinced me was the simple, solid technical exposition by the likes of Antony Lawson on the free-fall nature of WTC7 and of the AE911 analysis of thermite residue found in the dust. Either of these is proof-positive of controlled demolition. If I had first come across the no-planers, no-vicsims, dustifying DEW, or pre-planted (at time of building!) nuclear bomb crowd that John Friend is so taken with I would have run a mile and forever written off the truthers as 'conspiracy nuts'.
Exactly! Freethinker, I thank you.
Mind you, I keep an open mind. But that being said, I put all that stuff at the bottom of the list. If I'm talking to punters, it'd be the last thing I'd talk about. With coves like John Friend, it's the first thing.
Anyway coming up soon, a very public execution. Bring a packed lunch and make sure you get there early or else all the good seats will be gone.
Oh, and John, you're such a fucking puppet. When I said I'd blitz you unless you were inadvertantly comedic, that was a variety of challenge which I knew you couldn't resist. The thing is mate, we've done all this before. We've seen blokes like you come and go. You're so fucking predictable. You're scratching your head no doubt but don't worry, I'll lay it all out tomorrow. Oh, and it's BYO tumbrel mate. But only for you.
Great read and well laid out Nobs.
I have to admit having been quite taken in by the whole no-plane thing a couple of years ago but I came to my senses after a no-planer who shall remain anonymous for now bluntly told me, "Edo, if you don't believe that the jumpers were fake, just as the planes were fake, then you're a fake" - or something along those lines....
That was a wake up call for me, and I quickly retreated away from the whole no-plane thing.
OK, I'll admit to being a bit confused. Look, I'll admit that a 767 could obviously cause damage to a building, but are you saying that you actually believe that "Flight 175" could hit a steel-framed building and go right through it like a ghost or a hot knife through butter?
Without any compression or crumpling on the part of the "plane?" Without one piece of the "plane" or the building being blasted off in a quite spectacular manner? Without any explosion until the "plane" IS COMPLETELY INSIDE THE BUILDING?
You're joking, I hope.
Wow. Quite the shit-fight this started, as I see you wrote another piece already. Been busy, Nobody, so I didn't have time to post a comment . . . don't really have time now either, but here's what I quickly wrote at work.
Nobody,
I respectfully think you are prejudiced against the possibility of no planes for the WTC, just as I was beforehand. I can tell by the way you structure your point by point format, and the missing information which counters your thesis.
I'll make some additions point by point.
" WTC
- Numerous and sundry witnesses and footage of wide-body jets striking buildings, exploding, and leaving plane shaped holes. Extensive media coverage.
- Numerous and sundry witnesses and footage and seismic evidence of explosions leading to the unprecedented and complete destruction of three buildings involving the pulverisation of steel-reinforced concrete and the melting of both steel and concrete. No media coverage."
Let's start with the jets and the footage
1st tower to be "hit":
- only one video of the first jet, shown only on the day after 9/11, I think later there was a second one, but the Naudet bros. video is the one that everyone is shown. And even on that video . . . you'd be hard pressed to convince yourself that a large wide-bodied jet is actually being flown into that building. I have yet to see an actual plane in that video.
- there were not numerous and sundry witnesses to the first plane, actually. In fact, all of the main witnesses later turn up to be complete plants, or turn out to be false (could not have seen/heard the plane from where they were) or both
- there were, however, many and sundry witnesses to explosions. Key in this is the live reports, the first reports . . . the ones that are never repeated, or clipped appropriately to fit the story.
2nd Tower to get "hit":
- one main video, first shown on FOX news, of the second plane. Later, many more show up, and years later, videos continue to come in. So, yes, lots and lots of videos. No good ones actually clearly showing anything to identify the plane, mind you.
- a complete mixed bag of reports. Many reports of an explosion, many reports of a small commuter or fighter plane. The reports of a large commuter plane are full of witnesses like the one who says he can see the terrified faces in the windows . . . blowing by him at 300 km/hr at the altitude of 90 stories. Unh-hunh.
FOR BOTH TOWERS
- seimic activity disparity between when planes supposedly hit and were captured on video as hitting (important for editing purposes)
- No wreckage of the planes is ever found, it all disappears supposedly (except for a seemingly planted engine blocks away, even though it is never actually seen to be flying out of the building at impact, even though it never injures or kills anyone in the busy streets of Manhattan, and even though there are no eye wtness accounts of it). No material debris field as plane smashes into building, just like a hot knife through butter. Black boxes never recovered supposedly. In the buildings, despite the actual impact holes being too small for the planes that supposedly hit . . . there is not a scrap of wing wreckage, not a scrap of those extremely dense and heavy turbine engines, no fuselage . . . nothing sticking out or visible in the buildings at all.
So right from the start you don't seem to be representing facts here, Nobody - at least, not in fairness, as I can see it.
cont'd
I am crazy busy right now and would like to write more about how blowing down paper tigers doesn't win your point for your cause, much like the official conspiracy supporters don't blow away any of us by easily dismissing theories of laser beams from outer space as ridiculous. If all you have truly is one article to damn . . . you really haven't looked, in which case, it just shows that you have already made your decision, and instead of investigative journalism have turned to simply trying to prove your pre-conceived notion.
Seeing is not always believing.
One can just as easily pose the question,
"Why not use a plane for the pentagon?" and
"Why not just crash that plane full of people into the ground in Pennsylvania anyways, why create the doubt with no real plane at the crash site?"
"Why blow up the plane as it impacted the WTC (setting off explosives pre-demolition), if the plane was already going to kill everyone inside and cause a nice little explosion?"
And further to that, "if there WERE no accompanying explosions as the plane impacted . . . where did its parts disappear to?"
See, those questions are just as troubling and interesting as any of the questions you ask of the no-planers. It certainly doesn't dismiss any of the hard evidence and honest eye-witness accounts though.
I think concentrating on videos where some adjustments may or may not have happened, and where it is totally unclear as a result of compression or bad video graphics . . . is 100% and totally missing the point of truly investigating the possibility of there having been no planes used, and at most, a small aircraft/dummy drone/missile used for the second building (which I think is a idstinct possibility).
And you know what started me on this journey? Gallier, and an argument I had had with him earlier in a comments section from long ago. He made me re-think having pre-conceived notions, because I realised that I did indeed have them, and that he was - agree with him or not on everything - a good guy who is most definitely on our side. And he made me re-examine how the towers could have been brought down, and it led me to going over the planes themselves hitting the towers, and the live reports/shots.
Nothing original here, just low-brow sneering at the truth. There were no planes. Realizing this is critical for understanding everything about 9/11 ... especially its cover-up. It is therefore its most viscously defended secret. The fact that fake photos and videos were used reveals a vast network of news-media deception. If that deception were widely appreciated the news would lose its propaganda power. Therefore these fake "alternative" bloggers and "truthers" and Alex Jones types clamour on and on about 9/11 and they shout down anybody who brings up the whole story. Obviously these "alternative" clowns are just part of the charade. The filthy language that is suppose to convey a "raw" honesty is part of their gimmick.
No, the truth is out, and there were no planes, and 3000 people didn't die, and the "alternative media" is just as CIA controlled as the mainstream media.
Rather than using the footage of an F4 crashing into a wall (which is unscientific and is comparing apples with oranges) the no-planes theory would be better debunked by asking an alternative question: what went wrong on 9/11 that would explain the anomalies?
Dave McGowan's explanation of the errors on 9/11 shows why there is no footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon and I would highly recommend that those who believe in the 'no-planes' theory check out his writing on this issue.
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr67.html
"If the attacks had gone according to plans, in other words, Flight 77 very likely would have crashed into the Pentagon. There would have been physical evidence of the crash of a commercial airliner at the scene, and we probably would have been treated to endless replays of video footage of yet another spectacular plane crash. Instead, what we have is some very incriminating photographic evidence that strongly suggests that Flight 77 never made it to the Pentagon."
Nobody, are you really defending those fake videos of 'boeings' penetrating through the steel encased WTC and emerging out the otherside intact? Couple that with the impossible speeds the object is travelling in the various films, ask any pilot, the boeing would disintegrate flying 500mph at sea level.
Just a little reminder to define correctly the subject before discussing. We have to distinguish betwen 3 points and the comments here sofar tend to mix them up pretty consistently.
Proposition 1 (John Friend and co): there were no planes at all, all pictures were altered.
Proposition 2 (me and others): there were (remote controlled) planes at WTC1 & WTC2, the plane for WTC7 was shot down. There might or might not have been a plane at the Pentagon
Proposition 3 (wrh): There were planes at WTC1 & WTC2, there was a plane at Pentagon and anyone saying otherwise is a disinfo plant.
U all are fucking idiot's!!!
Gallier:
Don't do a disservice to yourself and lump people with theories.
It's exactly what disinfo agents dream of everyone doing . . . infighting, disagreeing with points not based on merit, but on personages.
Theory #1:
No planes at all hit the towers. Complicit media coverup and ignoring, doctoring of videos, and a beautiful mindfuck reminiscent of people on the moon.
Theory #2:
Planes of some sort hit the towers (variation of this is that only one plane hit the second tower, or maybe a missile).
Theory #3:
There were no planes, and the buildings went down by laser beams a la Judy Woods et al.
Let's keep it real folks. Talk about apples to apples, oranges to oranges, not shave an argument here or there by predetermining what argument includes what.
we are talking planes and towers, let's leave it at that.
And hell, for a flyer, why not let's actually talk it about it like sane and reasoned people?
Just an idea.
I thought that I'd add something to my previous comment. If "Flight 175" could go right through that building without any slowing, crumpling, resistance from the building, etc., then if you assign points on a scale of 1 to 10 for strength/resistance, then obviously, the "plane" would get a 10, and the building would get a 1, if not a 0.
So, if that's the case, and the "plane" was so much stronger than the building, than what could have caused the "plane" to explode after it annihilated the outer wall, hmm? That's like using a sledgehammer to punch a hole through a wall, and after the head goes through the wall to the other side, the head disintegrates. WTF?
Late to the scene and this will likely be read by nobody (at all). But it was a very interesting discussion which lead me to a thought. Why no planes? That's it!
These agencies spend billions on false information & are not completely full of idiots. They must have known that this utterly ridiculous tale would come under scrutiny and that some movement would arise so they planned in advance to split it. Even the comments from Bush about seeing the first plane hit (before the video had been released) were likely controlled disinfo.
I too thought the no-planes was entirely disinfo until I read Slozo's considered comments. Now I am a lot less certain.
Post a Comment