James Perloff "911 Simplified"

[Griff]

I haven't seen this posted yet, and it is well worthy of discussion. While Mr. Perloff does not claim this to be a definitive analysis in any way, he does bring up many postulations that point in the direction of Israel being responsible, with considerable help from inside the US at the highest level.

One of his main points that avoids the usual 9/11 in-fighting is what caused the twin towers to collapse into their own footprints. The three most common schools of thought on this are of course:

1) Nano-thermite as espoused mostly by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
2) A Directed Energy Weapon, as advocated by Dr. Judy Wood
3) Mini-Nukes in the basements of the twin towers

I read Dr. Woods book when it came out, and while she made a very compelling case for the use of DEW's, my conclusion was that the evidence points to the use of all three of these methods at once. This is the first article I've read on 9/11 that has come to the same hypothesis.

He also goes into some discussion on whether the Twin Towers were struck by airliners at all, or were hit by "cloaked" cruise missiles of some type. This is certainly open to debate, but there is no question that this type of holographic technology was being developed as far back as the '80's.

This article may not have all the answers, but at least it's asking some of the right questions. What are your thoughts on this?

Thanks

Griff

https://jamesperloff.com/2017/06/30/911-simplified/

[Tintin]

I drew exactly the same conclusion with all 3 methods being employed. Quite possibly conceived by the actual perpetrators as a means to create confusion later on down the line and divide the lines of investigation into warring camps.

Having spent hundreds of hours carefully picking through all this over a span of 4 years or so (actually make that thousands of hours!) I have similarly come to the conclusion that no actual aircraft at all were used: way way way too much traditional physics being abused - practically impossible to pull off with the real thing (and, no, they definitely didn't go with the Operation Northwoods model). I'm not going to get bogged down in an exhausting response here, because it would go on for several weeks, but suffice to say, the collective effort by independent researchers and 'experts' out there have pretty much nailed it: there are a lot of dots to join! As Richard D. Hall has rightly pointed out: the videos show fake planes, the videos themselves aren't fake. BTS records as well, little known story of Korean flight 85 being instructed to sqwark a '1700' hijack code on that same morning over British Columbia when there was no hijack involved, wargames, etc, etc...and the esoteric symbolism being encoded in flight numbers, passemger numbers, the date itself.

Thanks for sharing this.

[WhiteLove]

It appears the event was also full of various types of distractors created to mislead people.

[Tintin]

Imagine you are Sherlock Holmes: you recognize that a piece of the puzzle doesn't fit - remove the aeroplanes and everything else falls into place. Honestly. It is remarkably that simple. Everything around aeroplanes becomes what it is, deliberately fashioned 'white noise', a distraction. After you remove that nuisance it does all start to make more sense. Trust me. And for the record I reckon that Atta and another couple of them were likely on the payroll of an agency: they turned up at Boston Logan, did not actually get on the plane but then disappeared 'into the night'. No record of them from that point onward except for the phone call Atta made to his father on 9/12 (Newsweek article): they'd done what they were instructed to do. (Matthew Smith: 'The Second Plot" that detailed the most likely MO behind the Kennedy assassination was employed again on 9/11 and is a critical placeholder - wrap your head around that and apply to the MO behind 9/11. Bingo! Multiple Atta's, multiple Oswalds etc..You can join the dots particularly where a certain 'Bush' is/was concerned as well. It is much more simple, honestly, than it has been made out to be.)

To make sense of that I recommend that anybody interested in this watch 9/10-The Final Hours as well, I think streamable from archive.org, or certainly Google. It is probably one of the most unlikely yet illuminating pieces of film made around this documenting not only the run up to the NY primaries on 9/11 but also shows you interiors of Tower 1, and a reminder, and a very moving one, of just how normal everything seemed to be beforehand, appalling weather not-withstanding.

Here is a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOzV_U6NFB0

And, pay extremely careful attention to what you are shown by the German cameraman towards about 57 mins into the film, and I think a little later it may be repeated. I recommend that you pause and play piece by piece where he seems to capture a 'plane', certainly an image of one flying towards Tower 2. You'll understand more about the aeroplane visage if you pay careful enough attention. Focus on the moment it appears.

ATB, TQ

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Tintin Quarantino (here)
ITo make sense of that I recommend that anybody interested in this watch 9/10-The Final Hours as well, I think streamable from archive.org, or certainly Google.

Here it is:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=MOzV_U6NFB0

[Griff]

Excellent! I have not seen (or heard of) 9/10 before. I will be checking this out forthwith! Thank you Tintin and Bill!

Griff

[7alon]

Posted by Tintin Quarantino (here)
Imagine you are Sherlock Holmes: you recognize that a piece of the puzzle doesn't fit - remove the aeroplanes and everything else falls into place. Honestly. It is remarkably that simple. Everything around aeroplanes becomes what it is, deliberately fashioned 'white noise', a distraction. After you remove that nuisance it does all start to make more sense. Trust me. And for the record I reckon that Atta and another couple of them were likely on the payroll of an agency: they turned up at Boston Logan, did not actually get on the plane but then disappeared 'into the night'. No record of them from that point onward: they'd done what they were instructed to do. (Matthew Smith: 'The Second Plot" that detailed the most likely MO behind the Kennedy assassination was employed again on 9/11 and is a critical placeholder - wrap your head around that and apply to the MO behind 9/11. Bingo! Multiple Atta's, multiple Oswalds etc..You can join the dots particularly where a certain 'Bush' is/was concerned as well. It is much more simple, honestly, than it has been made out to be.)

To make sense of that I recommend that anybody interested in this watch 9/10-The Final Hours as well, I think streamable from archive.org, or certainly Google. It is probably one of the most unlikely yet illuminating pieces of film made around this documenting not only the run up to the NY primaries on 9/11 but also shows you interiors of Tower 1, and a reminder, and a very moving one, of just how normal everything seemed to be beforehand, appalling weather not-withstanding.

Here is a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOzV_U6NFB0

And, pay extremely careful attention to what you are shown by the German cameraman towards about 57 mins into the film, and I think a little later it may be repeated. I recommend that you pause and play piece by piece where he seems to capture a 'plane', certainly an image of one flying towards Tower 2. You'll understand more about the aeroplane visage if you pay careful enough attention. Focus on the moment it appears.

ATB, TQ

The moment you are referring to at around 57 mins is 56 mins and 10 seconds. That doesn't look like a plane to me... And what is going on here? One frame there is something there, then the next frame there is an explosion? That was the next frame wasn't it? I'm just unsure if these are still images that were taken, or a video which he is observing the frames of.

[Tintin]

Posted by Tintin Quarantino (here)
And, pay extremely careful attention to what you are shown by the German cameraman towards about 57 mins into the film, and I think a little later it may be repeated. I recommend that you pause and play piece by piece where he seems to capture a 'plane', certainly an image of one flying towards Tower 2. You'll understand more about the aeroplane visage if you pay careful enough attention. Focus on the moment it appears.

ATB, TQ

Quote from 7alon to which I'm responding:

Posted by 7alon (here)
The moment you are referring to at around 57 mins is 56 mins and 10 seconds. That doesn't look like a plane to me... And what is going on here? One frame there is something there, then the next frame there is an explosion? That was the next frame wasn't it? I'm just unsure if these are still images that were taken, or a video which he is observing the frames of.

I was very interested in how the image - possibly holographic? appeared as if from nowhere. It just suddenly appears in the film. I think what he captured was absolutely untampered with and a bona fide capture. This would be consistent with witnesses who were certain they saw a plane but commented on the lack of sound - a particularly prevalent theme.

I'll be producing a resource for the library at some point around 9/11 but one fascinating witness deposition, if you like, was from a Ricki de Santis. Listen carefully to how he describes what he saw: it will maybe give you goosebumps. Whatever it may evoke in you it certainly contradicts the official MSM video broadcasts completely. What he recalls 'seeing' in no way resembles what was broadcast that day.

If the video is still available on youtube then it is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64iXQjmmiVw

Also I would highly recommend the David Long interview which provides genuine witness testimony; another excellent piece of film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQbEuBgAKso

[Tintin]

Posted by Griff (here)
Excellent! I have not seen (or heard of) 9/10 before. I will be checking this out forthwith! Thank you Tintin and Bill!

Griff

My pleasure Griff! I would be very interested to get a handle from you on your take, and observations.

[jc71]

Posted by 7alon (here)

Posted by Tintin Quarantino (here)
Imagine you are Sherlock Holmes: you recognize that a piece of the puzzle doesn't fit - remove the aeroplanes and everything else falls into place. Honestly. It is remarkably that simple. Everything around aeroplanes becomes what it is, deliberately fashioned 'white noise', a distraction. After you remove that nuisance it does all start to make more sense. Trust me. And for the record I reckon that Atta and another couple of them were likely on the payroll of an agency: they turned up at Boston Logan, did not actually get on the plane but then disappeared 'into the night'. No record of them from that point onward: they'd done what they were instructed to do. (Matthew Smith: 'The Second Plot" that detailed the most likely MO behind the Kennedy assassination was employed again on 9/11 and is a critical placeholder - wrap your head around that and apply to the MO behind 9/11. Bingo! Multiple Atta's, multiple Oswalds etc..You can join the dots particularly where a certain 'Bush' is/was concerned as well. It is much more simple, honestly, than it has been made out to be.)

To make sense of that I recommend that anybody interested in this watch 9/10-The Final Hours as well, I think streamable from archive.org, or certainly Google. It is probably one of the most unlikely yet illuminating pieces of film made around this documenting not only the run up to the NY primaries on 9/11 but also shows you interiors of Tower 1, and a reminder, and a very moving one, of just how normal everything seemed to be beforehand, appalling weather not-withstanding.

Here is a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOzV_U6NFB0

And, pay extremely careful attention to what you are shown by the German cameraman towards about 57 mins into the film, and I think a little later it may be repeated. I recommend that you pause and play piece by piece where he seems to capture a 'plane', certainly an image of one flying towards Tower 2. You'll understand more about the aeroplane visage if you pay careful enough attention. Focus on the moment it appears.

ATB, TQ

The moment you are referring to at around 57 mins is 56 mins and 10 seconds. That doesn't look like a plane to me... And what is going on here? One frame there is something there, then the next frame there is an explosion? That was the next frame wasn't it? I'm just unsure if these are still images that were taken, or a video which he is observing the frames of.

Hey 7alon,

The "frames" are about 5 seconds apart or something like that, so it isn't like a normal film from what I can gather.

Regards,

JC

[7alon]

One thing I was just thinking about a few minutes ago was; why employ all three methods on the towers? We know already that 9/11 served to make way for many agendas, such as the invasion of Iraq and further destabilisation of the Middle East, The Patriot Act, etc. Was it to completely destroy evidence? Surely the thermite and mini nukes alone would have done the job, but why turn things to dust with the energy weapon? Maybe I'm thinking with too much logic and not enough emotion? Many of these people are psychopaths, so maybe they were also testing a new toy at the same time, or showing off one?

[Griff]

Posted by Tintin Quarantino (here)

Posted by Griff (here)
Excellent! I have not seen (or heard of) 9/10 before. I will be checking this out forthwith! Thank you Tintin and Bill!

Griff

My pleasure Griff! I would be very interested to get a handle from you on your take, and observations.

It was interesting to watch 9/10 from the perspective of everything being so normal the day before, but there was not anything earth shatteringly new there. The "plane" pic from 57 min or so in is hard to tell, it definitely does not look anything like a plane, but the resolution is too low to really tell. If you zoom in on other parts of the image at similar distances, they are still sharp, but the plane looks "fuzzy". An interesting question that was brought up by my better half in discussing this, is if there is video footage of the shadows of either aircraft before they hit the towers. If this is truly a hologram, it wouldn't cast a normal shadow of an aircraft silhouette, but of the missile. I'll have a look at a few vids with this in mind, but it's possible even these shadow images may have been manipulated after the fact. Food for thought for sure.

I was also surprised that they didn't focus on how many people were told not to go to work in the WTC on 9/11. I've heard or read of quite a few myself, most with Israeli or senior US gov't. connections.

Still, a video that's well worth watching, and it's nice to find something on 9/11 that's new to me at this point. :-)

and @ 7alon, I think that they needed all three methods of destruction to provide the massive amounts of energy required to "dustify" hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete, steel, office materials, etc. etc. in about 10 seconds. The nano-thermite was necessary to cut main columns, etc. to ensure a controlled demolition to make the building collapse in it's own footprint, which they did a quite remarkable job at. Also, by employing three (or more!) different methods, it is that much more difficult to explain the collapse. There are experts on nano-thermite, DEW's, and tactical nukes, but not many experts on all three that could put it all together. It has also done a remarkable job of keeping 9/11 truthers arguing incessantly among themselves about which method is the right one, when likely they all are, IMO.

cheers


Griff

[Cardillac]

there are 2 possibilities concerning the collapse of The World Trade Center (+ tower nr. 7):

A: Dr Judy Woods' book "Where Did The Towers Go?"

OR:

the last chapter of Dr. Joseph P. Farrell's book "Hidden Finance, Rogue Networks and Secret Sorcery"-

in any case an exotic technology of whatever source brought down both towers + tower nr. 7-

Larry

[Tintin]

Posted by Griff (here)

Posted by Tintin Quarantino (here)

Posted by Griff (here)
Excellent! I have not seen (or heard of) 9/10 before. I will be checking this out forthwith! Thank you Tintin and Bill!

Griff

My pleasure Griff! I would be very interested to get a handle from you on your take, and observations.

It was interesting to watch 9/10 from the perspective of everything being so normal the day before, but there was not anything earth shatteringly new there. The "plane" pic from 57 min or so in is hard to tell, it definitely does not look anything like a plane, but the resolution is too low to really tell. If you zoom in on other parts of the image at similar distances, they are still sharp, but the plane looks "fuzzy". An interesting question that was brought up by my better half in discussing this, is if there is video footage of the shadows of either aircraft before they hit the towers. If this is truly a hologram, it wouldn't cast a normal shadow of an aircraft silhouette, but of the missile. I'll have a look at a few vids with this in mind, but it's possible even these shadow images may have been manipulated after the fact. Food for thought for sure.

I was also surprised that they didn't focus on how many people were told not to go to work in the WTC on 9/11. I've heard or read of quite a few myself, most with Israeli or senior US gov't. connections.

Still, a video that's well worth watching, and it's nice to find something on 9/11 that's new to me at this point. :-)

and @ 7alon, I think that they needed all three methods of destruction to provide the massive amounts of energy required to "dustify" hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete, steel, office materials, etc. etc. in about 10 seconds. The nano-thermite was necessary to cut main columns, etc. to ensure a controlled demolition to make the building collapse in it's own footprint, which they did a quite remarkable job at. Also, by employing three (or more!) different methods, it is that much more difficult to explain the collapse. There are experts on nano-thermite, DEW's, and tactical nukes, but not many experts on all three that could put it all together. It has also done a remarkable job of keeping 9/11 truthers arguing incessantly among themselves about which method is the right one, when likely they all are, IMO.

cheers


Griff

Thanks Griff. And, on spec, I largely concur and certainly understand where you may be coming from here.

There are several reasons why I thought it very necessary to refer to this film, not the least of which was at least on one floor level, what the building contained materially: yes, some floors were unoccupied for sure but there was a material dissociation of contents on such a scale that would, to the average Joe or Joanne, defy normal or usual comprehension - it is certainly entirely relevant from that observation. You need to sort of place yourself there before the horror and this film kinda does that.

Equally so the likelihood that Giuliani may well not have been re-elected mayor the next day - that isn't a given of course, but...- and it is very interesting also to get a handle on the mood, at least from a certain quarter, of New Yorkers before the incident. That suggests convenience, and those of us reasonably experienced enough absolutely know not to trust coincidence (see for example John Judge on coincidence). The timing seems certainly to be beyond accident. There are critical little things (dots) in here that are worthy of attention but it must be collected and retained as little pieces in the bigger picture. I've waded through dozens of pieces of film (sometimes several times over!), some of it quite dreadful, but within each and every single one a little light has been shone on something; something that is relevant and important in the overall mosaic - the stained glass window of transparency and illumination, sometimes not immediately obvious yet still containing vital clues; a fragment here, a fragment there.

We use an expression in our workplace which goes as follows (and could very well be a phrase already cited elsewhere) that "Perfection is the enemy of completion". I would paraphrase that to "Reduction (redux) is the enemy of contemplation." (conversation or discussion as well, maybe). This is a sensitive topic that does inspire or rattle the senses, sometimes unreasonably, and which is why I always stress to people prepared to tackle this incident and its myriad lines that the utmost objectivity is vital.

My own experience researching all this, and it was honestly a surprise (ie: I hadn't consciously set out to sift through the rubble, it just so happened) can best be summed up by the long late Sir Alexander Fleming, physician and discoverer (sic) of penicillin who once remarked: "Sometimes one finds what one is not looking for."

Maybe I can offer this: "Patience is the companion of truth."

Therein this film are some clues.....

Much respect
TQ

[skogvokter]