9/11 Photos, etc.

[truthseekerdan]

Great site dedicated to 9/11 -- Photos, Videos, etc.

http://drjudywood.com/wtc/

[Bluegreen]

From J Epstein's art collection now in the possession of the FBI

Artist: Petrina Ryan Kleid


http://news.artnet.com/app/news-upload/2019/08/Petrina-Ryan-Kleid-War-Games.jpg

[thepainterdoug]

Hello all/ another 9/11 around the corner. I am posting this photo I took the following day . It is from the vantage point I saw, arriving right after the first plane hit the tower. I have recently listened to an online conversation and spoke to the guest Field Maconnel. I shared with him what I remember seeing from the waters edge. He told me I was the only witness he ever heard from on my believeing the second plane was grey in color .Field maintains that they were remote controlled drones.
I remember saying to someone, hey look, a rescue plane is coming to surveil the situation. Then boom from behing the building.

I do believe there is a growing awakening to this event as well as others unfolding before our eyes. The tragic Maui fire is contributing to waking many up.

[norman]

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/album.php?albumid=169

This is the link to my Avalon 9/11 photo collection. It works for me but I don't know if it works for anyone else.

[Flowerpunkchip]

At the very least, they allowed it to happen.

[thepainterdoug]

Norman the link works. The plane entering the building is in the sun well enought to show its not a white plane , but gray

Flowerpunkchip/ yes, ! Cheney regarding the pentagon, the most obvious

[Satori]

Maybe I missed it, where’s a photo of a plane hitting WTC7?

Oh, never mind. Now I remember. No plane hit WTC7. It fell into its own footprint at near free fall speed at 5:22 pm on 9/11/2001 because of a few small contents fires on a couple of floors.

How silly of me.

[pyrangello]

Watched the documentary on 911 tonight and brought back all the same feelings of that day. I was in my truck looking at a job when I heard it on the radio that morning that some plane hit the world trade center. I told my buddy what stupid pilot could hit a building like that. Then the second one got hit. I like many of America didn't sleep the entire week. Kept watching the tv all night long hoping someone was alive.i remember calling the ironworkers in New York to put my name on a volunteer list to help cut up steel since I own a welding shop. I was ready to go from here in michigan.its a day all of us will never forget.god bless them all.

[norman]

I was driving a tractor up and down a large field on September 11th 2001 trying to make sense of the only news I could catch on radio 5 live through the one only working speaker in the cab. I had no idea how bad it was until later. When I heard a tower had fallen I thought they meant some kind of radio tower on top !. I was only half listening because I had my head full of what I was doing.

My girlfriend was running VHS tapes recording continuously from the telly. She recorded many tapes for a few days. Later I got to watch it all and take it all in.

About 5 years later I returned to the tapes and digitised them as best I could at the time. I could do a better job now but that's not possible. I was experimenting with a video editing program called Sony Vegas and had a go at putting together an edited mix of the important bits as I judged them to be at the time.

This little video is the result. It's not great quality but it's got some important and telling bits in it. If I was doing it now, I'd make the background music/audio track a bit quieter.


September 11th 2001 - NEWSMIX

https://rumble.com/v3gqpjq-september-11th-2001-newsmix.html

v3e5ba2/?pub=1yatds

[mountain_jim]

I realize all this is not new, but I am happy the X-verse has folks sharing these today




Has this video been debunked?

https://twitter.com/AwakenedOutlaw/status/1701125243115536449?s=20

1701125243115536449


https://twitter.com/goddeketal/status/1701216619370876991?s=20

1701216619370876991

text

Dr. Simon Goddek

@goddeketal
Shortly after AA77 allegedly crashed into the Pentagon, the FBI confiscated all surveillance videos. In the video obtained through a lawsuit by
@JudicialWatch
, you can see that no plane crashed into the Pentagon, but rather a missile.

The questions that arise for me are as follows:
▪️What did the US government know, and why did they bomb the Pentagon?
▪️What happened to AA77, especially to the people on board?
▪️How can people still believe the official version?

The US elite doesn’t hesitate to harm millions of people (see Covid); why would they hesitate to kill a few thousand countrymen for “the greater good”?





https://twitter.com/TPV_John/status/1701123182797717993?s=20

1701123182797717993

text


The Patriot Voice
@TPV_John
A little known & often over looked FACT about what took place leading up to 9/11 is that for the prior 4 years, a group of “artists” who called themselves “E-TEAM & GELATIN (demo wiring team)” were given unfettered access to the twin towers.

Construction access to bring WHATEVER materials in & out of the complex…7 DAYS A WEEK.

You will NEVER hear about this in the “official 9/11 story”

You can see them surrounded by boxes of BB-18.

EXPLOSIVES & FUSES.

https://steemit.com/conspiracy/@sadcorp/what-is-e-team-10cc64c1ca4a3

/////////////////

https://twitter.com/dom_lucre/status/1701055327062438095?s=20

1701055327062438095


https://twitter.com/KAGdrogo/status/1701096219186213316?s=20

1701096219186213316


https://twitter.com/TaraBull808/status/1701201021022638214?s=20

1701201021022638214


https://twitter.com/TPV_John/status/1701067081498726732?s=20

1701067081498726732

text


The Patriot Voice
@TPV_John
Here’s a story for ya…

LUCKY Larry Silverstein, who OWNED the World Trade Center complex just happened to MISS the attacks on 9/11…

Larry had breakfast EVERY morning at “Top Of The World” a restaurant on the very top floor of the South Tower. That morning however, Larry was SO LUCKY to miss his breakfast because he had an “appointment” that his wife was nagging him about.

After the attack Larry made $4.55 BILLION from his insurance payout.

LUCKY Larry must be the MOST LUCKY SOB TO EVER LIVE.

///////////////////////

update: This was a big reveal - CNN reporter saw no evidence of plane while fire men were still working to put out the Pentagon fires.

https://twitter.com/DrC_IET17/status/1701204686936633567?s=20

1701204686936633567

[mountain_jim]

https://twitter.com/DrC_IET17/status/1701205199790989785?s=20

1701205199790989785


https://twitter.com/chrismartenson/status/1701205093373071615?s=20

1701205093373071615


https://twitter.com/iluminatibot/status/1701260123384303800?s=20

1701260123384303800


The Israeli spys that were arrested

https://twitter.com/BasedTorba/status/1701054815508287815?s=20

1701054815508287815

[Dennis Leahy]

At the very least, they allowed it to happen.

LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) theory:
You'd have to believe that Bin Laden and company gained access into Building 7 and placed all the many, many explosive charges required to take that building down at free-fall acceleration speed. The CIA had offices in the building, as did the SEC, and Judy Ruliani had a "hardened, command bunker" in the building. A mighty secure building for a gaggle of desert bedouins to infiltrate down to the steel columns, to place all the explosive charges needed to drop that building into its own footprint in 7 seconds. Professional demolitions experts have stated it would take a team of demolitions professionals weeks to do. The "dancing Israelis" and the Israeli "art students" in the Twin Towers shows me that the Mossad was involved (maybe even did the whole thing - that would be well within the M. O. of the CIA to hire thugs to do their 'wet work.')

You'd also have to believe that Bin Laden and his merry men coincided the attack with a secret US military operation that removed most of the fighter jets from the area, and believe that these Muslim hijackers also somehow got the US Air Force to turn off NORAD for an hour and a half.

You'd have to believe that steel and concrete skyscrapers could be standing intact one moment, and fall down at or near free-fall acceleration speed in ten seconds, from kerosene fire, and yet your backyard propane grill doesn't melt steel while it burns at a much hotter temperature.

You'd have to believe that the kerosene fire somehow got so hot that it twisted gigantic, thick, steel beams and columns into pretzels, and even fused concrete and steel together.

You'd have to believe that for the first time, ever, a plane crashed into the ground and was swallowed up in the ground. (Shankesville)

You'd have to believe that a jumbo jet could do a 270 degree corkscrew maneuver like a fighter pilot in a fighter jet, at a near-ground airspeed that physics says is impossible for a jumbo jet, and then the jet floated inexplicably above the lawn and hit the Pentagon (leaving no "wing prints") where it just so happened that the Pentagon's missing 2.3 trillion dollars was being investigated.


...and that's just off the top of my head.


LIHOP falls apart as a theory as the evidence is examined.

[Inversion]

Bodies from the towers fell onto the Marriott (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriott_World_Trade_Center) aka 3WTC. At the time there was a meeting of The National Association for Business Economics (NABE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_Business_Economics)). That anagrams to BANE which was a villain in Batman or BEAN that may refer to bean counters or accountants. How unusual that they were having their annual conference in the hotel on that day.

The towers are claimed to be symbolizing Orion's (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?118618-The-Washington-DC-Boundary-Stones-and-M42&p=1546223&viewfull=1#post1546223) belt.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Marriott_World_Trade_Center.jpg/375px-Marriott_World_Trade_Center.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Remains_of_WTC1_and_WTC2_after_9-11.jpg/375px-Remains_of_WTC1_and_WTC2_after_9-11.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/World_Trade_Center_3_After_9-11_Attacks_With_Original_Building_Locations.jpg/375px-World_Trade_Center_3_After_9-11_Attacks_With_Original_Building_Locations.jpg

[Satori]

At the very least, they allowed it to happen.

LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) theory:
You'd have to believe that Bin Laden and company gained access into Building 7 and placed all the many, many explosive charges required to take that building down at free-fall acceleration speed. The CIA had offices in the building, as did the SEC, and Judy Ruliani had a "hardened, command bunker" in the building. A mighty secure building for a gaggle of desert bedouins to infiltrate down to the steel columns, to place all the explosive charges needed to drop that building into its own footprint in 7 seconds. Professional demolitions experts have stated it would take a team of demolitions professionals weeks to do. The "dancing Israelis" and the Israeli "art students" in the Twin Towers shows me that the Mossad was involved (maybe even did the whole thing - that would be well within the M. O. of the CIA to hire thugs to do their 'wet work.')

You'd also have to believe that Bin Laden and his merry men coincided the attack with a secret US military operation that removed most of the fighter jets from the area, and believe that these Muslim hijackers also somehow got the US Air Force to turn off NORAD for an hour and a half.

You'd have to believe that steel and concrete skyscrapers could be standing intact one moment, and fall down at or near free-fall acceleration speed in ten seconds, from kerosene fire, and yet your backyard propane grill doesn't melt steel while it burns at a much hotter temperature.

You'd have to believe that the kerosene fire somehow got so hot that it twisted gigantic, thick, steel beams and columns into pretzels, and even fused concrete and steel together.

You'd have to believe that for the first time, ever, a plane crashed into the ground and was swallowed up in the ground. (Shankesville)

You'd have to believe that a jumbo jet could do a 270 degree corkscrew maneuver like a fighter pilot in a fighter jet, at a near-ground airspeed that physics says is impossible for a jumbo jet, and then the jet floated inexplicably above the lawn and hit the Pentagon (leaving no "wing prints") where it just so happened that the Pentagon's missing 2.3 trillion dollars was being investigated.


...and that's just off the top of my head.


LIHOP falls apart as a theory as the evidence is examined.

MIHOP is much closer to the mark than LIHOP… But even MIHOP is incomplete. The evidence of guilt has largely been destroyed and, I dare say, those actually responsible will never be brought to justice.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

https://twitter.com/DrC_IET17/status/1701205199790989785?s=20

1701205199790989785


These are both wrong and have been debunked. The first one, when the plane appears to fly behind a building, is addressed and disproven here at 11.50 (https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=233&part=3&gen=3) is this vid from Rich Planet.

And the "no plane" one is just a fake. The plane has been removed from the video.

51798

[mountain_jim]

^Thanks for clarifying and I apologize for posting misinformation - I even thought I might be doing so but was moving along too fast to verify - again thanks for the correction!

I will do better.

[Paul D.]

https://twitter.com/DrC_IET17/status/1701205199790989785?s=20

1701205199790989785


These are both wrong and have been debunked. The first one, when the plane appears to fly behind a building, is addressed and disproven here at 11.50 (https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=233&part=3&gen=3) is this vid from Rich Planet.

And the "no plane" one is just a fake. The plane has been removed from the video.

51798

Yet again Mark ,I find myself disagreeing with your proclamations of fact 🙄
But I read this tweet from Whitney Webb talking sense , so I'll let it lie ,this time 🙃

Among other things, today is the day of the year where almost all the people who don't believe the official 9/11 narrative argue w each other over relatively minute details and about who is more right instead of finding the common ground needed to pursue proper accountability

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

...and that's just off the top of my head.


One to add off the top of my head: a genuine Boeing 757, or Boeing 767, cannot fly at 400mph+ at sea level. Attempting to do so, in such dense air, would result in structural failure of the aircraft. Period. It would be ripped apart.

Which means whatever hit the World Trade Centre (and Pentagon) travelling at these reported speeds, were not normal Boeing aircraft, so therefore not UA175, AA11, or AA77. What these planes really were is up for debate. My "guess" > pimped up, military grade lookalikes, powerful enough to fly at sea-level velocities and robust enough to inflict the damage they did, and while packed quite possibly with explosives.

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/KAGdrogo/status/1701098239930606036?s=20

1701098239930606036

[Dennis Leahy]

My father-in-law (now deceased) was a United Airlines captain. He ended his long career with United by taking the longest routes in the biggest jets. Just before his retirement in 1990, along with my ex-wife and family members, I got a tour of a jumbo jet cockpit. If I remember correctly, it was a Boeing 767, but might have been a 747 (he flew both, and the 757 as well.) The 'dashboard' and ceiling of the cockpit looked like something out of a bad sci-fy movie set, with a ridiculous amount (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4AzBWV_J7E) of gauges, switches, knobs, and screens. We were all stunned at how anyone could manage to know which switch to flip, and which gauge to check, and which monitor to watch, to fly the jet. But the most stunning revelation to me was being told about the ability to take off and land automatically. He told us that he could input ORD (Chicago's O'Hare airport, where we were) as the starting point, and could type-in, say, SFO (San Francisco), and the jet could take off from Chicago and land in San Francisco automatically. He expressed that he didn't really like doing it - he would much rather just fly the jet manually - but was required by United to use the autopilot feature periodically. Again, that was 1990, eleven years before 9/11.

In looking up some info to make this post (for example, I pulled up his obituary to pinpoint the retirement year), I ran across this statement, on flightdeckfriend.com


"Can a plane take-off automatically?

No. Commercial passenger jets are not able to take-off automatically. Currently, no commercial aircraft has an auto take-off capability.

To dispel the myth; the vast majority of commercial aircraft (including all Boeing’s and Airbus’) have no automatic take-off capability. All take-offs must be completed manually by the pilots with the autopilot usually engaged at around 1,000 ft above the ground."It is possible that I misunderstood what my father-in-law had said, and it does make sense to me that the pilot would need to manually control backing up from a terminal and maneuvering around the tarmac and other jets to get to the runway safely, but my father-in-law had clearly said that the jet not only could take off automatically, but he gave the 3-letter airport-to-airport example. He did not say that autopilot was engaged after a manual take-off.

I include this because there are still people that don't believe that commercial jets used on 9/11/2001 could be remote-controlled. Yes, they could. ("Autoland" isn't disputed, but according to that article noted above, auto-takeoff is.)

Fast forward to shortly after 9/11/2001, when my father-in-law saw the hole in the Pentagon, and, obviously stunned, said aloud, "That wasn't a 757. I don't know what that was, but it wasn't a 757." He later recanted, having been brainwashed into NOT believing his own eyes, but here was an experienced Air Force and commercial pilot who had flown 757's, and he instantly knew that was not what hit the Pentagon.

This may not be adding much to the discussion, but it is my testimony of a United Airlines captain's words.

[norman]

https://twitter.com/EretzIsrael/status/1398321461660729345

1398321461660729345

[norman]

https://t.me/PepeMatter/17029

PepeMatter/17029

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Yet again Mark ,I find myself disagreeing with your proclamations of fact 🙄

You're free to disagree of course, no one is denying you that right, but that doesn't change the well-established fraudulent nature of these clips. Many of us have picked over them on this forum, inside and outside, and for more than a decade.


the people who don't believe the official 9/11 narrative argue w each other over relatively minute details

That's precisely what these doctored videos are designed to do. They inject fake narratives into the mix to obfuscate the real one, then watch as the debate slides into no-man's land.

They do it with UFOs, they do it with JFK, they do it with 9/11. 'Deleting' planes from the footage was a psyop. This is what gave rise to the whacky holographic planes theory -- a 'junk narrative', deliberately inserted to lead people astray. This is how the game is played, how their tricks work: It's called counter-intelligence and 'they' have been using it for years. As a primary frontline weapon it's used to muddle conspiracy theories, and tarnish (in the eyes of normies) anyone who believes in them.

Fortunately, we are not so easily duped, and I include you in that, for when you look more deeply into their tactics, and the material evidence they so artfully attempt to meddle with, you will be equipped to detect their chicanery and call it out.

The original (well-known and well documented) 'FDR Drive footage' at 4.02 (https://youtu.be/7YLm3pkAiJQ?si=rB7j4L4ffVGXrbzb&t=242) in this clip. The one that was doctored (plane removed) on twitter.
7YLm3pkAiJQ

Raw footage of the 'Chris Hopewell' footage - the same impact from a similar angle. Caution: extreme cursing.
KbVdU4z2dw4

A long track of the second plane swooping towards the south tower. The 'Kevin' clip.
o6t31R4tI10

[Blastolabs]

Just like with the JFK assassination whomever is responsible for 9/11 made sure to have multiple in depth false explanations for what happened. They are trained to do it this way on purpose.

[norman]

https://t.me/georgenews/2239
georgenews/2239

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/WarClandestine/status/1701389502147649698?s=20

1701389502147649698

[Paul D.]

Yet again Mark ,I find myself disagreeing with your proclamations of fact 🙄

You're free to disagree of course, no one is denying you that right, but that doesn't change the well-established fraudulent nature of these clips. Many of us have picked over them on this forum, inside and outside, and for more than a decade.


the people who don't believe the official 9/11 narrative argue w each other over relatively minute details

That's precisely what these doctored videos are designed to do. They inject fake narratives into the mix to obfuscate the real one, then watch as the debate slides into no-man's land.

They do it with UFOs, they do it with JFK, they do it with 9/11. 'Deleting' planes from the footage was a psyop. This is what gave rise to the whacky holographic planes theory -- a 'junk narrative', deliberately inserted to lead people astray. This is how the game is played, how their tricks work: It's called counter-intelligence and 'they' have been using it for years. As a primary frontline weapon it's used to muddle conspiracy theories, and tarnish (in the eyes of normies) anyone who believes in them.

Fortunately, we are not so easily duped, and I include you in that, for when you look more deeply into their tactics, and the material evidence they so artfully attempt to meddle with, you will be equipped to detect their chicanery and call it out.

The original (well-known and well documented) 'FDR Drive footage' at 4.02 (https://youtu.be/7YLm3pkAiJQ?si=rB7j4L4ffVGXrbzb&t=242) in this clip. The one that was doctored (plane removed) on twitter.
7YLm3pkAiJQ

Raw footage of the 'Chris Hopewell' footage - the same impact from a similar angle. Caution: extreme cursing.
KbVdU4z2dw4

A long track of the second plane swooping towards the south tower. The 'Kevin' clip.
o6t31R4tI10
No one could "deny me that right " actually .Please don't explain the nature of the beast to me .I am very well aware of how they roll as regards conter - Intel. & so on. In fact I subscribe to a belief in next level chicanery.
My point of view (& warning it implies a massive conspiracy ) is that 1. No planes hit the buildings it was an exocet missile or similar .

2. The buildings collapsed because of a controlled demolition because of multiple causes including exotic tech.
3.The footage of the impact was C.G.I .
4. And crucially the whole episode was "created" by the media working in tandem , i.e. they all had to release the same footage.
Now this implies as I said a massive conspiracy & believe me it shook me to the core .But I do subscribe to it.
I'm what Bill calls a generalist, & a very quick learner. How I work is intuitive & accelerated & very committed. I dive deep into something & cover a lot of ground fast & come to what I feel is the nub of the situation.
As such I 'm not so equipped at arguing the fine points .
However the site below is . They have
answers some of the questions that will occur .Such as witnesses footage e.t.c. .Their introduction "view research " gives a good summary of their take on things .
If this as been covered if it the last 10 years I apologise.
No conflict intended but I can't sit back & say nothing sometimes , though you are strengthening my self restraint frequently 🙂

https://septemberclues.org/

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

No one could "deny me that right " actually .

The statement was made merely as a truism, not any kind of proclamation, so chill :sunrise:

I did at the time give close consideration to the no planes theory, and I watched and studied September Clues when it came out. But for me, in the end, it just did not add up. It would have involved such an unfathomably complex collusion to successfully pull of, involving hundreds if not thousands of people. Today's media are more than ready to bend over and do what they're told -- less so 22 years ago. I don't believe they were involved, or tipped off on what to report, not when you take into account the heretical early narrative of bombs going off, and controlled demolitions -- things on which they openly speculated.

Of CGI inserts of planes in the footage -- I've never seen or heard any evidence of that. I seriously doubt that would have gone undetected, not after all these years, and not with today's level of tech. We have all the raw footage, intact and readily available. If CGI was present, it should be very easy to prove. Personally I've not seen any proof -- but I would certainly like to if it exists.

Beyond broadcast footage there are the many thousands of witnesses, on the ground, on the Hudson, in surrounding buildings, and in the twin towers themselves, who claim they saw planes -- and there are dozens of home videos, and still photographs, showing those planes, or what do appear to be planes. We also have both the military and civilian radar tracks, for those two planes, and they match up perfectly.

Also there's physical evidence of planes at the scene.

Part of the landing gear of AA Flight 11 on the corner of West and Rector Street, adjacent to the North tower. (If i remember correctly someone on the street was killed by it when it dropped out of the sky)
51801

Part of United Airlines 175's fuselage, Ground Zero.
51802

More of UA175's landing gear, Park Place and Murray Street.
51803

Not trying to 'win you over', just sharing some of the evidence, some of the findings, that have come up over the years, and on which many of us have reflected for a long time.

For me it really comes down to this basic proposition: If the purpose of September 11th was to crash two planes into the WTC, then the easiest way to achieve that most nefarious end is...really crash two planes into the WTC. That sounds to me like the most reasonable way to do it. Why mess around? Why fake it, when the real thing is well within their capacity? And why risk faking it anyway -- there are 8million potential witnesses in that city, and the whole world is watching on TV.

Always have to weigh risk versus reward, and here the risk (of faking it) outweighs that reward. Too many liabilities, too many variables, and in order to make it stick perfectly, way too many people to put your faith in.

That's my position anyway, but it refers only to what hit the World Trade Centre. What brought it down to rubble is another matter entirely. It should be plainly obvious to almost everyone that the level of destruction we saw at ground zero required far more that the kinetic impact, and resulting fires, of two airliners. On the matter of the Pentagon, what hit its western facade was quite probably not a plane, but a missile. Many questions surround, too, the object that crashed in Shanksville, identified and reported as Flight 93, which left behind a smoking crater of almost nothing at all.

There are a bunch of threads in the 9/11 section (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/forumdisplay.php?88-9-11) (and spanning a number of years) detailing so much of this - I can't remember all the discussions but there are a ton of them. There's a wealth of material in there. :)

[Paul D.]

Chill mode fully in operation Mark 😎 Thanks for your detailed reply . I hope I haven't offended you or hurt your feelings with my perhaps uncalled for frankness.
Anyway, onwards & upwards , Paul .

[Rizotto]

Does anyone remember that movie made about the 9/11 inside job, i.e. a fictional recreation of what happened. It got banned because it got too close to the truth. The trailers I saw years ago showed that the planes were remote controlled, some planes had been switched and the passengers were eliminated, etc.

I'm trying to locate that movie, surely it must have been saved somewhere. If not Netflix, where? Can anyone remember the title?

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

I hope I haven't offended you or hurt your feelings with my perhaps uncalled for frankness.


Not in the slightest, and I hope my initial and equal frankness was not likewise received.

I am by no professing any sort of expertise on this, or really any matters -- just a point of perception, one grounded in data as much as possible. The data in our possession for the 9/11 attacks points 100% to conspiracy, to shenanigans, and an inside job. Precisely what they did -- its every detail and nuance -- and how they pulled it off, may never be known in its entirety. There are as many holes in the 'official story' as there are questions, and indeed problems, with the theories we have come up with to fill those holes. The whole thing is one giant clusterf**k of a jigsaw puzzle!

All we can really do is take the info we do have and to the best of our ability make tangible deductions with that info. For instance, just on this one issue of planes, we can, I believe, reasonably deduce that the passengers of those flights were not onboard when they hit the towers.

We know at one point a few passengers (specially selected?) and flight attendants, used mobile phone to call in to airline control centres and loved ones. But how, when the signal range of mobile phones could not even remotely reach the altitudes at which these calls were 'officially' made?

They had to be on the ground to make these calls, or the radar tracks (both military and civilian) are way off. We don't have enough data to make an informed deduction as to where the planes (and thus passengers) really were, we can only speculate, which is just another word for 'guess'. My 'guess' is the passengers were deplaned, in secret, as per Rebekah Roth's testimony, and were at that time (in the flight) at a hidden location on the ground. They were then forced, maybe at gunpoint, to read from a script and seed the narrative of a terrorist/hijacking event.

Consider this one big red flag! 🚩

One key piece of phone evidence was the call made by flight attendant CeeCee Lyles, onboard Flight 93. At 9:47 she called her husband and left him a message saying the plane had been hijacked. This is a recording of that call:

48secs
4jYYRJbdiXc

Listen to the whispered words she speaks just before end.

D640vW3K0IA
It's a Frame!

Hard to be sure for certain, but it sure sounds to me that that is what she said. It's a frame -- said off-script, we can assume, right before hanging up. When you apply the context of a 'frame', a frame-up, being framed...pretty damning if you ask me.

[Dennis Leahy]

...

I did at the time give close consideration to the no planes theory, and I watched and studied September Clues when it came out. But for me, in the end, it just did not add up. It would have involved such an unfathomably complex collusion to successfully pull of, involving hundreds if not thousands of people. Today's media are more than ready to bend over and do what they're told -- less so 22 years ago. I don't believe they were involved, or tipped off on what to report, not when you take into account the heretical early narrative of bombs going off, and controlled demolitions -- things on which they openly speculated.

Of CGI inserts of planes in the footage -- I've never seen or heard any evidence of that. I seriously doubt that would have gone undetected, not after all these years, and not with today's level of tech. We have all the raw footage, intact and readily available. If CGI was present, it should be very easy to prove. Personally I've not seen any proof -- but I would certainly like to if it exists.

...
When I went back to school as an adult, to get a Computer Science degree, I took a couple of semesters of Computer Graphics, which was all 3-D animation (and 3-D wire frame modeling and texturing.) I also bought animation software and worked with it. One of the coolest new features that was added to animation software at that time was "collision detection physics" and somewhat realistic physics of objects making contact.

There is footage (I'll try to find it and link or attach it) that was broadcast of the second jet hitting the second tower - supposedly shot from a news helicopter. That footage is "fake"; it's a composite of a jet and a building intersecting without any physics of collision. The building shows no ripple, no change at all in its surface as the jet inexplicably is swallowed by the building. The jet also does not distort at all.

This video was really the only thing that lent credence - to me - of the "no planes" theory, but based on everything else I could watch, the no planes theory is wrong. With the "pod" attached to the belly of that plane, discussed by many researchers including Kevin Ryan, I do think the planes were military drones, so "no commercial aircraft" may well be true, but not "no planes."

I assume that this composited video was created (before 9/11) to create a strong emotional impact - more terrifying than the ground-based footage, and insurance that they would have at least one powerful video to display.


=====================


Before posting the above, I decided to do a search for the video. I can't find it. Even more interestingly, note the 51812 Wikipedia entry result of my search using Startpage.

Then, I went to that Wikipedia page (an astounding pile of bullsh!t), and did a search for the word "composite", but see that they are not referring to the same video I saw, ignoring or obfuscating the notion that there is a video that is definitely a video composite. Maybe Tintin has already saved the video in question in the Avalon library? Or else, can anyone find it?

[norman]

Tore Says - Nine Eleven, Hidden Truths and Covered Realities

The Plan

38MnkZ5lH8Q

1hr 47 min

[norman]

. . . I did at the time give close consideration to the no planes theory . . .



The strongest case for 'No Planes', in my view, is that experts agree that the planes could not have cut through the very strong steel frame of the building and leave those almost comical plane-profile shaped cuts in the structure.

That implies that carefully placed explosives were used to create those cuts in the structure, to look like that.

That, then implies that the planes would have to hit the building in EXACTLY the right place and at exactly the right angle. I find that impossible to believe was really achievable.

I therefore have to come up with an explanation for how they made it look so accurate. That takes me right into the fake/not real plane zone of thinking. They somehow manged to make whatever we saw as a plane hit the pre planned spot, exactly.

Of course, if I believe those planes really could cut the steel frame of the building almost like butter, that's different, but I don't.

There's the problem.

[Tintin]

...

I did at the time give close consideration to the no planes theory, and I watched and studied September Clues when it came out. But for me, in the end, it just did not add up. It would have involved such an unfathomably complex collusion to successfully pull of, involving hundreds if not thousands of people. Today's media are more than ready to bend over and do what they're told -- less so 22 years ago. I don't believe they were involved, or tipped off on what to report, not when you take into account the heretical early narrative of bombs going off, and controlled demolitions -- things on which they openly speculated.

Of CGI inserts of planes in the footage -- I've never seen or heard any evidence of that. I seriously doubt that would have gone undetected, not after all these years, and not with today's level of tech. We have all the raw footage, intact and readily available. If CGI was present, it should be very easy to prove. Personally I've not seen any proof -- but I would certainly like to if it exists.

...
When I went back to school as an adult, to get a Computer Science degree, I took a couple of semesters of Computer Graphics, which was all 3-D animation (and 3-D wire frame modeling and texturing.) I also bought animation software and worked with it. One of the coolest new features that was added to animation software at that time was "collision detection physics" and somewhat realistic physics of objects making contact.

There is footage (I'll try to find it and link or attach it) that was broadcast of the second jet hitting the second tower - supposedly shot from a news helicopter. That footage is "fake"; it's a composite of a jet and a building intersecting without any physics of collision. The building shows no ripple, no change at all in its surface as the jet inexplicably is swallowed by the building. The jet also does not distort at all.

This video was really the only thing that lent credence - to me - of the "no planes" theory, but based on everything else I could watch, the no planes theory is wrong. With the "pod" attached to the belly of that plane, discussed by many researchers including Kevin Ryan, I do think the planes were military drones, so "no commercial aircraft" may well be true, but not "no planes."

I assume that this composited video was created (before 9/11) to create a strong emotional impact - more terrifying than the ground-based footage, and insurance that they would have at least one powerful video to display.


=====================


Before posting the above, I decided to do a search for the video. I can't find it. Even more interestingly, note the 51812 Wikipedia entry result of my search using Startpage.

Then, I went to that Wikipedia page (an astounding pile of bullsh!t), and did a search for the word "composite", but see that they are not referring to the same video I saw, ignoring or obfuscating the notion that there is a video that is definitely a video composite. Maybe Tintin has already saved the video in question in the Avalon library? Or else, can anyone find it?

Dennis: this video made by Alex 'Ace' Baker contains the footage you may well be looking for. I think Chapter 7 ("The Key") is what you may be after. (Fox Chopper 5). The whole presentation covering a whole bunch of material is a whopping 4 hours long so you may want to skip chunks of it to get to the 'meat'. (His own music is a bit cheesy in my view and can be skipped). I'll expand more on this in the next few days. Suffice to say, for me, he makes a compelling and intelligent case for "No planes hitting WTC." It was made in 2011 and I'd watched and absorbed this into my researches in 2013.

He's (or was) a musician based in southern California and having had extensive video production experience on his portfolio I do think makes him worthy of a listen here. He uses an 'actor' to present his script, but does also appear periodically throughout the film.

NOTE: the 9/11 directory (https://avalonlibrary.net/?dir=911) in the library is perhaps not as fat as it could be but I have made every effort to try and find from my own extensive personal library material that I deem to be the better material. Certain film has been left out such as 'In Plain Sight', which I had seen, but just passed off as a massive decoy.

Alex 'Ace' Baker's case: https://avalonlibrary.net/911/BAKER%2C%20Ace%20%28American%20PsyOps_video%20fakery%20paper%29/Ace%20Baker%20PsyOps2.pdf

Also I highly recommend "9/10 The Final Hours (https://avalonlibrary.net/911/9-10_The_Final_Hours.mp4)" (at duration 1 and a half hours) covering goings on in NYC the day before, and the early hours of Tuesday, September 11th: it's a remarkably reflective and moving documentary.

Watch every moment right through to the end :flower:

The Great American Psy-Opera - from about 02:20:00 in for the composite material?

https://avalonlibrary.net/911/The_Great_American_Psy_Opera.mp4

[Tintin]

Although not all the indexed library material for the 9/11 directory on this .PDF - it has all been indexed though - this will give those curious some idea of what is in there, in this searchable document (CTRL + F).

Link: https://avalonlibrary.net/Tintin/Geopolitics%20Inde1%20-%209_11%20Research_compressed.pdf

https://avalonlibrary.net/Tintin/Geopolitics%20Inde1%20-%209_11%20Research_compressed.pdf

[lake]

This may have been posted before so please forgive if it has!

I found this interesting .... It is from January 2000 and is an article from the Independent and states that even back then they could insert 'things' into live TV!

https://i.postimg.cc/c4Yz9L29/tv-fake-2001.jpg

The article is archived here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080420045800/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/when-tv-brings-you-the-news-as-it-didnt-happen-728236.html

The full text of the article is:


When TV brings you the news as it didn't happen

Broadcasters are using virtual imaging technology to alter live broadcasts - and not even the news is safe from tampering

Monday, 24 January 2000

Viewers tuning into American broadcaster CBS's recent news coverage of the millennium celebrations in New York witnessed a televisual sleight of hand which enabled CBS to alter the reality of what they saw. Using "virtual imaging" technology, the broadcaster seamlessly adjusted live video images to include an apparently real promotion for itself in Times Square. The move has sparked debate about the ethics of using advances in broadcast technology to alter reality without telling viewers that what they are seeing isn't really there.

While it's little surprise that advances in TV technology enable broadcasters to better manipulate existing images and create new ones, what is surprising is that this was done during a live broadcast and in a news programme. The CBS evening news coverage involved replacing the logo of rival network NBC with the CBS logo on a large video screen in Times Square. NBC was "outraged" by the use of the technology, and even CBS's evening news presenter, Dan Rather, admitted it was a "mistake".

The technology to do this comes from the defence industry where, following the end of the Cold War, a number of companies have developed new ways of commercially exploiting their military navigation and tracking expertise.

The system CBS used was developed by a United States company called Princeton Video Images (PVI). Other players in this field include Symah Vision - part of French defence to media group Lagadere; Israel-based Orad Hi Tech Systems, and SciDex, another Israeli firm with offices in Europe and the US. Each system, while similar, has its differences. None of the companies will publicly discuss how their's works. But the principle is common: each alters the live video image in the split second before it is broadcast.

"The prime use of our system is to insert promotional images into live coverage, or as a post-production application for pre-recorded (TV) shows - for example, to insert branded goods into the action that weren't really there, for product placement," Denny Wilkinson, PVI's chief executive officer, explains. "Advertising, however, has by far and away the biggest potential for this. It's where the money is."

The use of this technology is already becoming familiar in sports coverage. A number of international sports organisers have recognised the potential to generate more advertising revenue by - in effect - re-selling the same perimeter advertising billboards at their stadia. Through virtual imaging, different advertisers' brands can be seen in different countries that take the live broadcast feed.

A number of European broadcasters including Sky TV have already run "virtual advertising" trials. Mexican broadcasters, meanwhile, have fully embraced virtual imaging systems. And different sports - notably Formula 1 - now acknowledge the potential to deal with restrictions on tobacco advertising in certain countries by replacing cigarette branding in some territories with other images.

The use of this technology for editorial purposes however is more contentious. Already, other media owners - notably newspapers - have had to deal with concerns about digitally manipulating photographic images used in news pages. The Mirror's doctoring of photographs of the Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed holidaying together was perhaps the highest profile example.

Now concern is being voiced over TV viewers believing they can see something which is not actually there. Which is why it is hard to find anyone in UK broadcasting ready to admit that they - like CBS - are considering the potential of this technology beyond advertising. Sky, however, sees the technology's use as a way of enhancing "the look" of its sports coverage. "We use the ORAD system for a combination of editorial and promotional use," explains Phil Madge, Sky TV studio graphics supervisor "We are using it now to build virtual screens which hang down from the roof of various football stadia to highlight upcoming events, pre-recorded footage and Sky Sports promotions."

Sky purchased the system at the start of the current football season, although it had run a number of trials previously, Madge adds. It has been used less for virtual advertising due to a combination of Independent Television Commission restriction and Football Association concerns. However, it was also used by Sky News to create a virtual studio for the channel's millennium coverage.

"There is great potential to use virtual imaging in other ways but it remains a tool whose biggest advantage is for live broadcasting," Madge says. "There are obvious advantages in virtual studios as you don't need a physical set, just a blue screen against which the presenter is shot and a three-D computer model. You can change it over very quickly - there's no need to shift scenery. The downside is it can look quite computer `graphicsy', and a bit naff."

CBS's problems arise from the fact that its use of the PVI system went one step further than "enhancing" the look of its presentation: it tampered with the reality of an actual event it was depicting in a news show, raising the spectre of TV news reporters reporting "live" from around the world when they're actually far closer to home. The broadcaster - which has also used virtual imaging to modify the New York cityscape - defended itself by insisting: "CBS News' internal standards prohibit digital manipulation or other faking of news footage."

However, a CBS spokeswoman admitted that virtual insertion technology is yet to be covered by the broadcaster's guidelines. But Dan Rather, for one, thinks it should be. "At the very least we should have pointed out to viewers we were doing it,'' he told the New York Times. "I did not grasp the possible ethical implications of this and that was wrong on my part.''

CBS is not the only broadcaster to use this technology in news broadcasts. Rival ABC recently included a report on Congress by a reporter wearing an overcoat in front of what to viewers seemed to be the US Capitol. The entire report was taped in a studio.

UK programme makers, however, doubt virtual imaging technology requires guidelines any different to the ones they already have relating to editorial balance, accuracy and fairness. "Any form of factual programme-making involves some form of editing of events. It's not hard to present the same situation in a number of different ways," one documentary maker explains. "But it is up to the integrity of the programme-maker to do so with integrity in a way that is both responsible and accurate. The same approach must apply to any production method."

It is a view which seems to be shared by the ITC, whose guidelines relate to the use of virtual imaging by advertisers - none specifically relate to editorial use. "It is an issue that crosses a number of regulatory areas - it could be a matter of inaccuracy, or undue prominence, or fairness. If it arose, we would have to consider each case on its own merits," a spokeswoman says.

Trouble is, for the time being at least, the onus is on the viewer to draw any example of tampering with reality to the attention of the regulator which then would investigate retrospectively. Assuming, that is, that they realise what they are seeing isn't real.

This is a video of the second plane .... might include the one wanted:

JemXB3i01Ek

This video is 43 angles of the 2nd plane hitting:

NpUKM0MFNaM

This video seems to show no plane .... it is the Scott Myers video?

pqIyhzMLVlYR/

This is the same as the above video .... but with a plane!

6RVQwBH9UYc

Images taken from the 2 videos at as near the same point as I could:

No Plane

https://i.postimg.cc/YC1skNKK/noplane1.png

With Plane

https://i.postimg.cc/cJhktsLF/plane1.png


So one of the videos and one of the images are fake?

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

The strongest case for 'No Planes', in my view, is that experts agree that the planes could not have cut through the very strong steel frame of the building and leave those almost comical plane-profile shaped cuts in the structure.

I sort of agree, on initial inspection. Aluminium versus steel should not do this amount of damage. But...neither should a speck of dust versus a window, but propelled with enough velocity it would smash right through it.

Not presenting an argument here (really), just playing devil's advocate with a little of my own research (some of which posted back here (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?80910-Where-Did-the-Planes-Go--Rebekah-Roth-exposes-another-piece-of-the-9-11-puzzle-&p=1003077&viewfull=1#post1003077)). This is of course up for debate, and I myself still debate it (with myself). But here it is ---

A typical Boeing 757 (UA175 that hit the South Tower) weighs upwards of a 100tons. According to this paper (http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact.pdf) from MIT, the kinetic energy of that impact is calculated as follows:


ESouth =½ MV02=3658MJ

3,658MJ megajoules (one megajoule equals 1 million joules).

From the same paper, this illustration below shows the basic orientation of the aircraft (in this case Flight 11) and the structure that it contacted.

51824

In rudimentary terms, each plane, travelling at ~500mph, struck a prefabricated steel lattice structure containing mostly fresh air, with a force of three and a half thousand megajoules of energy.

51825


Of significant importance is first barrier it contacted -- the external steel columns. Though made of steel they were hollow fabrications of medium grade A36 construction steel, approximately 10mm thick at the height of the building they were struck (the steel was thicker at lower floors), meaning they would not have put up quite the amount of resistance many believe.

cross-section of steel columns
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=31294&d=1443204591

It's a matter of "rigid vs. deformable body mechanics", as the paper states.

A sticking point for many is the thin, flimsy wing-tips that supposedly, by themselves, sliced through the steel columns like a knife through butter. As pictured below.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=31293&d=1443204489


But when you superimpose the outline of the plane over the hole (south tower), a different profile is presented.

51826

The slice-hole does not extend to the wing tips. The paper concludes:


...the length of the damage area was approximately 31m, which is shorter than the wing span which is 47.57m. Therefore, it can be concluded that the extreme portion of the wings didn’t cut through the columns but is actually deflected themselves.
The slice-holes extend little further than the portion of the wing that holds the two engines -- the largest, heaviest and most sturdy component of each wing.

The engines, I think it can be fairly deduced, carried the bulk of the energy that carved these holes. The exposed tips of the wing, upon impact with the steel columns, did not cut a gash right through them, but plastically deformed (concertinaed) and travelled into the building as might be expected.

Personally, it doesn't stretch my imagination to believe what we saw occur on 9/11 -- two jetliners slamming into two towers, and creating two plane-shaped holes -- happened indeed as we saw it.

What caused such critical destruction to the floor structures (which led to the collapse) and the core columns (the strongest part of the building)...that is another matter. A secondary event almost certainly was involved, meaning surgically deployed explosives, the cutting of load-bearing structural beams, and/or maybe energy weapons -- something at any rate to cause critical failure to bring those towers down to rubble, which two planes (blamed on Al-Qaeda) could not do by themselves.

That in my opinion is the real crux of the conspiracy.

[jaybee]

The strongest case for 'No Planes', in my view, is that experts agree that the planes could not have cut through the very strong steel frame of the building and leave those almost comical plane-profile shaped cuts in the structure.

I sort of agree, on initial inspection. Aluminium versus steel should not do this amount of damage. But...neither should a speck of dust versus a window, but propelled with enough velocity it would smash right through it.

{post snipped see #38 above..}




A thought occurred to me .... could depleted uranium have been put on the planes (flight 11 and flight 175) to inflict the unexpected extent of damage to the buildings...? At first I thought could the planes have been doctored with DU... ? in preparation - and a quick search turned this up (this was only about an hour ago so I haven't looked into it in any depth and I don't know if the subject of DU and the 9/11 planes has come up before or not...)

Depleted uranium in the ballasts of the airplanes that caused 9/11 explain the diseases in NYC after the attacks (https://medium.com/@pyrophor.asso/there-was-depleted-uranium-in-the-ballasts-of-the-airplanes-that-caused-9-11-and-a-secret-66dcb7dd3daa)

and then this....

Boeing Use of Depleted Uranium Counterweights in Aircraft. (https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0321/ML032180089.pdf)

so maybe it could be either/or both..... a 'normal' amount of DU in the planes or extra added for 9/11... ???


edit to clarify... I don't think that the impact of DU loaded planes alone could have caused the complete collapse of the Towers - I think some kind of DEW (or other advanced tech) followed to finished the job...with a controlled demolition --they were very sturdy buildings -

[Dennis Leahy]

...

The Great American Psy-Opera - from about 02:20:00 in for the composite material?

https://avalonlibrary.net/911/The_Great_American_Psy_Opera.mp4

Thank you, Tintin! Yes, indeed, Tintin, that is the video clip (at 2:28:21) that I was talking about, film credit to Michael Hezarkhani. I did not remember the next clip (2:28:38), a ground view by Evan Fairbanks, showing the same thing. That made me want to look at Fairbanks' video some more, and at 6:44 in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz6_8WAIGb4, another version of the "same" video, shows again the lack of physics interaction between the jet and building exterior and a jet that simply is swallowed by the building. It also clearly shows explosions blowing outwards and ejecting chunks of the building, after the jet was swallowed and after the explosives went off.

Norman's right: the Hezarkhani video does pose a very difficult to stage matchup of explosives and the jet outline, and I would think it would be even harder to match-up a holographic projection and the comical jet footprint. A drone jet could have triggered sensors placed on/in the building, to trigger specific charges to make the jet-shaped hole, but the lack of physics says the jet is not a physical object in the videos. A holographic jet couldn't set off specific explosives to make the shape. It's not really visually and physics-wise consistent with a drone jet or a holographic jet.

I looked again at the Hezarkhani video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TcIFrgaiYM at 0:34 and note the initial puffs of smoke (from an explosion that hasn't happened yet!) are moving outwards rather than being sucked inwards into the vacuum created by an object moving at hundreds of miles an hour. The initial puffs of smoke are fuzzy and contain no ejected debris, then, a second later, there is an explosion and smoke and debris are ejected.

I try to think how I would create such video effects. As a video editor, I'd take a shot of the jet-shaped hole as a starting point, line up the jet footage with the hole, and add the puffs of smoke to try to make it look more realistic than just a composite of a jet and a building intersecting with no physics. The same video(s) without the puffs of smoke would have given away the reality of composite footage. Real footage of a real jet hitting a real building would have shown the jet breaking to pieces as it hit, as well as the building surface distorting. The initial puffs of smoke are a composited video layer or were manually drawn. What makes natural smoke? Hydrocarbon substances raised to their vapor point, not aluminum, steel, and glass intersecting. This is instantaneous smoke before there is any fire and before any hydrocarbon substance could have reached the smoke point/vapor point, as well as the initial smoke traveling in the wrong direction, disobeying physics. I'd bet my life that these are composite videos.

I'm not sure by the end of the day on 9/11 how many people had seen these (carefully constructed) video clips on TV and that imprinted the "memory" of seeing a jet in person. "No planes" is easily mocked and dismissed, and so even now it feels like it is a very bad way, psychologically, to attack the official narrative. That doesn't mean it's not true. A physical object may have hit the buildings, but not in these videos.

[Dennis Leahy]

I wonder how many of the "assets" used in the 9/11 operation have been snuffed out. That's the only way they could make sure of no leaks with insider/asset information. Mossad agents that placed explosives are probably still alive, I'd bet, but the guy that composited the videos is likely 6 feet under.

[Michel Leclerc]

The strongest case for 'No Planes', in my view, is that experts agree that the planes could not have cut through the very strong steel frame of the building and leave those almost comical plane-profile shaped cuts in the structure.

(...)

There's the problem.

I would like to add to your point, Norman, that I read on several occasions at the time that the air turbulence created by a city landscape that basically was like a deep ravine with hundreds of gigantic concrete stalagmites rising from the ravine floor would have been such that it would have torn aluminum hulls flying and making turns at those speeds to shreds long before they reached the towers. Additionally this is also the argument for it being a missile that hit the Pentagon.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Real footage of a real jet hitting a real building would have shown the jet breaking to pieces as it hit, as well as the building surface distorting.

I don't think we know that though. Even structural engineers with PhDs can't say they know that, not for absolute certain. That would require high resolution data, obtained only by an exact recreation of these collision events, and to scale (which would be next to impossible to do).

All we can do is formulate hypotheses from data available. The data available tells us those two planes, weighing 100+ tons each, and travelling north of 450mph and with a kinetic impact force of 3.5billion joules, hit a stationary structure, essentially an oblong tube of mostly fresh air, protected only by a narrow rank of medium-grade steel columns, all of them hollow, and all of them designed solely to withstand vertical loads and stresses, not lateral. And it made mincemeat of them.

I know where others stand and that's fine. This is only my opinion.

When you consider a torpedo, no bigger than me or you, can plough into a 50,000 ton double-hulled battleship, tearing it open like a can of soup, it makes reasonable sense (to me anyway) that two high-velocity planes loaded with fuel punched through the flimsy facade of steel 9.5mm thick (the rest of the facade being just glass) like a fist through a Japanese partition. Had they been seen to crumple and bounce away like paper aeroplanes -- then would I call it fake.

Not even the mighty fakestream media can put out CGI composites in a live broadcast. And I just don't know what would possess them to do so anyway, knowing it would not possibly tally up with the thousands upon thousands who are seeing the same event with their own eyes, and filming it with their own camcorders.

I maintain this whole no planes narrative is a counter-intelligence magic trick, inserted as 'chapter one' of the conspiracy theory to discredit chapter 2, 3, 4 etc, and discourage people looking into it that far. With the anti-conspiracy normies it worked well. Those later chapters contain the real meat and potatoes. 1) were the planes piloted or flown remotely, 2) what caused the explosions in the basements, 3) what severed the core columns found later in the 'pile', 4) what brought down tower 7, 5) ergo, what really brought all those towers down, and 6) what hit the pentagon, and 7) what crashed at Shanksville... and 8) why were military jets unarmed that day, 9) ...because they were involved in a drill?... so 10), why were the military holding a drill, involving terrorist attacks, that day? .... and the list goes on and on.

[Dennis Leahy]

Mark, I strongly disagree with the logical fallacy of deferring to authority. You don't need credentials to see what I'm referring to. There is absolutely no distortion of the jet or the building's surface as the two images "collide".

I'm not betting my life on "no planes", but I'm 100% certain that these videos are composites, not objects colliding.

Even if the projectile was traveling 3x faster and made of depleted uranium, the building surface would show deformation. Look at some slow motion videos of bullets or arrows hitting various objects. There's also at least one slow motion video I've seen of a test plane being rammed into a wall at high speed, and predictably, there is massive crumpling distortion starting with the tip of the jet immediately beginning upon impact. Think about your comment of "mostly air" (which was thick glass, not air), and then realize that the jet isn't slowed, distorted, crumpling, or breaking apart no matter whether it hit "air" or steel. Some other people point out that the nose of the (hollow, thin-skinned) aluminum jet also seems to have survived its trip through all the steel columns and peeks out the other side - again, totally impossible, not just implausible, physics.

I don't proclaim "no planes" to any of the (very few) people that would bother to listen to me. In fact, I can't remember the last time I tried to talk to anyone outside of Project Avalon about 9/11. (preaching to the choir) I agree that "no planes" is an easy way for the perpetrators to ridicule 9/11 researchers. The free-fall acceleration speed collapse of Building 7 and the near free-fall acceleration speed of WTC 1 & 2 - all of which is impossible without explosives taking away 100% of the resistive forces of the building below - is, in my opinion, a better way to help a sincere person catch on that 9/11 wasn't at all what the US government said it was. But the forensic evidence of the video showing a jet and a building intersecting without distorting either one is definitely a video composite, not a physical collision.

[JackMcThorn]

I'm not betting my life on "no planes", but I'm 100% certain that these videos are composites, not objects colliding.

After the first plane hit, many people then filmed the aftermath using camcorders and inadvertently filmed the second collision. The media used some of this footage and it is available online. So I don't understand how you can be 1oo% certain.

[Dennis Leahy]

I'm not betting my life on "no planes", but I'm 100% certain that these videos are composites, not objects colliding.

After the first plane hit, many people then filmed the aftermath using camcorders and inadvertently filmed the second collision. The media used some of this footage and it is available online. So I don't understand how you can be 1oo% certain.
Because of the lack of physics of collision of objects in the main video they showed us (Hezarkhani.) I'll say again, I'm not 100% convinced of "no planes", as they may well have used drone jets to do the deed, and still substituted the pre-prepared composited video footage credited to Hezarkhani. The Hezarkhani video clearly shows no signs of distortion or collision between the jet and building - the building simply appears to swallow the jet whole.

It jumps into conjecture for me to speculate, but my speculation is that they needed to make sure, before the event, that they would have shocking footage, so they made it. If I'm wrong, and the footage is not doctored, then the "jet" is indeed a hologram, because the video does not show real physical objects colliding. In any case, the video is not that of a collision of a physical jet and a physical building.

I'd say, believe your eyes, not what you were told to believe. You don't need to have taken a couple of semesters of computer animation, or owned and spent a lot of hours playing with the new collision physics features of the animation software to notice that the Hezarkhani credited video shows no objects colliding. The software I used could also do video compositing, but with video compositing, there was no physics when you intersected video objects - just like the video credited to Hezarkhani.

[Arcturian108]

Over the past 20 years I have seen numerous amateur videos of the initial explosions of both towers that show no indication of any planes. I remember one of these done from a nearby apartment building, where the person shooting the scene live says nothing about planes, as we witness his film showing only explosions, but then his companion in the same apartment immediately says that he saw a plane hitting the towers on his television screen, as an explanation of what was going on. More than 10 years ago the late John Lear said there were no planes involved in hitting the towers. At the time I thought that was kooky, but now I believe the whole plane thing was fabricated.

[Blastolabs]

Just found this HUGE stash of high quality photos (https://ia801306.us.archive.org/27/items/NIST_9-11_Release_04/International_Center_for_911_Studies_NIST_FOIA/Release_04/Release%204/) and a few low quality movies from ground zero on 9/11.

I have never seen any of these before, and I have spent a long time looking at this kind of thing.
They seem to be from an NIST FOIA request.

42A0003 - 1of3/ (https://ia801306.us.archive.org/27/items/NIST_9-11_Release_04/International_Center_for_911_Studies_NIST_FOIA/Release_04/Release%204/42A0003%20-%201of3/)
42A0003 - 2of3/ (https://ia801306.us.archive.org/27/items/NIST_9-11_Release_04/International_Center_for_911_Studies_NIST_FOIA/Release_04/Release%204/42A0003%20-%202of3/)
42A0003 - 3of3/ (https://ia801306.us.archive.org/27/items/NIST_9-11_Release_04/International_Center_for_911_Studies_NIST_FOIA/Release_04/Release%204/42A0003%20-%203of3/) < --- HIGH quality photos

https://ia801306.us.archive.org/27/items/NIST_9-11_Release_04/International_Center_for_911_Studies_NIST_FOIA/Release_04/Release%204/

Why is the car on fire in the image below? Can anyone confirm that both towers are still standing, right behind the car? I could be wrong but this seems a bit odd...

https://ia801306.us.archive.org/27/items/NIST_9-11_Release_04/International_Center_for_911_Studies_NIST_FOIA/Release_04/Release%204/42A0003%20-%203of3/Roll_5_10.jpg

https://ia801306.us.archive.org/27/items/NIST_9-11_Release_04/International_Center_for_911_Studies_NIST_FOIA/Release_04/Release%204/42A0003%20-%202of3/2-50%20Number%2018.jpg

[Tintin]

Over the past 20 years I have seen numerous amateur videos of the initial explosions of both towers that show no indication of any planes. I remember one of these done from a nearby apartment building, where the person shooting the scene live says nothing about planes, as we witness his film showing only explosions, but then his companion in the same apartment immediately says that he saw a plane hitting the towers on his television screen, as an explanation of what was going on. More than 10 years ago the late John Lear said there were no planes involved in hitting the towers. At the time I thought that was kooky, but now I believe the whole plane thing was fabricated.

I'm 100% with that. I too thought it was a 'whack' suggestion at first, and then having factored in every conceivable piece of data to hand - for six months solid I must add, a decade ago - drew what ought now to be an uncontroversial view, when taken objectively. (With thanks to Dennis for pretty much typing up what I was planning on doing. :highfive: )

No objects of any kind actually hit any towers in the WTC complex that day, save for the debris from the free-falling demolished buildings of course.

We need to remember that they had a decade to disappear critical frames in the Zapruder film, and then Jim Garrison actually managed to subpoena what the world has now seen. Even now the power of that dreadful event approaching its 60th anniversary lingers and there will be some folks who think that footage was shown at the time of the assassination. It of course was only seen for the first time a decade or so later. This reminds me a little of the quite well known story of the Sex Pistols first gig where, if we were to take the later claims as fact, that upwards of some several tens of thousands of people were present, which of course they weren't. (Think it was the Manchester Free Trade hall which held a couple hundred, at most.)

There's the interesting assumption from 9/11 that there were hundreds of thousands of people on the street that day witnessing what was happening. This has been conflated with the millions listening to and watching some highly suspect commentary and footage on TV. I've been to lower Manhattan, and while the towers were still there too, and of course during rush-hour it was very busy with folks commuting, but as on 9/11 most will likely have been on subway trains, not actually on the street level. "Everyone saw planes hitting those buildings that day", many will claim. Give me an Airfix kit and some balsa wood and we'd get a very basic idea of what should have been seen, but never has, not then, and not even after 22 years.

The highly suspect Naudet brothers' 'film' was only shown the following day (in the UK), with no sound, and it all looked totally staged, ready for the plane insertion, which duly arrived the following day. From which gate at Logan that insertion 'departed' - AA11 - will likely never be shared more widely. (Was it gate 32, assigned as usual, or as recorded gate 26? Why the change in gate?). Judy Wood has asked "Where did the towers go.", and I ask: "Where did all the flights go?" (Some idea can be gleaned from Bill's interview with Rebekah Roth.)

They fabricated the laws of physics that day with some fantastic nonsense about hijacked planes, pancaking towers, Arab extremists along with absolute scant regard for lives sacrificed either: it was of course collective consciousness that was hijacked that day; managed perceptions. framed narratives, unscientific-fiction.

What I wonder of the actual footage that those Israeli chaps had who were there, from 8am, to "..document the event (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStJ5BgadPs&t=15s)."? That footage may tell us all we need to know and finally put a rest to all the confusing speculation and distractions, assuming it to be untampered with.

------------------------

Source: https://www.corbettreport.com/911suspects/



JEREMY ROTHE-KUSHEL: …the last thing I want to leave you with is the National Reconnaissance Office was running a drill of a plane crashing into their building and you know they’re staffed by DoD and CIA…

ROBERT BAER: I know the guy that went into his broker in San Diego and said ‘cash me out, it’s going down tomorrow.’

JEREMY ROTHE-KUSHEL: Really?

ROBERT BAER: Yeah.

STEWART HOWE: That tells us something.

ROBERT BAER: What?

STEWART HOWE: That tells us something.

ROBERT BAER: Well his brother worked at the White House.

(SOURCE: WeAreChangeLA debriefs CIA Case Officer Robert Baer about apparent Mossad and White House 9/11 foreknowledge (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z5BnihtWfs))

[norman]

Reasoning things through relies on a solid (mental) pivot somewhere in the schema.

The solid mental pivot we all started out with was that the MSM wasn't so crooked as to be running totally fake footage during such a tragedy.

22 years later, I don't know about you, but I don't have that solid mental pivot to reason with any more.

[Arcturian108]

Just found this HUGE stash of high quality photos (https://ia801306.us.archive.org/27/items/NIST_9-11_Release_04/International_Center_for_911_Studies_NIST_FOIA/Release_04/Release%204/) and a few low quality movies from ground zero on 9/11.

I have never seen any of these before, and I have spent a long time looking at this kind of thing.
They seem to be from an NIST FOIA request.

42A0003 - 1of3/ (https://ia801306.us.archive.org/27/items/NIST_9-11_Release_04/International_Center_for_911_Studies_NIST_FOIA/Release_04/Release%204/42A0003%20-%201of3/)
42A0003 - 2of3/ (https://ia801306.us.archive.org/27/items/NIST_9-11_Release_04/International_Center_for_911_Studies_NIST_FOIA/Release_04/Release%204/42A0003%20-%202of3/)
42A0003 - 3of3/ (https://ia801306.us.archive.org/27/items/NIST_9-11_Release_04/International_Center_for_911_Studies_NIST_FOIA/Release_04/Release%204/42A0003%20-%203of3/) < --- HIGH quality photos

https://ia801306.us.archive.org/27/items/NIST_9-11_Release_04/International_Center_for_911_Studies_NIST_FOIA/Release_04/Release%204/

Why is the car on fire in the image below? Can anyone confirm that both towers are still standing, right behind the car? I could be wrong but this seems a bit odd...

https://ia801306.us.archive.org/27/items/NIST_9-11_Release_04/International_Center_for_911_Studies_NIST_FOIA/Release_04/Release%204/42A0003%20-%203of3/Roll_5_10.jpg

https://ia801306.us.archive.org/27/items/NIST_9-11_Release_04/International_Center_for_911_Studies_NIST_FOIA/Release_04/Release%204/42A0003%20-%202of3/2-50%20Number%2018.jpg

I believe the photo that you interpret as a car burning, is actually showing a fire inside the lower levels of the building, which if I remember correctly was reported by witnesses on 9/11/01. I believe a janitor reported bombs going off first in the basement before he heard explosions higher up.

[Michel Leclerc]

Since that very day I have had and will have until I die (and/or beyond) the following certainties:

* [as I was being driven by a taxi to the residence for the elderly where my mother was living, the driver and I heard the news of he planes and the towers over the radio; ten minutes later we reached our destination, I entered my mother’s little apartment, we kissed and hugged and explaining the situation to her I lit the Tv; the "film" was playing]

[“film“ because I immediately felt that I was watching a feature film, not a document – this impression was later brilliantly confirmed by German master composer Karlheinz Stockhausen, who defiantly called the whole thing “a magnificent work of art”]

: soon the moment came when the tower with the antenna collapsed: I clearly saw the antenna falling first, swallowed up by the building as it were, and only seconds later the top floors started to fall in its wake: I remembered my 1989 visit to New York and knew immediately that this meant that the elevator core had been taken away under the antenna and hence that no planes could have done this;

* a few hours (half a day?) later I heard the preposterous and triumphantly blathered out “news” that “one of the hijackers’ passport had been found in the rubble” and of course it was an Arabic passport: gooks before, Arabs then, Russians now – and all “news” brought since in that delusional cloud is certain to be false; at least that is how I reasoned and reason.

Later on came the statements made by pilots – that it was impossible to fly those planes the way they had been flown. And obviously – something I had not realised first – building 7, a thriftier replay of its two elder companions’ fate.

These realisations hammered into my mind the following. The classical, eternally repeated, "wisdom" says that “one cannot trust one’s senses” – “because it has been proven that in a courtroom various witnesses to a crime remember it differently“. Yes, caution is wise. But when consensual “reality“ is – as per Popper‘s hypothesis falsification principle – entirely and demonstrably false because it is fabricated and ingurgitated into all too eager throats, then there is no need for this caution.

Because the cool-headed recollection of what one’s own senses in a heightened awareness state have registered, is the only possible yardstick to go by.

This realisation in itself is a life’s lesson. It readies one for the fabricated realities of the future. (We have not been disappointed since.)

And then, of course, it is extremely soothing for the soul, the spirit and the body (given that we all psychosomatise) to discover that one is not alone in knowing what is really “real” for sure.

[norman]

https://t.me/MissFreedomSeeker/10815
MissFreedomSeeker/10815