9/11 Photos, etc.

[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]

Posted by norman (here)

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)]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
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]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
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]

Posted by JackMcThorn (here)

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
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 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/
42A0003 - 2of3/
42A0003 - 3of3/ < --- HIGH quality photos

https://ia801306.us.archive.org/27/i...4/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...

[Tintin]

Posted by Arcturian108 (here)
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. )

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."? 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)

[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]

Posted by Blastolabs (here)
Just found this HUGE stash of high quality photos 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/
42A0003 - 2of3/
42A0003 - 3of3/ < --- HIGH quality photos

https://ia801306.us.archive.org/27/i...4/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...

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