Why they didn't use planes

[simonshack]

question about your post script Simon, the street reporters conveying their visions to the network anchors of the gaping holes at the top of both towers? were these done by explosives inside? I just don't see how Everybody on location is gonna say this if the buildings were actually pristine?

Oh, no - hold on:

I believe that some explosive devices DID ACTUALLY puncture holes in the towers (particularly WTC1, which would have been visible to a few people in upper Manhattan - or from a few high-rise offices nearby). What was actually to be seen 17 minutes later (from a street vantage point) in relation to the WTC2 strike, I honestly cannot pretend to know. I only assume that both towers were by then enveloped in smoke. And, if you have ever been roaming Lower Manhattan at street level (as I have), you will know that the Twin Towers were only visible if you were in the immediate vicinity of them!

Basically, what I'm saying is that the FIRST event of that morning ("FLIGHT 11 STRIKING WTC1") was nothing but the start of the demolition process. To any New Yorker who wasn't flying in a helicopter that morning, it would have been nigh impossible to understand what was going on.



Only the fake imagery that was given to us (by the TV NETWORKS - with those alleged "helicopter shots") made us imagine that everything that happened that morning in Manhattan was visible to everyone who was awake in Manhattan - in the early morning hours of that day...

[lux]

Ever see this report of vanishing planes?

Over the last 6 years I have noticed what seem to be "vanishing" aircraft. The first two on Long Island 1999 and 2000. I noticed the aircraft while I was driving, saw it was a plane, looked back down at the road, caught a flash out of the corner of my eye where it was, looked back up and the craft was gone. As there wasn't much detail to what I saw, I figured it could be anything. I mean, I was driving and looking at the sky as usual, and these bits and pieces that I did see could have been anything - but the plane, both times, was gone. The second time it happened I pulled over and searched the sky - it wasn't there. ...

Source:
http://www.ufoinfo.com/news/vanishing.shtml

[Heiwa]

I believe the 'holes in the walls' were CGI as everything else of videos/photos that day, i.e. just glued on the footage with the smoke, etc. Why complicate things when the cartoons (with planes, holes, destructions top down, etc) were ready since months to be broadcasted 'live on TV'?

[simonshack]

I believe the 'holes in the walls' were CGI as everything else of videos/photos that day, i.e. just glued on the footage with the smoke, etc. Why complicate things when the cartoons (with planes, holes, destructions top down, etc) were ready since months to be broadcasted 'live on TV'?

Dear Heiwa,

I see your point. I may be well be wrong in thinking that some sort of hole was punched out in the upper floors of the north side of WTC1 - in order for people in Manhattan to see at least something vaguely consistent with what was shown on TV: perhaps it wasn't strictly necessary. Just a big smokeplume (generated with military-grade obscurants) would have sufficed, I guess.

[Equinox]

These military grade smoke machines are absolutely state of the art. Pretty amazing stuff!!! watch this amazing demo of our easy they could cover the WTC in smoke…. This stuff is epic !



full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQF8hsitxvY

ТМС-65 rocks.

[Heiwa]

I believe the 'holes in the walls' were CGI as everything else of videos/photos that day, i.e. just glued on the footage with the smoke, etc. Why complicate things when the cartoons (with planes, holes, destructions top down, etc) were ready since months to be broadcasted 'live on TV'?

Dear Heiwa,

I see your point. I may be well be wrong in thinking that some sort of hole was punched out in the upper floors of the north side of WTC1 - in order for people in Manhattan to see at least something vaguely consistent with what was shown on TV: perhaps it wasn't strictly necessary. Just a big smokeplume (generated with military-grade obscurants) would have sufficed, I guess.

Here is an interesting example of 100% fake 911 footage; http://www.youtube.com/v/bdKzxL39Tn4&hl=en_US& . It is bits and pieces of staged videos with, I assume, fake backgrounds added, when required. It has everything; witnesses having seen planes and jumpers, towers with holes (!!) on fire, NYFD people running away from the fire, NYPD agents shouting and WTC collapses. It all looks pretty real, but all is 100% fake, reason being the impossible WTC collapses, e.g. WTC 1 coming down at 10.25-10.40. I assume the 'collapse' is glued into the background and that people up front are from some other event. It is all Hollywood.
In the real world a tower cannot collapse as seen on the video, thus the whole video is fake. Basic. So you didn't need any planes or whatever: Just fake footage, pre-made cartoons with fake collapses, that you broadcasted live on TV, put out on Internet, Youtube, later, etc.

[I_am_onlive]

I understand the videos are concocted I just wanted you to have a look at that video by Tinacart and see the fault for yourself. I know that no planes were there in the videos as they all are animated and such, I just wanted to post this video to you because I believe in your cause and I want to support your theory about "no planes on 9-11" which is no longer a theory but a fact because now I have seen the videos by myself and accept it without a doubt.

Could I ask you a favour Simon, if it's not too much trouble, could provide me the links to the schematics of the WTC buildings, it's design, layout and all as well as plane facts.

[simonshack]

Here is an interesting example of 100% fake 911 footage; http://www.youtube.com/v/bdKzxL39Tn4&hl=en_US& . (...) It all looks pretty real, but all is 100% fake (...)

Indeed, Heiwa

The newly released (2010) NIST imagery looks better/crisper than all the 9/11 imagery we have ever seen up until 2009... They appear to have just re-rendered their old material with modern '3D' animation softwares. The recurring problem I keep noticing, time and again, is that they have messed up the perspectives/proportions of their virtual environment.

Remember this gif that I made some time ago (from an old History channel "documentary") ?




I found a remarkably similar shot in the NIST-FOIA video you linked to:



Now, please note the tall tree at right in the upper image: it appears higher than in the lower image. We must therefore assume that, for the upper image, the 'cameraman' was slightly closer to the bridge. However, this means that the bridge should also appear higher than objects behind it (the WTC7, for instance). Instead, the very opposite is observed. No focal distortion issues will account for this - unless one is willing to believe that 2 different cameramen shot these images, with slightly different lenses, one during the collapse of WTC1 and the other during the collapse of WTC2 - yet both standing at almost the exact same spot... But even such a stretch of imagination would not explain the relative heights/sizes of the WTC7 - and the 'walking trees' at left.

[Heiwa]

Simon,

the WTC1-collapse behind the bridge is fake! No doubt about it. Big wall panels flying in all directions! Stupid Hollywood! They + smoke are glued in one way or another. If then the perspective of WTC7 and trees goes bananas is beyond me and I believe you. With regard to Speedy Gonzales and walking trees maybe the footage is in three layers; behind (1) with flying wall panels and in front of the bridge (2) with walking trees and the bridge itself (3) with Speedy G?

[simonshack]

If then the perspective of WTC7 and trees goes bananas is beyond me and I believe you. With regard to Speedy Gonzales and walking trees maybe the footage is in three layers; behind (1) with flying wall panels and in front of the bridge (2) with walking trees and the bridge itself (3) with Speedy G?

Lol - "...the trees go bananas"...

In fact, the entire 9/11 imagery goes bananas in so many ways - you'd think a team of monkeys crafted it!

Just compare Z and Y here - and you'll see what I mean:

From the newly released (2010) imagery:


From the old material shown on TV:


So, once again: NONE OF THE 9/11 IMAGERY IS AUTHENTIC. It simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Exactly HOW it was crafted is up for the perps to explain - and exactly WHY it is so abysmally bad is anyone's guess. Maybe bad people are simply...bad?

[HonestlyNow]

(forgive me if this has been asked previously)

FIREMEN ON PARADE from 8:10 to 9:00 (NIST FOIA video)

Why did the firefighters have to walk to the scene, for quite some distance, carrying their equipment, on a street that was obviously clear enough for vehicle traffic? The news media was allowed to use their truck (@8:40). I guess that shows who ranks higher.

[Guerrero]

What's the deal with the "Kill Arabic.." scrawled by the camerman's finger? in thick dust? Just more psyop tactics for the sleeping public to see images of 9/11 destruction and connect it with Arabs...And was the cameraman not fluent in english or just struggling with poor grammar skills? Has this ever been "explained" by the media?

[Equinox]

Source- Field Tape part 1
http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist/FoxNe ... /X11090101
Time- 2.23 minutes

Exuse water mark on this gif...


1-



2-


Were they born in a tent? Talking about leaving yourself “wide” open.

[lux]

What's the deal with the "Kill Arabic.." scrawled by the camerman's finger? in thick dust? Just more psyop tactics for the sleeping public to see images of 9/11 destruction and connect it with Arabs...And was the cameraman not fluent in english or just struggling with poor grammar skills? Has this ever been "explained" by the media?

Since it appears freshly rendered I would presume that the photographer did it. This is evidently a common practice with "photojournalists." Even Time Magazine admits that the famous 1936 Robert Capa photo of the Spanish Civil War was faked. Faking photos is a photojourrnalistic tradition that goes back a long way.

[Guerrero]

Thanx lux for the info/link. I hadn't heard of that before. But you are right...it's a long-standing practice of photo-journalism apparently as in this case:

in 1898, Joseph Pulitzer's New York World and William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal were arguing for American intervention in Cuba. Hearst is reported to have dispatched a photographer to Cuba to photograph the coming war with Spain. When the photographer asked just what war that might be, Hearst is reported to have replied, "You take the photographs, and I will provide the war". Hearst was true to his word, as his newspaper published stories of great atrocities being committed against the Cuban people, most of which turned out to be complete fabrications.

And HERE:

Following the victory in Iraq, yet another war appeared to be in the offering in the mineral rich regions of Bosnia. Yet again, a hoax was used to create support for military action.

The photo (right) of Fikret Alic staring through a barbed wire fence, was used to "prove" the existence of modern day "Concentration Camps". As the headline of "Belsen 92" indicates, all possible associations with the Nazi horrors were made to sell the necessity of sending yet more American troops into someone else's nation.

But when German Journalists went to Trnopolje, the site of the supposed Concentration Camp. to film a documentary, they discovered that the photo was a fake! The camp at Trnopolje was not a concentration camp but a refugee center. Nor was it surrounded by barbed wire. Careful examination of the original photo revealed that the photographer had shot the photo through a broken section of fence surrounding a tool shed. It was the photographer who was on the inside, shooting out at the refugees.