9/11 SIMCITY

[Equinox]

The missile theory is plausible: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/acm.htm

It could explain why the "air plane" was so small, cruise missiles are small and look very much like a plane.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bombe ... 29a_01.jpg
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bombe ... 29a_02.jpg

Didn't the "air plane" fly up-side down in one of the vidoes?

It looked very much like this: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/acm_03.gif

!

Hehe You make me laugh, I want to say this following quote with out being one bit high ego nor cocky. But to try and get you to understand my dear diagonal2..... "you are preaching to the choir"

We know all about this stuff years ago... If anything the fair call comes off towards the JASSM Cruise missile... with release n testing 2001.. acuraccy to with in 2.8f= blah blah..
SOURCE-- http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=467&start=60#p2359438



Well it does make sense to fire something into the wtc. For shock 'n Awe - and the jassm definitely had the accuracy and the look to may be able to pull it of.

The alleged speeds for 175. Were 550miles witch is also the cruising speed of the jassm.
At those speeds, twice as fast as what you see ground level at the airport. I doubt one could distinguish one from the other that well.




Profile of a real jassm compared to “Park Foreman's”, 9/11 CGI image.

The missile research is just essentially just some trivia to me though. Just My outtake on it is this.
The main proof of what happened that day lies in the imagery. And that is all that mattered. I honestly don’t know what really happened that day. I wasn’t there to see with my own eyes. Plane, no plane, missile, holograms, d-duck on a blimp…Who knows (or cares) what really what happened.

All I have got to say is how come the 9/11 imagery is so computer generated?


SOURCE--- http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 5#p2362251 SIMONSHACK

I hate to be the thorn in the foot of this thread by I AGREE with reels post!

Thorn in the foot? Not in mine

Again, I am open to anyone's ideas as to how it all played out in reality. Are we really much in disagreement, anyway? After all, my September Clues docu (2008) does speculate about a JASSM158 striking WTC2. (Of course, I NEVER implied that this would have caused the collapse of the tower - it would have just punched a hole in it - but it would have ensured that a winged little thing was seen striking WTC2):




It's not like they even needed to use GPS technology (which isn't 100% reliable) to aim a missile/drone at the towers. A pre-placed tracking device inside the desired floor would have been 100% foolproof - guaranteeing a perfect precision strike. The main objection to this proposed scenario has been "wouldn't that have played havoc with the demo-wiring inside the towers?" Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they place the main charges in the LOWER floors of a building to be demolished? Since we now know that the rubble imagery was faked too (just like the collapse imagery) how can we rule out the possibility that they basically just made the towers topple over (perhaps in short, handy sections) and let them crash/dismember on top of the surrounding buildings (WTC3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) - all owned by Mr. Silverstein?

As for the available eyewitness accounts (for what they are worth) to such a real-world scenario, we actually DO have quite a few reporting something to this tune: "I saw the top of the tower toppling/falling over". Why do all these people mention only "the top"? Perhaps because the rest of the twin towers was, by then (9:59AM), enveloped in smoke? Such testimonies - even if delivered by actors/media people - would have served the purpose to match / coincide / corroborate what the 'millions of New Yorkers' saw in reality (likewise - if the missile theory is correct - the many reports of "a small plane" would have served to 'comfort' anyone who observed a distinctly smaller aircraft than a Boeing 767 hitting WTC2). To be sure, I have never bumped into one single testimony describing the collapses in any manner of detail - and not even remotely in the way we saw it on TV.

So what about WTC1 (at 8:46AM)? No impacting flying device needed there - it was a totally unexpected event. If "FLIGHT11" really had roared across the full length of Manhattan at such low altitude, we should have hundreds of thousands of witness reports of such a loud event. We simply don't. For WTC1, only some fireworks were required to shape what looked from afar like a 'plane-shaped' gash (then artificial smoke gushing out of it) in the top floors to enact something resembling the images featured in the prefabricated, Made-for-TV Hollywood 9/11 movie.

SOURCE-- http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 5#p2362341EQUINOX

^ ^ ^
yeah, my friend keeps repeating the OCT 9/11 mantra... 'it would have got out, someone would have come forward".
to who ? the media ?!?

but no plane/missile/drone/nothing... ?!?
thats some balls.
seriously.
nah... there had to be 'something'... imho.
whatever...

It’s perfectly feasible to believe in a shock and awe missile
Would have been used on 9/11 (and Due to the pinpoint accuracy only a missile, more than likely)

The accuracy was there...

Missile cam target strike test.


JAASM Through a small window easy done.



Eyewitnesses who would have seen it could have easily mistaken its profile for a real 767.


JAASM Painted up in AA colors would be easy done. I myself would no doubt definitely believe if It was painted up.

The video you are relating too is pre-fabicated footage shown live on news. The whole shot is fake.... If you want to learn more on the topic or wish to talk or reply to this side of the research please use this thread here.... Why they didn't use planes---- HERE--- http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=467

- The 9/11 imagery was nothing but a Hollywood-style film production, complete with actors in the role of 'eye-witnesses' or 'firefighters', staged 'running crowds', 3D-compositing and special cinematic effects. The '9/11 movie' was split into a number of short clips and sold to the TV audience as 'newscasts'. The few clips featuring 'airplanes' (or dull silhouettes thereof) were computer-generated images - clearly in conflict with each other. Years of relentless 'debunking' attempts have failed to disprove the evidence expounded in the longstanding September Clues research.

[Maat]

It’s perfectly feasible to believe in a shock and awe missile
Would have been used on 9/11 (and Due to the pinpoint accuracy only a missile, more than likely)..

Based on a military video of their alleged "accuracy"?

Nah, sorry EQ, it's not "feasible" nor does it make any practical sense for a risk free simulation. As I said before (June 6th):
viewtopic.php?p=2370971#p2370971

And, what a great radio opportunity, Hoi! [...]

I was surprised by your mentioning "missiles", which I not only thought was a long abandoned "truther" hangout (e.g. Brianv's & Simon's post here) but frankly never made any logical sense to me for a media hoaxed, CGI movie event to disguise the demolition of buildings in what was obviously a totally contained & controlled physical area in Manhattan.

I've suspected for some time that that red herring was deliberate bait for 'conspiracists' to promote so that the entire 'false flag' theory would be more easily dismissed as nonsense by real military people with direct knowledge of military protocols & ordnance. Remembering it was an essentially civilian (NYPA, FBI, NSA etc.) op, so I could see no way that any literal 'military' input would have been considered a viable option, regardless.

And... viewtopic.php?p=2370974#p2370974

...
And yes, Maat - I would now definitely avoid any mention of my speculative AGM missile theory, as put forth in September Clues back in 2008. Whether right or (most likely) wrong, it is quite simply an unnecessary topic to mention/address in any presentation of our myriad of solid, collective findings. "KISS" is the way to go. I've always strived to simplify every aspect of this research - so I highly appreciate every advice and effort from everyone to "keep it simple". As Hoi rightly says, we are no media experts - but that doesn't mean we don't understand that communicating our findings has to be kept as sharp and simple as possible.

I fully concur with the substance of the last paragraph of your above post, Maat. I'm impressed by how much (perfect) sense it makes...

[diagonal2]

"In committing a crime, the idea is to leave as little mess as possible, because every bit of mess is a potential clue. Even in the event of a successfully targeted crash, real aircraft, scattering wreckage and bodies everywhere creates an enormous amount of mess to cover up compared to the relatively neat problem of a few witnesses and a few conspiracy nuts trying to tell people what the video shows. " http://www.911closeup.com/

In other words: No air planes, no terrorists - just plain old Hollywood magic. I totally get it now!

[Heiwa]

The missile theory is plausible: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/acm.htm

Well, you can fly as many missiles you like into the weak, light top of any skyscraper and ... nothing will ever happen to the strong, heavy bottom carrying the weak light top ... as explained at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm .

Reason is that the weak, light top of any structure incl. skyscrapers cannot crush the strong, heavy bottom of the structure carrying the top under any circumstances.

If you see a weak, light top of a skyscraper crushing the strong, heavy bottom, on, e.g. TV, you can be sure it is an animation using computer graphic images that is broadcasted.

If you think I am wrong and you can prove that a top of a skyscraper can crush the bottom, you can collect €1 000 000:- at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm . No Norwegian has so far managed it but they are not alone. Nobody has managed to collect the €1M. You should wonder why.

[simonshack]

*
MY OLD MISSILE SPECULATION (2008)

Oh well...I guess I'll be forever haunted by my old speculation (as made in September Clues back in 2008) that an AGM 158 missile might have been used to strike tower 2 - and so helping to 'explain' those eyewitnesses reporting a 'small aircraft' of some sort striking WTC2. At the time, I thought the missile hypothesis had some validity - but not any longer, knowing what we know today: there was no need for anything to strike the WTC. Those of you who still hold on to the missile hypothesis are free to do so - but the bottom line is : it matters little. To be sure, we can NOT make any conclusions one way or another on the strength of the available 9/11 videos - as they are ALL COMPUTER ANIMATIONS.

The logic behind this should - by now - be crystal clear to any sound thinker: no conclusions can be drawn as to how EXACTLY the events played out in Manhattan that morning; the only certainty we have is that there exists NO real / authentic private imagery of anything crashing into the twin towers.

Here's a frame from a recently released (2010) animation - credited to one "Steve Vigilante". It should be obvious even to the casual/untrained observer that this fireball is sharper than the rest of the picture - and has been animated/composited on top of a blurrier background: (source video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwKQXsXJDX4 )


Even Playstation does more realistic explosions/fireballs than this - for chrissakes.

********************
Mask edge of Woolworth Building composited into the foreground:

[simonshack]

*

Oh mamma mia - not again! ....

Dear El Diablo, let me try and spell this out in simple fashion.

What the 'Judy Wood' entity does is gatekeeping 101: her role is to REINSTATE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE (totally fake) 9/11 IMAGERY, and to provide some sort of explanation to the outlandish/impossible collapse dynamics that those absurd video animations visually transmit into your brain: both 110-story WTC buildings collapsing in a cloud of dust! Top Down!!!

The two WTC towers (and, in fact, the other seven buildings wiped off the map that day) were much more likely safely brought down with conventional, foolproof explosives - such as those used all the time to bring down buildings all over the world. In this case, however, a smokescreen was raised around them so that no one could see (or film) ANY DETAIL of the proceedings.

I'll stop here for now. Please reply to this post of mine before you spam any other links to "Judy Wood's" blatant disinformation bullcrap on this forum. Thanks.

[diagonal2]

Simple as this:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK50So-yYRU


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73U5cYOR0-4

Controlled Demolition. Not magical UFO technology.

[wtc-wtf]

by simonshack on June 25th, 2012, 5:10 pm
Here's a frame from a recently released (2010) animation - credited to one "Steve Vigilante".

I was watching this Steve Vigilante animation along with its lame script a while back. I was quite bored then at around 7 minutes I noticed that Steve was filming from a similar vantage point as the Naudet first tower strike.


Above: Two captures from Steve.


Above: Naudet

Anyhow these scenes to me look like bad drawings it hurts my brain to look at the issues of perspective. Also how does amateur Steve have better quality footage than professional Naudet?

[Maat]

Controlled Demolition. Not magical UFO technology.

Yes exactly, diagonal2

And since the towers they had to bring down were a quarter-mile high, there was probably more 'topple-over' anticipated, hence the need to include the surrounding WTC buildings' destruction in the hoax story as they wouldn't have survived the towers' demolition anyway

[simonshack]

Anyhow these scenes to me look like bad drawings it hurts my brain to look at the issues of perspective. Also how does amateur Steve have better quality footage than professional Naudet?

Ah yes...

But see, the Naudet camera was able to capture proper R's of the RGB tone scale - while Vigilante's camera couldn't!




Source of the Half-red façade: The Naudet brothers' "911" movie.
Source of the Full-white façade: The (higher-quality) "Steve Vigilante" home video

...duh !

[simonshack]

Also, the Naudet camera was so BAD that it failed to capture this white stripe on this foreground building:

From the NAUDET movie "9/11":


From "STEVE VIGILANTE's" home video:



...duh!


DOES EVERYONE UNDERSTAND NOW THAT ALL THE 9/11 IMAGERY IS FAKE? OR HOW LONG DO WE NEED TO GO ON HERE?

[simonshack]

*
PERHAPS SOME OF YOU NEED MORE PROOF?

Well, this is a gif loop I made DIRECTLY from the Naudet movie's DVD (that I have purchased):



If you have EVER seen such a phenomena in ANY real video you have seen in your lifetime, please let me know, ok?

********************************************

How about this? Does this look like a REAL, legit video to you?



If you are some sort of smartass video expert wishing to explain these phenomenae, be my guest. I'll be all too glad to listen!

BUT MAKE SURE YOU EXPRESS YOURSELF IN ELOQUENT MANNER, AND BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS WITH VERIFIABLE, TECHNICALLY SOUND ARGUMENTS - AND VIDEO EXAMPLES SIMILAR TO THE ONES ILLUSTRATED ABOVE.

Sorry for the LARGE fonts, folks - but we have now exposed this 9/11 bluff for over half a decade - and we really need to call out the naysayers. We are at a stage in which we can rightfully say: PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

[Equinox]

And we can even demonstrate how black lines appear in object using a method such as chroma key. Here is a demo.
Here's what newly-imported clip into chroma key looks like, with no filters.

Then slap on a Chroma Keyer


The realism of a chroma key is largely determined by how
the keyer handles the boundary surrounding the Foreground image.
As a result of the processing involved in extracting a key signal from
the Foreground chrominance, there is a tendency for the key to
‘spread’, leaving a dark line at the edges of non-keyed Foreground
Objects.

[simonshack]

Woah, Equinox. You're really on top of it - I sincerely LOVE your résumés and reminders of the work we do here!

Keep it up, my friend!

[fbenario]

If Directed Energy is to you UFO technology then yes? I'm not saying that they weren't destroyed by explosives, i'm asking WHY the evidence doesn't point to it being that way then.

There is no evidence of what actually happened during the 9/11 psyop, none at all of any sort, other than the silly Hollywood video shown on TV that morning. What in the world are you referring to?