UNMASKING 9/11

The notion of 'thousands of victims' was crucial to generate universal public outrage. However, having 3000 angry families breathing down their necks was never part of the perps' demented plan. Our ongoing analyses and investigations suggest that NO one died on 9/11.
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am
Contact:

UNMASKING 9/11

Unread post by reel.deal »

.
Last edited by reel.deal on Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:37 pm, edited 5 times in total.
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: UNMASKING 9/11

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

Sorry if I am daft but I only understand the middle one where the tower graphic is strangely tilted and off its place.

Can you explain the first and third comparisons please? And what is with that still with the '2nd plane' graphic past the towers?
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am
Contact:

Re: UNMASKING 9/11

Unread post by reel.deal »

.
Last edited by reel.deal on Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:37 pm, edited 3 times in total.
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: UNMASKING 9/11

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

Thanks for the explanation; I think you are doing compelling work. Nice sign outside Fox - thought of doing something similar outside of NBC L.A. but it looked so austere and corporate (not to mention pedestrian-less) that I reconsidered. NYC is the perfect place to protest NYC propaganda.
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am
Contact:

Re: UNMASKING 9/11

Unread post by reel.deal »

.
Last edited by reel.deal on Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
fbenario
Member
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: UNMASKING 9/11

Unread post by fbenario »

hoi.polloi wrote:Thanks for the explanation; I think you are doing compelling work.
Reel deal, I agree with Hoi, I also like the research you are giving us, and the world.

May I make a small suggestion? In order for your work to be its most convincing, would you be willing to reread everything before posting, in order to ensure the appropriate use of capitalization and good grammar? I think more people would find your work worthy of respect.
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am
Contact:

Re: UNMASKING 9/11

Unread post by reel.deal »

.
Last edited by reel.deal on Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: UNMASKING 9/11

Unread post by simonshack »

reel.deal wrote: now i'm REALLY confused!
anyone care to hazard a guess what plane hit what tower?
"look! 2 planes hit both 2 towers. the FOX5 FREEZE-FRAME PROVES IT!"

Dearest reel deal,

No need for confusion, our goal should be to clear things up (and expose the most obvious inconsistencies) with empirical/comparative analyses. I would suggest you take another good look at :
FOXED OUT part2 (starting at 3min 10sec) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9LURV-joLI

The frames with "2 planes" are from the official FOX5 archives. They appear in a goofy cross-fade that evidently occured as the perps attempted to 'fix' the NoseOut disaster. In this cross-fade, we see "plane A" of the original NoseOut shot blended with "plane B" of a new, "blue-scale shot" (seemingly shot by a camera from a different - more northernly - angle) most probably manufactured to replace the NoseOut cockup - and crudely superimposed on top of the latter:
Image


A few seconds later, the FOX5 archives switch to the original NoseOut shot once again ... this time leaving absolutely no doubt that it is, in fact, still featured in the official archives ! Also, as better demonstrated in FOXED OUT part2, the two fly-by objects "JIM and BOB" are dramatically out of synch - making the two shots totally inconsistent with each other (note that the short gif below starts after the preceding passage of "JIM" in the original NoseOut shot):
Image

I would appreciate if any further analyses of the 9/11 imagery take into account all previous, patient work already produced to bust this insane media hoax. This forum aims to be a place which offers clear, easily comprehensible evidence supported by equally unambiguous writings/captions/grammar/explanations. So yes, I second Fbenario's call for increased efforts on this front. Thanks.
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am
Contact:

Re: UNMASKING 9/11

Unread post by reel.deal »

.
Last edited by reel.deal on Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:38 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Dandy
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:25 pm
Contact:

Re: UNMASKING 9/11

Unread post by Dandy »

reel.deal - Without speaking out of turn as my post count is only slightly more than none, I was/am disturbed with your grovelling apology to Simon and tried hard to find some semblance of the sarcasm you alluded to but to no avail...
Why did you have to stoop so low with your sycophantic words? If we as forum members and (in principle) adherents of the septemberclues paradigm have no confidence to express opinions, theories and ideas, and even more worryingly express an acceptance to be censored and have threads removed this forum will surely wither and die as all content will be written by admin and other members will be reticent to post.

This should cheer you up! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4XXItJY ... r_embedded#!
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am
Contact:

Re: UNMASKING 9/11

Unread post by reel.deal »

.
Last edited by reel.deal on Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: UNMASKING 9/11

Unread post by simonshack »

Dandy wrote: (...) If we as forum members and (in principle) adherents of the septemberclues paradigm have no confidence to express opinions, theories and ideas, and even more worryingly express an acceptance to be censored and have threads removed this forum will surely wither and die as all content will be written by admin and other members will be reticent to post.
Dear Dandy,

I can see what you're saying. In this case, however, I was frankly just asking our hard-working member reel.deal to improve the written descriptions of his analyses - nothing more. You will hopefully share the wish of us admins to preserve the progress, clarity & continuity of this research - something which, surely, is well distinct from acting like narrow-minded censor-happy bullies. I believe the posts/threads we have closed/deleted are very few and far between and have always been limited to either one of these categories : 1- members attempting to stir up trouble/insider-fighting. 2- members posting zany/inarticulate/misleading material.

Admittedly, the second category may in some cases tread the fine line between the interpretation of what may only appear zany & misleading but may in fact lead to valid, alternative paths of research. If we are ever suspected of blocking potentially valid material, I ask you (and everyone else) to please let us know very loudly and keep us admins on edge.

But consider this: as you may know, reel.deal has spent lots of valuable time analyzing, among other 9/11 images, the "WTC Jumpers". Imagine if, one day, someone came up and said : "No, no, no: the images are REAL. What we see are in fact dummies launched from the WTC floors and captured with real cameras!" :rolleyes: Would you just leave such a claim unchallenged, and let latex dummies be discussed on the forum, in the name of 'free speech' and 'open mindedness'? Well, apparently, some "9/11 researchers" would...: http://letsrollforums.com/9-11-jumpers- ... 30p19.html

Image

The point is: I would not - and would certainly not feel bad about ejecting such monstrous tripe into oblivion - straight away.
fred
Banned
Posts: 592
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:43 pm
Contact:

Re: UNMASKING 9/11

Unread post by fred »

The vast majority of people saw 9/11 on TV, but the perps may have included some "eye candy" for the handful of actual live witnesses.

I would put latex dummies into the same bucket as smoke generators, "fly-by planes", missiles, and even some of the shills. Since the live action "eye candy" only has to be seen once, and from a great distance, there's no real need for it to be very good.

Obviously the perps have a props department that they use when they need to unveil some photographs of a jet engine part or landing gear, and they probably do use latex dummies for some of their "charred bodies" pictures (7/7, Madrid, Pentagon, etc.)

The videos, as everybody knows here already, are fake, and whether or not the perps included a couple of dummies in real life, the images we see of the whole 9/11 operation are completely fake. So trying to suggest that the videos are real images of dummies being ejected from the burning towers is kind of a stretch. It reminds me of Agent Sparks & Genghis & Hill's attempts to exonerate the fake photographers and video creators by claiming that Jennifer Spell filmed real images of a hologram crashing into the WTC.

While airplanes and latex dummies and holograms and fake blood are indeed used in psychological operations, they don't turn fake video into real video. A few confederates in "rescue worker" uniforms claiming to have seen all sorts of mangled bodies at the base of the towers is probably all that's needed to convince hundreds of live participants that there were indeed thousands of victims. No doubt any bodies rushed off to FEMA's "triage center" were either latex or extras. It's a little easier to keep your latex dummies from announcing that they're going back to acting school as soon as they get their check. :)

It wouldn't surprise me a bit if the perps had a couple of latex dummies loaded onto stretchers and ambulances to parade past the rank and file participants who don't know that they're part of a big psyop and military deception operation. The video's still fake.
XxCeltics34xX
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:02 am
Contact:

Re: UNMASKING 9/11

Unread post by XxCeltics34xX »

A few seconds later, the FOX5 archives switch to the original NoseOut shot once again ... this time leaving absolutely no doubt that it is, in fact, still featured in the official archives ! Also, as better demonstrated in FOXED OUT part2, the two fly-by objects "JIM and BOB" are dramatically out of synch - making the two shots totally inconsistent with each other (note that the short gif below starts after the preceding passage of "JIM" in the original NoseOut shot):
Image

I dont know if im the only one that saw this but at the end of the clip you can see "bob" on the bottom clip at the very end. its hard to see because of the shadow from the anchor screen on the left, but if you look very very close you can see it appear.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: UNMASKING 9/11

Unread post by simonshack »

XxCeltics34xX wrote: I dont know if im the only one that saw this but at the end of the clip you can see "bob" on the bottom clip at the very end. its hard to see because of the shadow from the anchor screen on the left, but if you look very very close you can see it appear.
Yes, of course it's Bob (emerging under that 'shadow') : we are looking at the exact same frames of the original NoseOut shot! I hope you (or anyone else) didn't miss the main point.

To clarify, in two phrases:
1: today's FOX archives actually contain brief sections of the original NoseOut shot ! (before and after impact)
2: Only the moment of impact has been covered-up by that replacement "blue-scale" animation.
Post Reply