“Darkness to Light”
I have been talking for a while about the “videographic” theories of 9/11 fakery, that convinced me about 4 years ago that 9/11 was largely a psy-op on this world.
Well, that whole story just got bigger. Something that everybody missed. Until now.
Let me begin by thanking the member here, who – when this blog started – asked me the “shake-up” question needed to begin a seriously scientific approach to 9/11. This is the question he asked.
“Did you see the planes hit the buildings?”
I waffled with a standard response of some kind, and he asked it again.
“Did you see the planes hit the buildings?”
It’s a very simple question, but it “puts us in our place”, by forcing us to remember that we accept ALL of the 9/11 narrative on authority, and not on evidence that we, ourselves, obtained. We accept both the evidence and its interpretation on authority.
We are not being scientific about it.
MAINTAIN SOME SKEPTICISM. IT’S OK.
Now I’m going to show you a new “piece” of the video hoax which I had not seen before, plus another one that has been already very damning to the official narrative. Both of them are explained in a short Twitter copy of a video.
A quick word of thanks to barkerjim for alerting me to this, and to The Burning Platform for getting out the word. And some commenter on TBP, named Hardscrabble Farmer, who submitted it.
This is one tweet for the ages. Watch it while it’s still up.
Here is my earlier response.
Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy
Online
Admin
Wolf
Reply to barkerjim
September 14, 2022 11:34
OK, this is excellent. The SECOND glitch is new and completely damning.
The “entry wound” is filled with errors. I saw a different video analysis of it which explains both the “slicing” problem described in this video, AND additional problems of the entry that are not described here. Beyond THOSE, I found my own problems with the entry, which I hold in reserve as nukes of my own, in order to prevent CIA from putting out “reactive disinformation”.
Notice how DHS has added 9/11 analysis to their “violent extremist” rhetoric. DOJ-NSD, CIA, and DNI (who basically run DHS) know that we know.
Now – as far as reactive disinformation, I can tell you this.
“They” (the whole gang) are VERY sensitive on South Tower fakery. They know they’re caught in multiple ways. They have put out a new “amateur video” in response to the actual amateur video without a plane. That video surfaced way late, and originally they covered it up by using shills to allege that it was a “plane removed” doctored video, but that response failed.
I’ve looked at the new fake amateur video long enough to figure out why it’s phony. They can’t actually “re-do” the bad entry, because any new videos will conflict with the old ones, so they are forced to include most of the same mistakes. IMO this video may have just been an old fake video that was kept in reserve and then freshened for re-release (there is a newer – IMO – cinematic video trick used).
Bottom line is that there is now 100% reasonable doubt. Thank you to Tonawanda for reminding us of that basic American judicial concept.
The jury is back. 9/11 Truth is winning. And THEY – all of them – are SKEEEERED BIGLY.
Here is the video without the plane, which I mentioned.
This video led me to other logical nukes which prove that the South Tower is a hoax. At first, they depended on this video, but then I realized that they don’t. It was in trying to validate this video that I found them.
I’m waiting for others to find them independently before I dump.
If you want to see some other posts done here about 9/11, the following list is useful. These are in reverse chronological order (most recent at the top).
9/11 Truth-Fest
(still from video, don’t click, see below!) I’ve spent a lot of time on Gab today, and I’m just blown away at the extent to which people are now ultra-red-pilled on 9/11. The amount of evidence pouring out is overwhelming. I’m seeing stuff I’ve NEVER seen before. Re-evaluating all of this evidence, knowing what we …
https://www.theqtree.com/2022/09/11/9-11-truth-fest/
For Whom The Bell Tolls
I leave this as an open question, although this thread is ultimately concerned with somebody named Barbara Olson, who died on 9/11. I believe that the method of Barbara’s murder is now demonstrated. Introduction The key to solving 9/11 is realizing that it was a CLINTON-centered operation which was launched AFTER the Clintons left the …
https://www.theqtree.com/2018/12/23/for-whom-the-bell-tolls/
Occam’s Razor, Tool of Deception
I was originally going to entitle this post something else – something cuter and more grandiose about “my life-long sword-fight with Occam’s razor“. Hence the opening image. However, that goal was WAY too big for a blog post. I could literally write a book on it. The fact is, I have MANY issues with Occam’s …
https://www.theqtree.com/2018/12/06/occams-razor-tool-of-deception/
Darkness to Light: Eckert’s Law
As I’ve said before in the VLWC series, we discover nothing new, but we do rediscover what has been hidden from us by time and craftier people. Over and over, the truth is hidden and revealed. Somewhere, a Soviet KGB analyst rediscovered this timeless principle, marveled at it, and filed it away for his next …
https://www.theqtree.com/2018/11/22/darkness-to-light-eckerts-law/
There was another post I was going to write, about my journey from 9/11 “true believer” to “scientific skeptic”, but never did.
Who knows? Maybe it’s still coming.
W
whoa…mind blown.
I suspected but couldn’t delve into the videos and stories. there were too many emergency personnel claiming they heard/saw explosions for this not to be real. but to finally see it.
thanks to both of you!!
You’re welcome.
Oh – the explosions were real! Very real. And the use of RDX explains the metal girders behaving in ways that Trump knew were impossible for a plane strike.
long ago, I watched a video presentation by a stewardess who picked apart the conversations the passengers were having with loved ones…i took notes because what she was saying then was chilling. but she mentioned an incidence where another plane’s wing being sheared off during a landing when they came too close to a metal fence, and she asked us to reconcile that with the planes hitting buildings…
Exactly. Airplanes are giant aluminum cans. They would crumple in an impact like that.
And I regularly STOMP aluminum cans FLAT…
Remember birds have very lightweight fragile bones so they are not too heavy to fly.
Here are just five of several similar bird strike photos.
Bird Makes Huge Dent Into Nose Of Boeing 737 Airplane |
&f=1&nofb=1
Bird strike leaves huge dent in passenger jet as it lands at Heathrow …
Pilot lands safely after bird strike destroys plane’s nose
?quality=90&strip=all
?w=1440
http://www.birdstrike.it/birdstrike/file/images/file/201510_img4.png
Yup.
EVEN at full plane speed – EVEN a 747 – EVEN full of fuel – the physics of the impact SHOULD have been completely different.
YES. There should have been MASSIVE exterior crumple. There should have been MASSIVE falling plane debris, easily identified DURING THE FALL.
There should have been mostly burn on one side of the building – highly asymmetrical. NOPE. They constructed a STORY to create the symmetricality they needed to drop the building.
THEY LIED.
GREAT points. If you find that again, or remember more about it, please post.
A stewardess’ insight into what happened will be VERY helpful. This could really help me figure out the “what happened to the planes” question.
The shearing off of wings is a real thing, and it’s very easy.
Nothing about the strike itself makes physical sense. The plane and the steel did not behave even remotely correctly.
Imagine firing a partially filled coke can can with a powerful “coke can gun” at a light iron grate.
The idea that the partially filled coke can cuts a hole in the grate is NONSENSE.
I remember at the time being told “But this has never happened before! A 747 has never hit the side of a building!”
That was the kind of “last resort” defense they had, but it worked at the time, because MOST PEOPLE BELIEVED.
They understood crowd psychology very well. VERY well.
The part that still makes my eyebrows rise, is the seismic graph info in one of the discussions. The buildings were 1000’s of tons of concrete and steel and yet didn’t make much of a seismic disturbance. Supposedly building 7 had all of the impact of a jack hammer.
what does that imply?
That most of the buildings somehow turned to dust. You can almost see it in some of the videos. The how is an issue.
I posted some of that in the first 911 post.
I have a good theory of that, which doesn’t require science fiction, space aliens, or advanced technology. AND it fits with everything known about the history of the building (filled with clandestine and cover operations done by contractors).
Basically it’s a theory of employing dustification as a demolition technique to minimize damage to surrounding structures, and to conceal evidence.
Normally in demolition, there are economic considerations that minimize the amount of explosives used, and there are no stealthy agendas that dictate how the explosives are used, so that the demolition looks like a normal demolition without worry. Rubble size is controlled – and that aspect remains key.
What if we simply take advantage of the brisant, pulverizing capability of RDX to “powder” the entire structure in the air, but hide the effect in the collapse itself?
I believe that in order to both destroy evidence and to minimize damage to nearby structures (which would have cost the owners a big chunk of their take), they used several times the normal amount of explosives, and distributed them in such a fashion that the building literally CRUMBLED as it fell. Using a highly brisant explosive like RDX, things were basically pulverized directly ahead of the main falling mass.
This also explains why the falling top block pulverized as it fell into the level of the plane strike. The entire thing, top to bottom, was “wired for detonation”, with the thousands of small explosions occurring inside a shield of dust and debris which basically hid any flashes behind an opaque mass of collapsing rubble.
There are SOME flashes that got through the dust – and this theory explains them easily.
Floor after floor was exploded to rubble ahead of the falling mass, joining in that dusty mass. It would look ALMOST like pancaking – EXCEPT that the rubble would be tiny and would encounter AIR RESISTANCE because of the huge increase in surface area.
The building would basically PUFF OUT and FLOAT DOWN after complete RDX pulverization.
I would not need ANYTHING fancy to do this. Just a way to distribute RDX throughout the structure, possibly as a kind of “det cord” strung throughout every floor, perhaps as part of some I.T. or infrastructure project.
We’re looking at a few hundred tons of RDX, processed into something like electrical wire, and laid throughout every floor, with enough resistance to detonation that it would not go off until the next floor up was pulverized and began to fall.
I am now very comfortable with a “complete demolition theory” of the towers, using fake plane strike explosives AND general explosive demolition.
Note that the latter would look LIKE a normal demolition, but somehow “off”, and could thus be explained as being “novel” and real, which I think was their generalized background defense. “Never happened before”, they cried.
IMO, the secret is simply the practical physics of explosives.
Wolf, I can tell you between the time of the ‘impacts’ of the ‘jets’ and the actual building ‘falls’. there was a lot of time. Maybe those films would be better to watch.
I know that at 1 PM was when we were let go from our office, and both towers had shred like salt prior. Was like a film to me.
PS, I had been privy witnessing to the implosion of the Alladin Casino
Again, I had a fifty yard line view of both…due North. And suddenly…no Tower 1 left, only sky…then 2 times…no Tower 2 left…now air and sky instead of buildings I had seen all my career. I had designed interiors of two floors in the South Tower and had friends working at WOW…all restaurant folks!
When you suddenly see sky, especially working for an architects’ office, it is a shock. Still embossed on my memory. We tend to look at buildings as permanent fixtures, yet we know that Jericho can come tumbling down.
That is maybe what you would want to watch…the very long aftermath in slow motion. We watched that day, and although I thought something was amiss, I did not pay enough attention to understand what I might be seeing.
I am still in contact with my colleague. Maybe I will have a chat with him!
Fascinating and disturbing.
Wolf, I worked as a design consultant on the Alladin Casino in Vegas years ago.
The owners were trying to save the building, yet for many reasons it was too large a footprint and possibly too many toxic materials to save.
One month after I stayed there with a team to assess the place and meet the owners, here is the implosion video.
At about 23 minutes you will see the implosion.
I would expect, there may be some signatures from each engineering firm that orchestrates this type of event. This one does have some flashes. It may be as easy to find a maintenance engineering firm attached to the Trade Towers. I saw no flash bangs when the Trade Center went down, yet, sleuthing may surface an entire history of groups responsible for tying them to whatever happened.
Very helpful.
The history of sketchy maintenance and engineering firms contracted by the owners, and conducting projects at the WTC just prior to the collapses, has been very well researched and is well understood by researchers. These contracted firms and teams had privileges above the regular staff, and many of the staff suspected their involvement after the collapses.
This video convinces me even more of my theory.
In the Aladdin collapse, charges were mostly internal, and occurred at support beams from top to bottom, allowing the entire structure to fall as one, with a bias toward the inside, while crumbling AT THE BOTTOM.
Crumbling at the bottom is the OPPOSITE of the Twin Towers collapses, where crumbling was enforced at the top of the collapse.
In the twin towers demolition, it is clear that instead of weakening the entirety at once, it was gradually weakened from top to bottom, with the weakening leading the “crushing debris wave” descending at a speed approaching free fall.
Simply add MORE explosives going off inside and just under the “rubble front”, and everything about the collapse is explained.
I don’t need nukes, space weapons, or exotic explanations. I simply need more explosives than normal, most likely several tons of C4 (RDX).
Wolf, Many Thanks for posting my first messages! Here is copy and paste of 9/11 report by Jack Kelley…to close the memorial of Our Lady of Sorrows
“”Unknown time apparently around 5:30 PM, Source-based Reporting
Jack Kelley: “Apparently, what appears to have happened is that at the same time two planes hit the building, that the FBI most likely thinks that there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the building which also exploded at the same time and brought both of them down.”
USA Today Anchor: “Now that’s the first time we’re hearing that. So two planes and explosives that were in the building, is that correct?”
Kelley: “That is the working theory at this point. That is still unconfirmed, but that is what the FBI is going on at this point.”
OK – this is good – it’s wrong, but it’s good, because it shows what people SUSPECTED but did not understand at the time.
People SUSPECTED a demolition aspect.
People SUSPECTED terrorists.
People did NOT suspect an inside job.
There had already been the failed explosion at the bottom, from the previous (and actual) terrorist attack, which Trump had access to afterwards, and which he understood. Trump’s comments about the first attack, after the second one, show that he understood the real strength of the tower.
An “elegant” collapse like either the Aladdin or the Twin Towers or Building 7 requires something that the first attack on WTC did not have – top-to-bottom explosives on the supports. But THAT requires an inside job.
Lower-level FBI may have tried to take a demolition collapse seriously, but there is no way they could have taken that theory to “inside job”.
Bomb at the bottom could NOT explain the top-down crumble. Some kind of “pancaking” comes close enough that it is likely to be the explanation that takes hold.
The demolition was highly intentional. “Follow the dust” to see the direction of the explosives being set off. Two ways – below the scar going down, and above the scar going up.
This is the SAFEST demolition, BTW.
The secret to making it look the way it did, was to NOT weaken all the supports quickly, BEFORE the collapse, but to weaken them more slowly, going down from the scar, WITH the collapse.
As for the planes, I’ll set that aside. Immaterial to the present question, although the idea of using explosives for the ‘scars’ fits well with this theory, because the same access is needed for both projects. But as for the collapse, I’m just going with the idea that it was a very brilliant demolition, designed to look “natural”, and in the process destroy all evidence.
PS – note that “top-to-bottom” explosives on the supports of the Aladdin does NOT imply the direction of the detonations of those explosives, which I believe was (very quickly) bottom to top, and all going off BEFORE the collapse began.
This makes the range of possibilities much clearer and plausible.
Wolf, I think your proposal is TOO COMPLEX. I have followed theqtree.com for a year…a “liker” rather than a lurker. The Port Authority committee that studied the 1993 bombing discovered that the towers had a structural weakness…that if the bomb had been put in a different basement location the whole building would have come down. As a result the basement parking area was closed. This was told to me in the autumn of 2000 by a member of the committee.
I don’t see anything complex about running off a few more tons of explosives than they used on the Aladdin! (800 pounds there, I think). 😉
The problem with a basement bomb is that it gives the wrong kind of collapse. That would have created far more rubble of the kind that was EXPECTED from a normal collapse, but which was not found in reality. A.k.a. “dustification”.
A basement bomb would have created something much more like that condo building in Florida. Much more “pancaking”.
See report of Jack Kelley about 5:30 pm on this page https://off-guardian.org/2020/09/14/36-msm-voices-reported-
Pre-ignited implosion. That has always been my understanding.
You’ve just reminded me posting about seismic graphs.
Wasn’t there one that showed a big bump/tremor/shock, whatever they call it, just *prior* to the plane hitting the building.
This is all I could find, beyond me though, need a scientist to understand it.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/RousseauVol34November2012.pdf
Yes – this is a HUGE CLUE. See my theory of it, which blends seamlessly into the rest.
Barkerjim’s observation and your theory fit like hand in glove. Wow.
Here is a bit more wolfie:
Seismic Evidence Implies Controlled Demolition on 9/11
(Care of Yandex & NOT DDG)
[QUOTE]
André Rousseau is a Doctor of Geophysics and Geology, a former researcher in the French National Center of Scientific Research (CNRS), who has published 50 papers on the relationships between the characteristics of progressive mechanical waves and geology.
Dr. Rousseau is an expert on measurement of acoustic waves.
Rousseau says that the seismic waves measured on September 11th proves that the 3 buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. Specifically, in a new scientific article published by the Journal of 9/11 Studies, Rosseau writes:
[UNQUOTE]
There si more at the link.
I haven’t got a link to it, but anyone else who saw it may remember it.
It was a continuous piece of film, I think perhaps taken from a helicopter.
First part was at low magnification showing a wide area of sky, think the building was in the shot, but no aircraft was visible in the sky.
Then it switched to a higher magnification, smaller area of sky in the picture, and showed an aircraft flying in towards the building.
So it went from no plane visible in a wide area of sky, then in the time it took for the cameraman to switch magnification, to a plane being in the picture.
Bingo! first try looking for it…
Were you looking for JUST the helicopter footage ?
OR the WHOLE VIDEO about “‘UNDENIABLE’ Truth” ?
(this is pushed like “Flat-Earth”, IMO)
The video I posted here is not the one I originally saw, but it’s about the the same thing. This guy breaks it all up and tries to explain it.
The one I originally saw was much simpler, it just showed the whole video and pointed out the implausibility of the plane not being in the wide shot and suddenly appearing in the close up.
That’s footage. What I saw was with my own eyes mile north, and there was something that looked like the size of a commercial jet hitting the second tower.
A few are their angles sum showing the approach (about 15 minutes):
In answer to your question, the search term I used was…
“911 no plane visible in wide angle shot”
Yes! This is the famous “Pinocchio’s nose” footage!
On September 11, 2001, two planes were flown into the World Trade Center in Manhattan..
I do not believe that those planes caused the damage that led to the collapses of the two towers (or WTC-7, for that matter).
==============================================================
On July 17, 1996, TWA flight 800 “exploded” just off of the South Shore of Long Island.
Despite numerous eyewitness’ testimony from people who had never met each other before, at various locations with a clear view of the crash site, and near identical description of the event from those eyewitnesses, the narrative was essentially for those individuals not to believe their lying eyes, nor for anyone else to believe them, while an “official story” was being crafted over the next decade, or so.
Now (since 9/11/01), a similar thing is happening.
One may be able to use modern technology to edit or create video. As technology improves over time, so do the skills of those who use that technology.
But they can NOT do the same for the eye.
The best they can do is “sleight of hand”, or manipulation of the mind, to make one believe that they either saw something that they didn’t, or that they didn’t see something that they did.
But when ones camera and ones eye sees and records the same thing, changing either the facts, or ones mind, becomes difficult, if not impossible.
And when it happens among multiple individuals, it is UNDENIABLE.
While I don’t even remember if cellphones were around in 1996, I assume if they were, they probably were not equipped with cameras, let alone video-capable cameras, and the part of Long Island where flight 800 happened is a regular working class neighborhood (i.e. not a “touristy” area); whereas in 2001, cell phones were in wide use, many of which were equipped with cameras and capable of recording video, and in lower Manhattan there is a high-density population, especially during normal working hours, and is also loaded with tourists with cameras.
MOST eyes were on the NORTH Tower after the FIRST plane hit, as the amount of smoke rolling off of it was MASSIVE.
THERE IS NO WAY TO DENY THE SECOND PLANE.
TOO MANY PEOPLE SAW IT. AND TOO MANY PEOPLE RECORDED WHAT THEY SAW IN STILL FRAMES AND VIDEO.
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.veIRYDk73mdJlPFLefCisQHaKS%26pid%3DApi&f=1
(for those thatsaid that they could not see the SECOND plane in the video that was posted by Wolf on 9/11, and again today, it is because the video was taken from the OTHER SIDE of the towers, near the bridges shown in the last graphic, in the lower part of the upper-right frame)
Gentilly, my dear friend, allow me to say, in all modesty: … B.S. …
This right here is actually an EXTREMELY indicting image.
I can explain this far easier with a deception, than I can with a real impact.
The trajectories of these objects are designed to support the deception, in my opinion. They are real trajectories, blown from the building as part of the plot.
And yeah, they’re the real parts. THAT’S EASY. If you think like the CIA.
What is happening here is a STATISTICAL VIOLATION OF NEWTONIAN PHYSICS.
They had to double down on the fake symmetry of the explosions, which necessitates the mental idea of the planes completely entering the structures. Thus, the distribution of debris is designed to prove overwhelming forward momentum through the building.
It’s a cunning abuse of physics, but it’s an abuse. Newton was a genius.
I’m not going to explain this completely. People need to figure it out for themselves. Some of you will get this quickly. Others may take some time.
This matches PERFECTLY with the fake video trickery.
Exactly. For the landing gear to follow those trajectories, almost half of the plane would have had to penetrate the opposite side of the building.
That’s actually a good point I had not realized. I found the trajectories indicting for reasons OTHER than the individual trajectories – I was concerned with the spectrum of debris trajectories around the building (which is a part of the entire “entry is phony as hell” phenomenon).
But you are right – those individual trajectories are unreasonable for reasons of physics of a collision and fire – but they are NOT unreasonable for the physics of a detonating explosion.
But they *seem* reasonable for the alleged scenario of “full plane entry and gas/air explosion”.
IN FACT, I can use the Oklahoma bombing as an example. In that case, even from a ground burst, the axle of the vehicle was thrown several blocks. A collision could not do that – but an *ACTUAL* explosion can.
BOOM! We have MORE evidence of a detonating explosion.
Here’s another video for you…
(8 1/2 minutes; roar of the second planes engines just before impact starts at approximately three minutes and 40 seconds):
(EDIT: link to site where I took this video from):
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/09/11/911_foia_videos_street_level_footage_aerial_shots_viewer_warning.html#!
Yup. I don’t buy that entry one bit. Violates all sorts of physics.
I cannot say for sure that the people who took the video are part of the plot, but the plane entry into the building is fake, IMO.
Any explanation by which the camera crew are innocent has to involve them not seeing the plane until later review. If they claim to have seen the plane enter, then IMO they’re either liars, or were somehow convinced of a falsehood.
This film, by the way, has also been analyzed by the videographic people, and there are artifacts of the entry that are quite convincing to me that it was forged, but I don’t even need to go to those results.
The physics is wrong. It’s impossible. It’s compelling in a Hollywood way, but it’s not right.
Hollywood trained us to accept this shit. It worked on me – for a long time – but no more.
Yes… When I referred to the plane being flown INTO the building, I do not for a second think that it sliced through like a hot knife through butter.
But I would not dismiss the possibility of doing at least some damage to some of the steel (from impact), and absolutely through the “holes” in the structure (essentially like the center “hole” in a tic-tac-toe board with multiple tic-tac-toe boards fastened together to make a grid structure). Kind of like ramming something through a die.
I was trying to research this a bit and I came across a site with an article that featured the initial “no-plane video” that you posted on both the 9/11 post and this post (although I cannot play the video from that site).
The article is awkwardly titled :
“Fact Check: Video Does NOT Prove No Planes Were Involved In 9/11 Attacks — There Are Other Angles, Images, Videos”
Fact Check
May 16, 2022 by: Ed Payne
(seems it came from a Facebook post on May 11, 2022):
It includes short bio on author Ed Payne (CNN PLUS his tech skills) :
Ed Payne is a staff writer at Lead Stories. He is an Emmy Award-winning journalist as part of CNN’s coverage of 9/11. Ed worked at CNN for nearly 24 years with the CNN Radio Network and CNN Digital. Most recently, he was a Digital Senior Producer for Gray Television’s Digital Content Center, the company’s digital news hub for 100+ TV stations. Ed also worked as a writer and editor for WebMD. In addition to his journalistic endeavors, Ed is the author of two children’s book series: “The Daily Rounds of a Hound” and “Vail’s Tales.”
And a couple of videos including this (15 minutes; several show the plane):
SO… I guess between “FAKEbook”, CNN, Ed Payne and his digital editing capabilities, and considering that the YouTube video is still available, as is the entire article on the site that I linked, it SCREAMS “FAKERY !”.
If I could only reconcile all of that with the eyewitness testimony I would be able to put it to bed… But, alas, it was not to be !
(Oops ! Would help to include the link !):
https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2022/05/fact-check-video-does-not-prove-no-planes-were-involved-in-911.html
If it was taken from the opposite side, why did we suddenly see the hole in the building that the plane supposedly went through?
That’s what I was about to ask.
Just to be sure we are on the same page:
THIS video (which Wolf posted on 9/11, and again here):
911_Second_Tower_No_Plane_Camcorder_Video.mp4
(FYI: WTC-1 is the NORTH tower. It is the one with the large antenna on top; WTC-2 is the SOUTH tower)
was taken from the Lower East Side of Manhattan (the person taking the video is moving in a SOUTHERLY direction).
The location is seen HERE (near where there are TWO “bridges” shown, going between Brooklyn and Manhattans “Lower East Side” (“LES”):
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.veIRYDk73mdJlPFLefCisQHaKS%26pid%3DApi&f=1
(Sorry about the link… click to open…)
Look at the frame in the upper right of the graphic.
At the bottom of THAT FRAME ALONE is TWO BRIDGES, connecting Brooklyn to LES (Manhattan).
In the video, you can see the railings on the Manhattan side of the bridge (to the left of the screen).
If you draw a line THROUGH the site of the Twin Towers,
you will see the DIRECTION that the SECOND plane CAME FROM (compare to “Directional Arrows in all the graphics).
THAT is why you can’t see the second plane in THAT video.
As far as the “hole” that appears… I don’t know…
(See my reply to TheseTruths below)
Assuming you’re talking about the “no plane video”, the key to understanding is that it was NOT taken from the “opposite side” of the alleged strike – it was taken at ALMOST a perfect right angle. It has a perfect side-view of the approach, except for the phony entry that should be a collision.
Briefly, the alleged paths of the planes were “from the North, on the North face of the North tower, and from the South on the South face of the South Tower.
This still and many like it SHOULD show the approaching plane.
The “most-facing” faces of the two towers are the EAST faces of both buildings in this frame. The South face of the South tower is just around the corner in the left of the picture. The ENTIRE approach to the South face is easily in view.
The no-plane video was taken from the East-East-North-East (meaning slightly North of East) looking West-West-South-West. It has, except at the very end, an unobstructed view of the approach from the South. It EVEN has an unobstructed view of almost all Western approaches, just in case they have to change the story to get around the fact that the Southern approach is naked from that point of view. The actual alleged approach was from the South-South-South-West (barely off of South), although – and this is actually kind of fun – the various alleged videos of the South approach of the plane don’t actually agree on the approach.
Yeah. It’s THAT bad.
I spent a LOT of time looking at these videos. My first explanation was that the flight path must be obscured by the buildings.
NOPE. Absolutely not. Should be visible in this video.
It’s a CROCK. The whole thing is a CROCK. We were duped by people who understood human psychology to the level of weaponization.
People who understand that psychology trumps the very practice of science.
Welcome to your global warming. If it wasn’t that, it would be something else.
Wolf. I have been trying to find a video I saw several years ago and have not been successful.
The video explained (in intricate detail) eyewitness sightings of the planes. The video showed that what eyewitnesses saw were holograms.
In fact (IIRC) it showed the flight path of tracking planes/objects located in precisely the correct location to project the holograms. The tracking data (again IIRC) was taken from more than one such record. Maybe this is all too fantastic. But it is why I told Singingsoul about my two friends with personal knowledge of technology existing years/decades before it was known by the public. In fact, one of these guys said he saw stuff in the 60’s which was unknown to the public until after 2000.
This is all over my head. But this is also why in response to Singingsoul I suggested that the issue was about CGI, meaning (to me) holograms. And the video I saw suggested that the technology was extant but not known publicly (and I am guessing still not known, if it exists).
Not relevant but interesting, you can see why the evil people would want to use unknown technology to magically fool the little people. Use the magic while it is still unknown how the magic works.
I see now I was confusing the hologram video with the quite different issue of bogus video, and apologize for the confusion.
The bogus video issue seems to be presented as requiring no valid eyewitness accounts. Again, I have no idea what I am talking about, except to the extent of recognizing a possible reconciliation. Witnesses saw something, not planes but images of planes.
Thanks! A very interesting contribution, and I will both keep that theory in active rotation, AND look for any videos or articles about it.
Like I said, the CIA studies MAGICIANS, and has them on their payroll. Since the late 1940s.
David Copperfield was able to “appear” and “disappear” airplanes, correct? And like I said, he’s after the 1940s. AND he’s compromised – by his penchant for culling hotties out of his audience for “personal meetings”.
Many things are possible.
Might this be it ? :
John Lear : Holograms Used in 911By Kerry CassidyMarch 7, 2014
https://projectcamelotportal.com/2014/03/07/john-lear-holograms-used-in-911/
(I did not read this, but the word “HOLOGRAM” caught my eye while I was looking for something else !)
😉
Thanks! Will check it out later! (Yeah, I hear you! 9/11 is moving to my back burner because of the latest clot shot news.)
TY so much. That is the idea I was talking about. The video in the article has been taken down by YT.
I spent a long time looking for the video on several search engines and cannot find it.
IIRC it was 45 minutes or so, and VERY detailed. It included flight tracking data from actual sources (more than one). It also included the information Lear talks about in this article, that it was impossible for the plane to be going as fast as it was.
There are a bunch of search results which include “hologram,” but none I found were detailed or very long.
YW !
I still do not see anything here that mimics what I saw due North from the windows of my office’s conference room at 24th and 7th Ave. 23rd Floor. Perfect, unobstructed view from the North.
I did see a fuselage with two wings rounding around the South Tower. It was not a missile, as far as I could see. It was the shape of a commercial jetliner. The second building to be hit that day…and then the ‘jet turned North to hit the south side of that building.
The jet or whatever it was, made a turn North. Apparently to create more damage, both ‘projectiles’ penetrated on opposite sides.
I did NOT see the impact on the South side of the second tower, but did see the explosion at that floor level on the north side of THAT building.
I do believe that watching both buildings come down looked like a classic implosion, however we were always told the pair of buildings were designed to come down in an orderly fashion if ever in distress. What that has to do with a horizontal severing of a jet, I have no idea.
And I still cannot reconcile the strength of metals against impact, speed and force. Never have a seen a modeling of the events.
The third building coming down that evening is just bizarre.
May I also add that the wind direction from North to South for at least three weeks was Divine Intervention.
New York weather normally does not have that extreme N to S direction…and it took the caustic toxins away from humanity on the island for quite a bit of time. Will never forget that.
We only started smelling metallic, rather sickening aromas of the metal about a month and a half afterward as the fires were being alleviated.
What a Godsend.
Thanks for that insight!
Here is the same thing you saw, but from about 80 degrees to your left.
The East and North fireballs were the most massive on the South tower – you saw the North fireball straight on, and the East Fireball in profile – this picture is the same thing in reverse – East facing, North in profile.
These fireballs got substantially bigger, but I wanted to pick this frame for Aubergine.
The two swiftly moving objects that Aubergine saw, are shown here, silhouetted against the East face of the North tower. They do NOT originate in the explosion, but are moving slightly up and to the right, and are visible in a series of frames of the video.
IMO they are either birds, an optical reflection phenomenon from a nearby moving object, or small “triangle craft” watching the explosions (just to throw in all the possibilities). I have spotted reflection UFOs in my vehicle, and figured out how they appeared, so I tend to think that may be what’s going on. Birds are also a good candidate, since another bird is clearly visible later.
You might be able to find close to what you were looking for somewhere in this 15 minute video:
Most people have probably figured this out already, but I just figured this out today.
The story about the terrorists going to flight school and asking just to learn takeoffs and NOT landings, is a clever psy-op. Supposedly, the FBI was informed but never followed up. And the Patriot Act needed to be passed because the FBI and CIA were not sharing information and thus the towers came down.
I completely believe that the terrorist actors went to flight school and acted bizarrely. So bizarrely, in fact, that no terrorist would engage in the intensely stupid betrayal of their intentions unless they wanted to be “discovered.” (And isn’t it amazing, what an immediately satisfying feeling of intellectual superiority there is in figuring out instantaneously how stupid those stupid terrorists were?)
The flight school owner knew right away that “something” was up, and told the FBI. But the dumb FBI never looked into it properly. Gosh o’golly! Dumb, dumb FBI, we are all smarter than YOU, and we would have looked into it!
But what is the totally 100% accepted, unquestioned premise? This: that these guys were in fact terrorists on a mission from OBL, who was totally responsible for these deeds which evaded our national security. The terrorists made a real stupid mistake, the FBI made a really stupid mistake, mistakes which our brilliant selves would never make when it comes to dastardly terrorists who are totally responsible!
Here is another psy-op which I have seen our side fall for every single time. Stupidly fall for:
https://nypost.com/2022/09/14/nikki-haley-i-wont-stand-for-liberal-intimidation-from-tish-james/?token=b02be9f7e7ad4d32a99a85060da7b6f1
Here is how this psy-op works, and has always worked. A fake, phony “conservative” or “Republican” is treated unfairly and unjustly by a leftist or the left or the media. The “unfairly and unjustly” part are true. Our side, knowing how unfair and unjust leftists are to our side, spring to the defense of the bogus liar. And in the process, the bogus liar is deemed BY US to be on our side.
Look at the comments to the Post article. Success for the psy-op! Look at her bravely standing up to our enemies! Meanwhile, the truth about Haley is erased.
A variation on this psy-op was pulled by Bush with “compassionate conservative.” The intense debate was about his use of the word “compassionate” (“conservatism IS inherently compassionate!” — how dare he?) when in reality this was Bush getting our side to implicitly accept that he was a conservative, just using the wrong tactic.
Brainwashing, psychological manipulation, bully tactics. The Awakening cannot be finished soon enough.
Great points.
Oh, the neo”cons” can’t WAIT to get Haley into the White House! GWB in a skirt.
Taking bets on her first false flag and endless war now……..
Seen on Gab…may be accurate…or not…
https://gab.com/DerekAlexander/posts/108931161421755910
Very disturbing in its very obviousness.
Agreed!
from Gab
No Plane, or Titanium Parts which do not burn found at Pentagon, what I see is a vechicle headwin at the Pentagon seconds before the explosion.
https://gab.com/RealIceman/posts/108935091903494228
Replying to this gab:
[video src="https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/114/919/971/playable/53a730311c5366d2.mp4" /]
@DarrelTrump
Sep 2
·
If 9/11 was a lie by the Government and it kill thousands of people and if you take into consideration of the wars that stem from it millions of people, just think what Operation Warp Speed effects on the number that is going to die. Your Government is your enemy.
చհìէҽ འąҍҍìէ
@White__Rabbit
Sep 2
·
I’m sure those planes hit lol https://gab.com/emoji/1f606.svg that's like saying Biden is the real president
https://gab.com/DarrelTrump/posts/108931251329644313
From “The dancing Israelis” video, at about the 6:10 mark, is a “wide angle view” of the SECOND PLANE:
From “The 911 ConspiracyTheory Explained in Under Five Minutes” video: starting at the 2:15 mark, WHY DID George W. Bush, when making a statement about flying planes into buildings, make a motion with his right hand like he was throwing a PAPER AIRPLANE ?