CGI collapse footage

It has taken less than 10 years to pry open the can of worms enshrouding the pathetic 9/11 scam. The central role of the major newsmedia corporations to pull off this sordid "terror" simulation has now been comprehensively exposed. Before joining this forum, please get familiar with the research at: http://www.septemberclues.info

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby daozen on October 9th, 2013, 6:16 am

simonshack wrote:*

ANOTHER MAGIC ZOOM-IN (NBC outfoxes CNN!)

You may have noticed (in the above NBC clip) how the WTC antenna behaves as the collapse initiates. Compare it to this other shot (credited to a French filmmaker, "Etienne Sauret") purportedly shot from some NY highrise building :

WTC1 collapse initiation (NBC) _________________WTC1 collapse initiation (Etienne Sauret)

ImageImage


I recently watched a documentary on the chemist Sasha Shulgin, known as the father of MDMA. A seemingly legit and honorable person.

It was a beautiful 90 minutes, I liked the directing even if it was cheesy at times, so I wanted to know who it was and I read Etiene Sauret. So, are these hoaxters still kicking around? Maybe they will share some insight on 9/11 someday...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyohGITG0wA
daozen
Member
 
Posts: 179
Joined: September 13th, 2011, 5:12 pm

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby simonshack on October 31st, 2013, 7:57 pm

*


RED ALERT: Cluesforum soon to be 'nuuked' :lol: Image

Run for your H-bomb shelters, folks! Stock food and supplies! Our shady 'CIA/Mossad pure disinfo forum' :P is soon to be particle bombed!

The 'War Declaration' comes from the 'HOLONUKE' crowd - as I will henceforth call it - headed by Prof. Fetzer at his "Real Deal" truth fortress. Having recently concluded that it is beyond doubt and logic that holograms were used on 9/11 (to simulate the plane crashes), they have now "established beyond reasonable doubt"(sic) that 'mini-nukes' were used to bring down the towers...

Their next target - it seems - is to wipe off the map/annihilate our research - which they unimaginatively denounce as 'clueless'. The written 'threat' prefiguring our impending doom is signed by one "Don Fox", who is apparently one of the "NUKES-DID-IT" proponents :

DON August 13, 2013 at 2:10 AM
"The September Clues guys are completely clueless. Pure disinfo. The Towers as well as Buildings 6 and 7 were nuked. How do 2 500,000 ton buildings get converted into a fine dust powder in less than 30 seconds? The temperatures at Ground Zero were between 600 and 2,000 °F for 6 months after 9/11. Read Mystery Solved for a mountain of nuke evidence.

Over 1,000 people completely vaporized and First Responders dying of cancer left and right. And the whole thing was done without anyone getting hurt? What a load of CIA/Mossad BS!

I think September Clues is the last 9/11 myth to destroy. We've destroyed the nanothermite, DEWs and jet fuel myths. My next 9/11 article will dismantle the Simon Shack and OBF BS once and for all. Look for that sometime this fall/winter after I finish a couple of personal projects."

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.it/2013/07/ ... -king.html


So let's look out for that, folks(I personally can't wait) - and remember to wear your anti-radiation suits & dark googles!
Oh, and aren't you FECKING TERRIFIED now? ^_^ viewtopic.php?f=28&t=452&start=315
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6405
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby brianv on October 31st, 2013, 8:51 pm

Erm, how come they haven't destroyed it, the last 9/11 myth, already? :wacko:

How are they going to magic up 3000 victims? This I gotta see!

As I've always said it doesn't matter a fcuk HOW the towers came down, we know it wasn't 19 Arabs and we know NOBODY died.

So Government and Media are to blame whatever.
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3914
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby antipodean on November 1st, 2013, 7:32 am

I got a bit tired of the Nuke debate whether the threat exists or not. But if something was nuked doesn't that = nuclear/ radiation fall out lasting thousands of years, you can't have it both ways.
Or do 'mini nukes' leave no dangerous residue ?
antipodean
Member
 
Posts: 578
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 2:53 am

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby simonshack on November 26th, 2013, 12:08 am

*


HOW EXACTLY WERE THE TOWERS DEMOLISHED?
Trusty ol' fashioned dynamite charges, perchance?



We have now demonstrated on this forum (in every imaginable manner) that ALL the 9/11 imagery depicting the crucial events of the day were fake - and that includes the tower collapse imagery. In all logic, since the primary objective of the 9/11 psyop was to bring down the entire WTC complex - 9 buildings in all (and blame it on a bunch of muslim suicide-terrorists hijacking airplanes), the planners of this media-supported hoax would NOT have run the foolish risk to show the ACTUAL collapses on live TV, for the whole world to see. Common sense dictates that, since the perps could rely on the news networks airing fake imagery, they would have used this asset to its full potential.

Yet, there are still some 9/11 researchers (whether trolls or honest truth-seekers) proposing that the twin towers MUST have been brought down with some Super-Special explosives, such as "nano-thermite", "mini-nukes" or "directed energy weapons". On this forum, we are now familiar with the main proponents of such exotic and largely untested demolition methods: Steven Jones, Richard Gage, Judy Wood, Jim Fetzer, Dimitri Khalezov - and a few other clowns. All of them are, in my mind, obviously protecting the media networks' role on 9/11 : they've all reached their conclusions by staring at the available tower collapse imagery shown on TV (and by alleged "amateur cameramen")- which we have now proven to be totally fraudulent. All of them.

The problem for most people is, of course, to get to terms with the fact that what we saw on TV was NOT the actual collapses of the towers. It stands to reason that the 9/11 psyop planners perps would have used the oldest, simplest and most foolproof trick to hide the proceedings: to engulf the WTC complex area in military-grade smoke obscurants BEFORE the start of the demolitions. Yet this most logical of all schemes seems to be, oddly enough, a tough thing for people to wrap their minds around. Instead, we have had twelve years (on all sorts of "9/11 truth" forums) of incessant bickering about the EXACT TYPE of explosives used to bring down those tall, steel-framed towers. Endless circular debates about this ultimately irrelevant issue has monopolized the attention, the time, the efforts and the intellectual resources of scores of well-meaning truth seekers - and we now know that the largest and best-funded "truther" organization, namely 'Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth', was set up to achieve just that: to bamboozle everyone with a million 'scientific' theories.

I mean, come on: those "A&E for 9/11 truth" people do not even question the inane, official NIST data which has Tower 2 and Tower 1 collapsing in "9 and 11 seconds", respectively... Can anyone with a working brain buy this in-your-face insult of everyone's intelligence? Tower 2 and Tower 1 collapsing in 9 and 11 seconds? Really? Well, PLEASE KNOW that this is what the official NIST report states - no kidding, folks - look it up for yourself! Yes, NIST tells us that the two towers collapsed in 9 and 11 seconds !

So all I wish to say is: enough is enough. Let us stop giving the benefit of doubt to the above-mentioned clowns, blatantly recruited to waste everyone's time. Let's get REAL now, folks. And to those still wondering EXACTLY HOW the towers were brought down, I will simply ask: have you ever heard of dynamite? You know, that handy explosive invented by my fellow countryman Alfred Nobel? (Yeah, that 'genius' arms manufacturer after which the Nobel Peace Prize was named...) Do you know that ALL building demolitions in the world have used dynamite - for many decades now - and that it is the most universally tested and reliable method employed to demolish buildings with? Why on Earth would the 9/11 perps use any other, untested method to bring down the WTC?

To those still on the fence about conventional, ultra-reliable demolition methods being employed on 9/11, here's my question: what's your problem? Do you think that dynamite couldn't make the WTC towers collapse? That this demolition technology wasn't up to the job, in 2001? Were the towers too tall for that? Well, think again: here's what the Loizeaux Controlled Demolition company achieved - back in 1977:

Image

Hey, the Biltmore Hotel even looks like it collapses top down - (dynamite charges were evidently put in the upper floors). So much for those naysayers retorting that "Duh! If they'd animated the 9/11 collapse images, they would have made more realistic-looking collapse videos"...


SELECTED ARTICLES ABOUT THE BILTMORE HOTEL DEMOLITION:

"When it fell, the 245-ft-high structure became the tallest steel-frame building to be demolished with explosives. But none presented the problems that the Biltmore did. "It’ s the heaviest steel we’ve ever worked on," says Mark Loizeaux, of Controlled Demolition, Inc. "Because of the thickness of the steel, a single charge wouldn't penetrate completely through," he says. “We had to attack a single 3-in.-thick stem plate from both sides."
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/biltmore-hotel

"The Biltmore was thirty-three stories high and was heralded as the state's tallest building. On October 16, 1977 the Hotel Biltmore was demolished by a team of demolition specialists. Hundreds of low-yield explosives were planted throughout the building so that it would collapse and fall inward into an acceptable area only slightly larger than the hotel's foundation. The purpose was both to break the materials into smaller pieces that would be easily transported away, and to contain the blast and debris within the area, in order to minimize damage to surrounding structures. The razing was recorded by hundreds of camera buffs.'"
http://www.okhistory.org/research/hmres ... ion=Search

"The Biltmore was certainly the largest building to fall during the Urban Renewal era. The explosion that took down the 26-story, 600-room hotel in 1977 was televised across the country, so certainly it made an impression."
http://newsok.com/looking-back-at-the-b ... le/3470180

"The building is enormous. It is concrete. It is full of steel. It reaches many stories into the turquoise sky. All around it is a teeming city. There is traffic in the streets. Huge and delicate office suites of glass and steel are right next door. And nearly a million people live nearby. Yet the building is decaying. It is abandoned and crumbling. Police have had to remove squatters several times. It is a danger to the city, and must be removed. But how to do so without creating even more of a threat? There is a sound of sirens, then a deep, almost subliminal explosion. And slowly, almost gracefully, the building seems to melt into itself. The glass suites are unharmed. The traffic hurries on. The million people barely notice".
http://www.cgw.com/Publications/CGW/200 ... ction.aspx


So this 33-story Hotel was neatly demolished in 1977 - with conventional dynamite explosives. Does anyone still contend that the 110-story WTC towers were IMPOSSIBLE to demolish with the very same / yet much perfected methods in 2001 - twenty-four years later? I sincerely hope we can finally get over this endless and tiresome debate.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6405
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby simonshack on November 26th, 2013, 3:00 am

*

Oh boy! :)

We really have to be grateful for still being able to freely communicate over the internet. Technology isn't bad - as long as it's used by good people!


My above post has been made into a short video - by my Canadian friend Abirato, aka Tim - the Fakeologist!

Here it is:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h-oHFx4GMQ
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6405
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby antipodean on November 28th, 2013, 10:54 am

I've just come across this old post over at Lets Roll, amazing how unnoticed it is..
It's interesting how sharp minds back in those days unaware that the 9/11 image pool was all faked, just couldn't quite nail it.

http://letsrollforums.com/biltmore-hote ... t1911.html

I got this off deprogram.info, the site connected to Stanley Hilton (although not his site).

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)*is lying about the "controlled progressive collapses" of the Twin Towers:

The "controlled progressive collapses" of the Twin Towers were not the work of Al-Qaeda. They were most likely the work of Controlled*Demolition Incorporated (CDI), with*assistance from individuals working for*World Trade Center security firms*Kroll*&*Associates and Stratasec.**


"Controlled Progressive Collapse"

According to an article about Controlled Demolition Inc.'s "controlled progressive collapse" of the Biltmore Hotel in*McGraw-Hill's Construction Weekly on October 20, 1977, " When it fell, the 245-ft-high structure became the tallest steel-framed building to be demolished with explosives." This demolition is visually very similar to the "collapses" of both the North and South Towers of the World Trade Center.

The Twin Towers were 110 stories high each and were also extremely strong steel framed structures. It is a matter of public record that*Controlled Demolition, Inc. was hired to dispose of the remains of the Twin Towers and that*CDI (Controlled Demolition, Inc.) is the*world's leader in controlled demolition.*It is also a matter of public record that CDI did the demolition and cleanup of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City after the tragic multiple bomb*bombing of that building in 1995. In the case of the Murrah Federal Building, the rubble was taken to an isolated spot in the desert, buried, and surrounded by fencing and security guards.

Since the controlled demolition of the Biltmore Hotel, so strongly resembles that of each of the Twin Towers and since the Biltmore Hotel was made*of similar construction materials as those used in the construction of the Twin Towers it may be useful to examine how the Biltmore was demolished.

The 1977 article goes on to say, "CDI placed 991 seperate charges, about 800 lbs. of explosives in all, on seven floors from the basement to the 14th*floor and detonated them over a five-second* interval. CDI's detonation sequence aimed to drop the building in a southerly direction in what is called a controlled*progressive collapse in order to lay out the demolished structure to ease removal of debris."

Controlled Demolition of the World Trade Center

The tower that was hit second collapsed first, that is, the South Tower was progressively demolished 56 minutes after flight 175 was flown into it's corner, while the North Tower was progressively collapsed 1 hour and 44 minutes after being hit directly by flight 11. The fire in the North Tower, which is alleged to have lead to*it's collapse in whole or in part, was more intense than in the South Tower*for which*fire was also alleged to have been the*cause or one of the causes of*collapse.

Neither jet fuel nor office furniture and building materials could have produced temperatures high enough (1538oC, i.e. 2800oF) to melt or collapse*the massive steel beams and trusses*in the World Trade Center towers. Especially strong were the enormous core-columns*in the center of the*towers near the elavator shafts.*Fire has never in history*caused the collapse of a steel-framed building and there have been many*fires in steel framed buildings that were much more intense and which burned much longer than those in the Twin Towers. Fire did not*and could not have*caused the Twin Towers or any other building's concrete to*spontaneously explode into a fine powder nor could fire have*caused steel beams to be*broken and propelled hundreds of feets horizontally.

Since the fire theory was exposed as laugh-out-loud stupid another pseudo-explanation has emerged. Now we are being told that perhaps a combination of the impact of the airplanes, the fires, and the incompetence of the architecture of the Twin Towers lead to their demise. There are*a number of*huge problems with this idiotic explanation.

1. The World Trade Center was made with some of the largest, strongest fire-retardant steel beams of any building in history.

2. If the Twin Towers had collapsed due to unsemetrical impact and unsemetrical fires then the collapses of the Twin Towers would not have been semetrical they would have been messy, partial, incomplete, and much more dangerous to people, structures, and equiptment*in the surrounding area as they would have either sheared off vertically or buckled and toppled onto the surrounding buildings and people. Instead they collapsed completely and vertically, aside from the*fractured steel and other solid debris*that was propelled, at*high speeds,*horizontally, hundreds of feet in all directions*and the huge clouds of powderized concrete which were propelled thousands of feet in all directions, down the streets and avenues of Lower Manhatten.

3. As anyone can plainly see from any and all photos*and/or*videos of the destruction of the World Trade Center, the Twin Towers did not*fall apart and fall down they each*exploded in a progressive wave from their upper floors and near their impact zones downward toward their basements.

4. World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed in the manner of a conventional implosion style controlled demolition at 5:20 PM on September 11th 2001. Building 7*was also a steel-framed building bringing the number of steel-framed buildings that have collapsed allegedly due to fire to a grand total of three. That's*only three*steel-framed buildings that have allegedly*collapsed*due to fire*throughout history and they all collapsed on the same day in the same part of town in the same city. Are you really stupid enough to believe that that is even remotely possible?

5. The Twin Towers each fell at roughly the rate of free fall. That is, they each fell at about the same speed that an object would if it were dropped from the roof of either of the Twin Towers. In the case of each Twin Tower, within 15 seconds*there was nothing left to collapse.*They fell as though there were no*floors below the collapsing section*to "pancake" onto, as though there was*no resistance to the progressive collapse, but air. The only way this is possible is if the floors were destroyed progressively before the mass above them could meet their resistance. A "controlled progressive collapse" similar to the one used by CDI to destroy the Biltmore Hotel best explains the lack of any resistance to the force of gravity.

6. Seismographs show "spikes" or "mini earthquakes" at the beginnings of each of the Twin Towers' collapses, but not at the end when the rubble hit the ground.*It is logical that there were no*"spikes" at the end of the collapses*as steel beams alone probably*would not shake the earth enough to significantly register on a seismograph. Also,*since everything but the steel had been blown to bits and most of the concrete was now a fine atomized dust there probably was nothing else that could have caused a "mini earthquake" at the end of the fifteen second collapse intervals. However, it is also perfectly logical that there would be "spikes" on the seismographs at the beginning of each tower's collapse*due to the detonation of explosives.*

7. A number of office workers, firemen, and people in the surrounding area are on record that they heard bombs going off before and during the collapses.


If memory serves me correctly after we were treated to seeing the towers collapse on our Television sets, it was followed by all these dust clouds chasing hordes of people down the streets of Manhattan.

Someone I met recently said that on a recent trip to GZ, they couldn't work out exactly where all the people that were running from the dust clouds, were actually running to.

When the dust cloud footage was aired on TV may have been when the Towers were engulfed in smoke and detonated.
The stumbling block here is the time frame between the 2 towers collapsing as shown on television.

I think it was Reichstag Fireman who posted on here about the possibility of TV coverage being blacked out in New York during show time. As well as maybe all the phone lines being down, somebody in New York gets a call saying "hey I've just seen the South Tower collapse on TV" " how can that be it's still standing" (Hang on that scenario sounds familiar)

The Perps certainly had to work hard to get every thing coordinated.
It would be handy to know the actual collapse time of the Towers.
antipodean
Member
 
Posts: 578
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 2:53 am

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby hoi.polloi on November 28th, 2013, 12:35 pm

Nice post, antipodean. Diggin' it.

Simon, thanks for the warning that we are about to be nuked with hydrogen bombs for not believing there is adequate proof of a particular demolition method on 9/11. In particular, we are being targeted for insisting on evidence that is completely upheld without the use of fabricated simulations, computer animation or composited counterfeit "news" and fake "amateur video" pitched as 'reality'. I will make sure to get those special, uh, anti-radiation sunglasses for when Fetzer's shit hits the fan.

Wait. As a result of maintaining scientific skepticism, we are "disinfo"? How can a lack of information be considered disinformation? Are we personally responsible for doing the impossible and suppressing the entire 9/11 truther parade that's been going on non-stop since the very day? How many of our users and readers are even touching the Hutchison crowd? If they are really equipped with irrefutable facts as Fetzer claims, then there's nothing we can do to make them disappear. If they have nothing, there is nothing we have to do to show they are worthless. So why does he bear a grudge?

The only explanation is that he doesn't like that we refuse persistently to uphold his story of what happened, and that we continue to demand evidence and proof.

Probably, because he's parading and grasping so strongly to the myth he chooses to believe in (assigned to believe in?), the perps cut his fence a little too close to Judy Wood's bogus existence and now he's feeling the pinch. To make himself avoid the irrelevance of Ace Baker, Alex Jones, David Ray Griffin, Loose Change and countless others for avoiding the facts of TV fakery and CGI used to completely simulate the events of the day, he has given himself the assignment (or has it been given to him?) to act aggressive about the scientific method and dismiss it in a fit of anger once and for all.

Sorry, Fetzer gang, science is not defeated by the stomping of your feet. The process is slow, but it goes the pace it goes.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4848
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby fbenario on November 29th, 2013, 2:30 am

hoi.polloi wrote:As a result of maintaining scientific skepticism, we are "disinfo"? How can a lack of information be considered disinformation? Are we personally responsible for doing the impossible and suppressing the entire 9/11 truther parade that's been going on non-stop since the very day? How many of our users and readers are even touching the Hutchison crowd? If they are really equipped with irrefutable facts as Fetzer claims, then there's nothing we can do to make them disappear. If they have nothing, there is nothing we have to do to show they are worthless. So why does he bear a grudge?

The only explanation is that he doesn't like that we refuse persistently to uphold his story of what happened, and that we continue to demand evidence and proof.

A GREAT synopsis of our working model/philosophy/method whatever you want to call what we do.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2179
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby simonshack on November 29th, 2013, 11:57 pm

*

"THE CLONED HORSES"

I just wished to repost this ol' gif of mine. I captured this image frame from a video which was posted on a very official website, namely the "9/11 NATIONAL MUSEUM AND MEMORIAL" website. Funnily enough, they removed the video soon after I had exposed this fraud - an umpteenth example of fake tower-collapse imagery. What it demonstrates should be clear to anyone : when compositing digital imagery, a common practice is to use handy templates which you can duplicate at will (in this case, a smoke pattern). Need I remind anyone that smoke does NOT precisely duplicate itself in real life?


Image


Let this be another reminder that ALL THE AVAILABLE 9/11 COLLAPSE IMAGERY IS FAKE.

And I will now add that ...

ANY 9/11 INVESTIGATOR who continues to maintain to this day - in 2013 - that the available tower collapse 9/11 imagery is REAL - is either a fool or a troll, and should be immediately be shunned by any intelligent and sincere truth seeker.

Unless, of course, you are willing to believe the official NIST data which has Tower 2 and Tower1 collapsing in 9 and 11 seconds respectively... :rolleyes:
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6405
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby antipodean on December 1st, 2013, 11:31 am

I've again been watching some of the live feed aired at the time of the Towers collapsing. It appears to be filmed from a distance.
So at the time of collapse all we see is just smoke, no close up CGI of the collapse footage.
https://archive.org/details/cnn200109110929-1011
https://archive.org/details/cnn200109111011-1053

The towers could have easily been engulfed in smoke, maybe coming out from within the towers themselves. People local to the towers would see something similar to what was being shown on TV.
I'm thinking that the time frame between the South Tower and then North Tower going up in smoke, is the time it took to demolish them.
antipodean
Member
 
Posts: 578
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 2:53 am

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby AirplaneJoe on December 1st, 2013, 5:33 pm

I just watched the second Cnn video. At around 03:55 the CNN reporter talks to a guy called John, a pilot. He was describing seeing a B767 hitting the Northside of the tower.
The CNN reporter: "This was the second plane?"
John:: "This was the first plane"
CNN reporter: "Naudet, ah got it"

Am I hearing things? Or does it just sound like it?
AirplaneJoe
Member
 
Posts: 36
Joined: November 18th, 2013, 3:28 pm

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby Evil Edna on December 1st, 2013, 6:19 pm

AirplaneJoe wrote:Am I hearing things? Or does it just sound like it?


From 3m40s of https://archive.org/details/cnn200109111011-1053

CNN: We have on the phone a Pilot who witnessed these planes crashing in to the World Trade Center. Sir, can you tell me your name. John, can you hear me?

"JOHN": Yes I can.

CNN: John, tell me what you saw.

"JOHN": This morning we were at mid-town Manhattan in the 31st floor of a building facing south. We saw a 767 flying low, down the center of Manhattan Island heading towards downtown Manhattan at about, err, maybe 20 blocks north of the World Trade Center. We saw the plane veer to the left and fly directly into the north side of the South Tower.

CNN: Now this was the second plane that hit the towers?

"JOHN": No, this was the first plane.

CNN: Got it! John, han...

"JOHN": This was the 767.

CNN: Got it! John, hang on. Kate Snow's on Capitol Hill. Kate, what can you tell us about events there.

KATE SNOW: yadder yadder.


(Twice) the CNN goon says "Got it" not "Naudet".

More interesting is 'John's mechanical rendition of his script. Very like Harley Guy, packing in loads of (dis)information in his 20 second pre-recorded "interview".. :rolleyes:

And, in practice, how many of us make a conscious note of the compass bearing ("facing south") when in a tower block?! And "John" doesn't just note his own compass position, he also notes the precise path of the (phony) 767, and which tower it supposedly hit ("south tower") and which face of that tower ("north side")!

Amazing military-quality observations at such an early stage in the hoax!

But why doesn't "John" name the building he was supposedly in. Just "a building" he called it. :rolleyes:

Pure bunkum.
Evil Edna
Member
 
Posts: 118
Joined: November 7th, 2013, 3:32 am

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby AirplaneJoe on December 1st, 2013, 6:32 pm

It just sounded like he first said "Naudet", then "got it", however it is not very clear, his voice sounded nervous like he was hiding something. I just heard a n, maybe he realized his slip and changed it, and the again it is probably just me hearing things.

About this guy John, if he was midtown, I doubt he could tell if this plane was a B767 or a B757 in this distance. If he was a pilot and able to identify it as a B767 he must have seen the United colors. So why did he not mention that?
Again according to this clown the airplane was flying low. That contradicts the finding of the NTSB:
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/Fl ... y_AA11.pdf

The NTSB claims the plane descended from 29000ft (0837.30) to sealevel (0846.40) in 9 min and 10 seconds, that means a descent rate of 3200ft. At 3 min before impact the aircraft was still at 10000ft turing left and diving into the north tower with 3300ft per minute. Supposing this clown was 20blocks or maybe 1 nautical mile before the WTC means about 1o seconds before impact. Impossible to see the airplane below him, a fraud and fake.
AirplaneJoe
Member
 
Posts: 36
Joined: November 18th, 2013, 3:28 pm

Re: CGI collapse footage

Postby Evil Edna on December 1st, 2013, 8:05 pm

AirplaneJoe wrote:his voice sounded nervous like he was hiding something. I just heard a n, maybe he realized his slip and changed it


"John the Pilot" was just a voice actor. His phony "live interview" with the CNN goon was pre-recorded long before 9/11. Months maybe even years before. They just recorded "John" reading his lines from their script. And that pre-recorded "interview" was then played out on 911 as if it were unfolding live, just one of the many "live" phone-ins!

So why would "John" (an actor) be "nervous"? If he fluffed his lines, that was intentional, too! The 911 hoaxers used as many re-takes as they needed! And fluffs and blunders were all part of the plot! To enhance the credibility of it all being "live"! They planned 911 for years! So, in reality, why would "John" (an actor) be "hiding something"?!
Evil Edna
Member
 
Posts: 118
Joined: November 7th, 2013, 3:32 am

PreviousNext

Return to SEPTEMBER CLUES: the 9/11 psyop exposed: the media aired a "Made-for-TV Hollywood movie"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron