“Pods on planes” comes to mind for me. A clever limited hangout I was once enamoured with. Today, I don’t think that. I think “planes on pods”, or rather, pixels representing planes covering over small military planes or cruise missiles on the video footage. Another good one is space based weapons & DEW. I don’t discount their existence, only their operational deployment on 9/11.
A propaganda trick I’m observing relates to spearheading the exploration into a theory, establish the legend base on a pile of substantiated truth, becoming the go-to expert, and then doing something that undermines credibility that serves to take both the theory and the underlying truths/evidence out of play in a guilt by association ploy. When all else fails, poor online behavior on either side of the debate can help it implode.
The taboo subjects are a knee-jerk reaction not just to the topics deemed collectively crazy upon some review. No, it is also kickback to the religious (or football) fanaticism to the subject, much of which was less than sincere, because its purpose wasn’t to shed light or enlighten or to demonstrate an open-mind that could be convinced it was wrong. Its purpose was to co-opt and divide the movement.
So having gone through those wringers, those who administer sites like 9/11 blogger are jaded. Imagine the “go-to” website on 9/11 infiltrated with a team of close-minded, misinformed, and often purposely obtuse (even in cases paid-to-post) fanatics. I’ve been there, done that. The first round is fun, but when you get dragged through the 2nd or n-th round covering the exact same dubious arguments, it gets old. Disinformation warriors never tire of such circles; it is their job, and they’ll gladly re-use entries from their database.
Our task becomes an exercise in re-framing.
We have to retrieve the indivisible nuggets of truth that made up the legends.
We don’t have to have direct access to the hallowed mainstream halls of 9/11 Truth. If what we write is the supported truth, we can do it indirectly drop-by-drop on our own blogs, in our postings elsewhere, in private email discussions, etc.
I have not been given access to 9/11 blogger, because I subscribe to two of the so-deemed whackiest fwinge twapics: that the media footage from 9/11 was tampered with and that milli-nukes pulverized the towers.
I can be convinced that these are wrong and that I’m just a duped useful idiot serving the purpose of dividing the 9/11 Truth Movement. However, not only has my own research not found sufficient evidence to debunk slivers let alone the entirety of these two topics, but my online discussions partners have also not made a convincing case that would address with a plausible explanation the very evidence that undergirds these theories.
Mr. Good wrote:
“The notion of nukes at the WTC is dismissed because there is no evidence of associated radiation at Ground Zero.”
This is not completely true. From the research that I have done, the notion of nukes seems to have been dismissed from the mainstream 9/11 movement based upon the recommendation of nuclear physicist Dr. Steven Jones. Moreover, when you bore into his report, you’ll discover that he bases his conclusions on govt reports & measurements on radiation levels. A precedence was already set regarding 9/11 for various govt agencies to juke their reports as well as to withhold and suppress information & data, a fact that Dr. Jones laments in his own reports and presentations.
One form of juking was to change definitions with regards to what constitutes “background” or “trace” levels, so that these reports could conclude that measurements were below such.
To paraphrase Stalin, “It’s not the measured radiation that counts. It’s the people who write the reports about the measurement.”
As such, supposed radiation levels as per these reports have to be taken with a grain of salt, particularly when lots of other evidence including first-responder ailments, foundry-hot under-rubble fires, and massive yet unaccounted for energy sinks in the destruction like content pulverization.
Mr. Good wrote:
“The notion of video fakery is dismissed because the theory requires that the news media be totally complicit in a fraud.”
This isn’t true even before we lament how media ownership boils down to five today. All it took on 9/11 was one semi-live shot of the 2nd plane fed to CNN. This footage and even commentary has been proven to have been shared between networks. Even those anchors in the studio were duped by the footage they were fed.
Mr. Good writes:
“Also consider that probably dozens of amateur video cameras were trained on the south tower after the first strike.”
When you research most of the “amateur” footage of the 2nd strike that made it public, their “amateur” status is questioned both in terms of miracles of aim, zoom, and focus efforts, as well as what it depicts being in conflict with other footage.
I suspect that what happened to most truly amateur efforts resembles a parent filming their kids soccer game. After the first 5 minutes of filming, they tire of holding their cameras up and viewing the boredom of the action (smoke billowing out) causing their continued filming efforts to be rather sporatic. Without forewarning or foreknowledge, they’d be unlikely to catch the precise several seconds when the 2nd plane hits.
There was one piece of footage newly released long-form from a couple that was telling. It didn’t show the plane; they were too late or it was cut. But it did capture the reaction of the woman with her exclamation: “it was a small military plane!” This perception aligns with other eye witnesses, until the repetition of the fakery convinced even those it was a commercial plane, not a small military plane or cruise missile with wings.
Lots of other elements of how corporate media conspired to spin the story in the direction of the OGCT are proven within the same meme as fakery and cannot/should not be so easily dismissed.
To correct your assumption, the issue isn’t that there was no flying object that hit the towers. The issue is that the flying object was not a hijacked commercial plane. CGI was used to mask out what really hit the towers and replace it with the pixels of commercial plane for many reasons, like risk mitigation and higher probability of success. Couldn’t very well have it showing a military plane or cruise missile, which leaves very little wiggle room for who the true culprits were.
The issue with Mike Walter is that he was not in a position to make the exact observation that later creeps into his testimony. He first said his view was obstructed so he didn’t actually see the plane enter the building, so he couldn’t have seen the plane’s wings fold in.
Another issue is inconsistency between the supposed Pentagon plane and the (CGI) towers’ planes. If the Pentagon’s plane’s wings folded in upon contact with the (brick?) building as given by Mr. Walter, how come the towers’ planes’ wings weren’t observed folding in upon contact with the steel of the towers? This hints at a major issue with the various versions of the 2nd tower plane, namely, that it did not exhibit crash physics, like the body decelerating and deforming, like wings getting egg-cutter-sliced or bouncing while the engines broke free and into the towers. Why? Too complicated to model.
The 9/11 Truth Movement has indeed been led around by its noses on a detail or two over the last decade. Early dismissals of nukes and CGI fall into this category of the movement being led off course, because otherwise the evidence clearly leads there.
Mr. Good wrote:
El Once, you spend many words trying to cast doubt on official reports about the radiation levels, but you present no evidence that there were elevated levels.
True, I have scant evidence of elevated radiation levels to support milli-nukes, except in the deaths & ailments of first responders that other toxic mixtures (& poor health choices of the individuals) contributed to. On the other hand, the govt has no evidence of normal radiation levels, either. The metal and debris from ground zero were carted off in haste and under great security to be recycled & disposed of before it could be independently analyzed. They lead us to assume that they believed so forcefully in the meme of airplane impacts, jet fuel & office furniture fires, and gravitational collapses that standard operating procedures for suspicious fires & crime scenes were circumvented, like the testing for accelerants and plutonium.
Do I need to list the many examples of govt agency slow-walking, stone-walling, and scientific deceit with regards to 9/11 that should have us mistrust them across the board? Do I need to list all of the FOIA requests for information and data that haven’t been released, been released only in part or with massive redaction? The easiest piece of evidence to fake are the reports that supposedly analyze measurements or come to conclusions.
As I continue to cast doubt on official reports, here is a link and excerpt that are well worth exploring.
While at Harvard Phillip Zelikow actually wrote about the use, and misuse, of history in policymaking. As he noted in his own words, “contemporary” history is “defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public’s presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of ‘public presumption’,” he explained, “is akin to [the] notion of ‘public myth’ but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word ‘myth.’ Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.” So Zelikow, the guy who wrote The 9/11 Commission Report, was an expert in how to misuse public trust and create PUBLIC MYTHS.
But this call to have me provide evidence of radiation levels to prove milli-nukes is a red-herring.
The evidence of milli-nukes does not depend on govt reports on radiation. The evidence ought to be obvious from the energy requirements of the totality of the destruction down to content pulverization and vaporization. The evidence is in the foundry-hot fires that burned under the rubble (without oxygen) for months. The evidence are the destroyed vehicles with anomalous burn patterns outside the radius of ejected or falling debris that no govt report has had the moxy to address. In fact, they let Dr. Judy Woods collect this evidence of EMP from milli-nukes on her website under the headings “space based weapons” or “directed energy weapons”, so that these truths can be buried with her DEW conclusions.
Mr. Good wrote:
Your claim that only one shot of the second plane strike was used by the media is contrary to the facts. I can think of four different media tapes right off the top of my head–the Fox News “Blue no-windows” tape, the shot from the north, the shot from the north-east, and the “nose-cone” shot from the west.
Mr. Good, you are purposely skewing my claim. Whereas you can think of four different media tapes, I have probably seen a dozen used by the media. Were they all broadcsst live? No. They made it into the public sphere one at a time throughout the course of the day and week.
The point was that only one shot was close to being broadcast live, and it wasn’t without CGI errors. The other shots had more time to perfect the CGI, but have errors in terms of being inconsistent with one another as well as not representing the true modeling of crash & impact physics.
By attempting to cast doubt on the competence of amateur videographers who, in your world, don’t even own tripods, you sidestep the fact that any CGI-enhanced official video fantasy could potentially have its fraudulence shown by just one amateur, making a CGI-enhanced op impossibly risky.
By your attempting to cast authenticity to the “amateur” videos, you discount the gatekeepers that the videos must go through in order to be aired (and what editing enhancements could be made.) If memory serves me, Evan had the shot looking up to a man and the tower behind him, and the man reacting to the aircraft’s impact & explosion. When interviewed, Evan had some weasel words that said he was surprised at what his aired footage contained as if something were inserted that he didn’t see before handing it over (but I won’t dwell on this.) Evan was not an amateur. The reflection of the plane off of the car windshield was a nice touch, but contrary to the optical physics laws regarding the angle of reflection; The cartoon impact itself with the plane showing no deceleration or deformation was also contrary to physics.
The wings didn’t fold back in the towers because the perimeter columns were hollow box columns built (at that level) of 3/8? or 1/4? steel plate. the columns thus represented a negligible barrier, especially when you consider the fact that the fuel tanks in the wings carried 35 tons of fuel.
For the record, the only reason I suggested (as a Devil’s advocate) that the wings on the tower’s plane should have folded in was to make it consistent with the dubious Pentagon plane’s wings folding in when it hit brick and steel building face that was comparatively less strong than the towers.
For the sake of discussion, let’s assume commercial aircraft and let’s use your theory that the perimeter columns were hollow from 1/4" steel plates. What were the plane’s wings made of? Aluminum and/or thin sheet metal. Thinner and weaker than 1/4" steel, agreed? So why was the stronger material sliced like butter by the weaker material — all the way out to the wing tips like a road-runner cartoon? Owing to the window slits, why did the weaker material show no signs of being sliced up like a hard-boiled-egg-cutter? As for fuel tanks with fuel, sure, they added mass to the energy equation just like water in a water balloon, but if the wings and fuel tank themselves are made of light materials, that doesn’t give them extra physical properties to slice through steel.
A military aircraft is sturdier; a cruise missile is designed to penetrate hardened targets. Both can be guided in a precise manner. Other mechanisms can be deployed (by, say, Israeli performance artists) using computers controlling explosives to blast in the finished road-runner outline on the building. And this solves the very sticky problem of accurately modeling crash & impact physics, compounded by being real-time.
If the video shows, as the seems to, that the plane did not slow down when the wings hit the building, that does concern me and I think it’s worth investigating. But surrounding that issue with a bunch of other evidence-free speculations is not going to convince me to do it.
Evidence-free speculation? That is a bit harsh. Speculation? Sure.
Evidence-free? Quite the opposite.
In fact, the evidence has been there in plain sight, and you have already stated what concerns you and what you think is worth investigating. Namely, that the aircraft videos did not show accurate crash physics. The tail of the aircraft did not slow down when either the body or the wings hit the building. No parts of the plane, like even the tips of wings, tore from the plane and bounced off of the body. This, thereby being a decisive piece into validating speculation about CGI planes and how corporate media was complicit in duping us.
Or maybe your evidence-free phrase was aimed at milli-nukes? I’ve countered this above. Even without reports about radiation measurements, nuclear destruction is obvious, particularly in the video footage that they suppressed and are just now being made public. The destruction was a massive energy sink that a gravitational collapse could not explain. The video footage dispels pancaking from the get go.
El Once Says:
November 22, 2010 at 6:15 pm
If you haven’t already, you need to view these photographs from 9/11 FEMA Photographer Kurt Sonnenfeld.
Remember that this is not footage that was initially available.
When I, and I’m sure much of the world, see the vastness and completeness and thoroughness of the destruction, “nukes” has to come to mind. Look at how far those heavy box columns as complete sections were thrown and how deeply they were embedded in neighboring buildings.
When I look at the destruction, I speculate that the box columns were meant to contain the nuclear pulverization and vaporization of the internal content until they were separated by conventional (and unconventional) means and folded onto the pile. It is why little of the inside material is recognizable as anything at all.