Friday, July 27, 2012

More Absurd 9/11 Holograms

Hide All / Expand All

Señor El Once : "Imagine no plane" thought process

2012-07-26

Dear Mr. Tamborine Man,

I know where you are going with the "imagine no plane" thought process, because I was fully there not all that long ago. I radically changed my tune from "no planes" at all (at the towers) to "no commercial planes" (for any of the 9/11 four.)

To your points or the points you might make:

- The single helicopter shot producing four different versions, one of them without a plane helped dupe me into NPT and still dupes me as blatant evidence of imagery manipulation.

- I was all over the many "miraculous" shots of the plane thereby being an indication of "No way! They faked it!" Upon deeper reflection based on my new premise of NCPT, all of those people filming needed a cue to tell them where to focus. Billowing smoke alone would be boring after the first couple of minutes. A true flying object was that cue, although a nugget of truth is that several of the clips indicate significant foreknowledge with regards to the "miraculous" multi-stage zoom-in's and panning and focus.

- September Clues pointed out that the many different versions of the 2nd plane seemed to depict different flight paths, and I was all over that big time, too. Until the video with overlayed 3D modeling that showed how the different videos really did depict a singular flight path (that was also consistent with radar data.) Being the video experts that they are, September Clues should have known this. In fact, they probably did know it, but true to their nature in promoting clever disinformation, they hyped these seeming flight discrepencies and duped me.

- Certainly radar data can be faked. But to fake two sources of radar data (FAA and military) and have these be in agreement with 44 some video perspectives and validated with 3D modeling, makes it less likely to be faked. Hell, they couldn't even fake the flight data recorder at the Pentagon correctly [e.g., discrepancies between two altimeters, no indication of pilot door ever being open in flight, etc.] and they had years to perfect this, while the multiple videos trickled out over the course of a week (or month).

- I could see such videos being edited to "clean" them up from things that we shouldn't see; I could see them being down-sampled several times to remove "clarity." But I can't see them being created from scratch in that time frame.

- The little puffs of smoke, etc.? I agree, it looks a bit weird, and very out-of-place for what we expect of a standard 767. But it wasn't a standard 767, on which we agree [although I say it was a "special plane" and you say it was fakery.] The nature of the puff's of smoke becomes more understandable when thinking the "special plane" was really a "special missile."

- Pentration was important to the ruse. Couldn't have a standard 767 -- flying much slower and with weaker materials -- splattering on the building's face like a bug on a windshield. Can't have it bouncing off or getting stuck part-way in, because these very realistic scenarios would not substantiate the ruse of significant structural damage to cause building decimation. In fact, some of these could leave portions of the aircraft for study before the towers came down, and might be lacking in terms of bodies, luggage, etc.

You wrote:

On the East wall we only see one little heavier object coming out with a tail of smoke, and the rest looks mostly like ‘fluttering’ pieces of aluminium cladding. From the North facade we again first see a little heavier objects coming out with smoke tails, following thereafter again with an object, this time having a tail of fire. We cannot see what these objects are. They do not appear to be shooting out with the velocity of more than 500 m/h.


Of course not. The distance from the action help make it appear not that fast. Beyond that, crashing into the South face, the core of the tower, and then the North face would have contributed to slowing the velocity of the object that broke away from the flying contraption.

Even when I was championing September Clues, I could smell from its "polish and shine" that much of it was too good to be true. I was a very formidable champion of it. Maybe it was because I support the under-dog. Mostly it was because it was not given sufficient analysis beyond ridicule to rule it out. I wanted each nugget validated or not, because dispensing with the whole thing in one go (which really is a massive smoking gun to media complicity) would have been according to the disinfo game plan. It took awhile for major premises of September Clues (and its NPT) to be disproven.

Hide All / Expand All


Señor El Once : choosing to believe the plane was a 3D projection

2012-07-27


hybridrogue1 : traction hallucination

2012-07-25


Jim Fetzer : graduate of the Anthony Lawson School of Fantasy Physics and “Special” Planes

2012-07-28


Señor El Once : a deep mole

2012-07-28


Tamborine man : With this typical MO

2012-07-28


Señor El Once : a missile with the lipstick of a plane

2012-07-28


Señor El Once : get imagination beyond "commercial planes"

2012-07-29


Señor El Once : What part of the phrase "special plane" alludes you?

2012-07-30


Señor El Once : pump up your glory days

2012-07-30


Señor El Once : limitations that you were not aware of

2012-07-31


Señor El Once : the only alternative i can come up is a 3-D projection of a plane

2012-08-01


Señor El Once : What I "think" you saw is probably vastly different from what you "remember" seeing

2012-08-02


Señor El Once : Nothing that a "special" plane-looking-missile can't account for.

2012-08-02



No comments: