This post is wrong on so many counts that it is itself a piece of fakery:
(1) Since it shows the intersection with only six (6) and not seven (7) at
the North Tower or eight (8) at the South, this is sloppy research from
scratch and does not accurately represent either "hit" in New York City.
(2) I consider three alternatives: the use of CGIs, of video compositing,
and of a sophisticated hologram. CGIs and video compositing would only
apply to the broadcast footage, however, and not what witnesses saw.
(3) Not only do I take into account the eyewitness reports, but I accent
that, the more seriously we take their reports, the greater the weight for
a hologram, since otherwise "the plane" would not have been observable.
(4) There is no evidence for a "mini-demolition" of the inside of the North
or of the South Tower. Notice that the plane is completely inside the South
Tower BEFORE IT EXPLODES and there are no indications of prior explosion.
(5) The "obstacles" that would have impeded the penetration of "the plane"
into the building included those eight (8) floors of steel trusses covered with
4-8" of concrete. Their removal would have created major explosive effects.
(6) The Purdue simulation was an animation that has been widely discounted
as "work for hire". It does not show the plane intersecting with eight (8) floors,
where an explosion of its fuel would have occurred before was inside the tower.
(7) No such effects are visible, which means that this is an hypothesis which
has no evidence to support it. The author introduces a misleading version of
my position and then simply disregards the absence of any proof for his own.
(8) killtown has done excellent work on the "plane crashes", including this one
as a critique of a fake video that was actually broadcast over CBS News, "How
not to fake plane crash videos", http://fake-plane-crash-videos.blogspot.com/
(9) The obvious reason that paranoia has not convinced anyone of this theory
is that there is no evidence to support it. All the evidence is on my side, once
you separate contrived versions of my position from misleading ones like his.
(10) Among the experts I have interviewed about the use of a hologram wasStephen Brown
, who had just completed a course of holography at Cambridge
and confirmed that the technology for such a project had been available then.
Anyone who studies the evidence as I have explained it SHOULD arrive at the
same or similar conclusions, as is the case with the very nice Barry Berman blog
My first article on this, "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11"
, appeared in 2008.
See "No Planes Theory"
, which exposes the apparent use of actors on 9/11,
and includes a link to one of his interviews with me on "The Dynamic Duo" on
19 August 2008 (with graphics), in which he explains why they had to fake it.
This is an especially excellent interview with the most important footage you
need to know to understand how we know that "video fakery" was employed
in New York on 9/11. It should leave no room for any serious doubt about it.
QUOTE (paranoia @ Mar 28 2012, 04:04 AM)
tm (and mr.fetzer - tho i didnt have time to quote his posts), you make fairly accurate observations, but fail to form a plausible
scenario that explains them. nevermind of course, that you are outright dismissing eyewitnesses who saw a plane hit the building. nevermind the delayed timing between wtc crash 1 and 2, which would have had thousands of eyes, and dozens of cameras pointed at the the first tower ablaze and smoking. nevermind the multiple existing footages (video, digital cameras, and 35mm film) of a plane hitting a building (second crash). nevermind the absence of footage showing an explosion but no plane. nevermind the logistical impossibility of containing such footage if indeed such an event (explosion but no plane) ever occurred.
but speaking strictly to the physical event, that is - the plane's impact and subsequent seamless penetration into the building, then more or less "stopping in its tracks", there is a much simpler explanation than video fakery, i.e. "npt" (as far as im concerned the 2 terms are inextricably tied to each other and mean the same thing). that explanation:
-immediately prior to the plane's entry, various obstacles inside the building that would have impeded its penetration, were dropped out of the way via a mini-demolition. floor sections and columns were removed and only the facade remained intact and in view. this allowed the plane to punch through the relatively thin metal outside the building, without being slowed down by anything inside the building.
-once inside the building, the plane itself, rigged with explosives and already filled with fuel, was detonated, making sure it shattered into small enough pieces that none would act upon the remaining structure (core especially) as a horizontal force.
a more-detailed explanation here:Some Say Aluminum Planes Can't Penetrate Steel, How about pumpkins?http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774440http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774495http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774522http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774528http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774529http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774826
-in the end my hypothesis was not refuted; those who believe the wtc crashes were a video hoax and not an actual event, and whose strongest evidence imo was the seamless penetration of plane through building, had no answer - and after diverting to other issues - the thread died off.
to illustrate it more accurately than the crudely made hand-drawn graphics i shared in that other thread, here is purdue's representation of the building, its structural components, and the plane's path:
sources (contain other related pics/graphics):http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulat...ase4/index.htmlhttp://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulat...Run12/index.htm
-those floorpans and the columns inside the building should have slowed the plane down, IF they were there during penetration. but to me the more logical interpretation of what's seen in the impact videos, is the absence of structural elements in the plane's way, not the absence of a plane. imo its hard to refute how much easier it would be to mini-demo subsections of a building thats already been wired for full demo (maybe the flash seen before impact is part of this pre-impact demo), than it is to control/contain all the variables required for video hoaxing the event instead. its simple, effective, and easily doable, plus it avoids loose ends created by having to involve and or control multiple entities, ranging from news media to average joes on the street, all of whom were focused on the towers after the first impact/explosions.
re: holograms - imo such a notion is not even possible-enough to be considered as an explanation. whomever is suggesting so, i ask that they please provide an example of any hologram anywhere that can even remotely be compared to 2nd wtc crash, specifically a hologram projected in broad daylight and moving at high speeds over an entire city, able to be witnessed by multiple onlookers. until then, its merely a conspiracy theory (anyone seen u2r2h
note - while searching for an example, i ran into this entry at fetzer's blog, but the only evidence cited for such technology is anecdotal (the author references without substantiation, a story allegedly relayed by a friend of john lear's):http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/06/ba...ane-theory.html
*while barry berman is credited with having written the above, alot of the text in that piece is extremely similar (almost word for word) to much of the logix presented here in this thread by mr.fetzer.