The September 11 attacks

[handyman]

Are you smoking crack?

That’s crazy!

Why is it crazy ?

And you still haven't linked to the post where I inferred a hologram was screened by the networks.
This is the best explaination so far, to what I believed happened.

The Nose out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmRS4eTZ8jY

The networks synchronised.
https://youtu.be/2p4VH7SmIZg?t=315

[Roch]

Why is it crazy ?

And you still haven't linked to the post where I inferred a hologram was screened by the networks.
This is the best explaination so far, to what I believed happened.

The Nose out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmRS4eTZ8jY

The networks synchronised.
https://youtu.be/2p4VH7SmIZg?t=315

I've seen those before. The nose cone footage is particularly damning. The fade to black is blatant.

This event will have been planned for absolutely ages behind the scenes.

If I remember correctly, there was a woman imprisoned under the 'Patriot Act' because she tried to whistleblow on certain things. She later gave talks about how there were many trucks that would repeatedly visit WTC at night, in the run up to the attacks.

We'll probably never know exactly how or to what extent the hijacker aspect was managed. 

[Roch]

Gutting out the WTC, ready for it's demolition.

Nowt worse than faulty quote brackets. If I was still admin, I'd be driven to correct them.

[handyman]

I've seen those before. The nose cone footage is particularly damning. The fade to black is blatant.

This event will have been planned for absolutely ages behind the scenes.

If I remember correctly, there was a woman imprisoned under the 'Patriot Act' because she tried to whistleblow on certain things. She later gave talks about how there were many trucks that would repeatedly visit WTC at night, in the run up to the attacks.

We'll probably never know exactly how or to what extent the hijacker aspect was managed.

Gutting out the WTC ready for demolition.

[Roch]

Gutting out the WTC ready for demolition.

So getting back to the main thrust, regarding the second aircraft. Whatever was or wasn't recorded from the ground (whether by genuine witnesses or plants), the footage originally shown by the (controlled) media corporation/s was fake. Therefore, it was a managed event.

I'll wager that a kernel of an idea for terrorists to fly planes in to WTC, was exploited, nurtured and brought to fruition by American psycopaths.

These sick fxxxs murdered their own people.  We do it here as well.

[David1819]

Why is it crazy ?

And you still haven't linked to the post where I inferred a hologram was screened by the networks.
This is the best explaination so far, to what I believed happened.

The Nose out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmRS4eTZ8jY

The networks synchronised.
https://youtu.be/2p4VH7SmIZg?t=315

No. A plane hit the building. It was filmed by 62 different cameras. Everyone saw it.

[Roch]

No. A plane hit the building. It was filmed by 62 different cameras. Everyone saw it.

If this was simply down to a plane hitting the building, there would be no need to manage or create the official footage. How are you unable to compute that fact?  The nose cone footage (and its subsequent cover) is absolute proof that official footage released via the media channel was fabricated. Graphics technicians have already explained what went wrong.

[David1819]

Gutting out the WTC ready for demolition.

Demolition?  You can actually see the metal bending as the towers are about to buckle. So is this footage fake also?

[David1819]

If this was simply down to a plane hitting the building, there would be no need to manage or create the official footage. How are you unable to compute that fact?  The nose cone footage (and its subsequent cover) is absolute proof that official footage released via the media channel was fabricated. Graphics technicians have already explained what went wrong.

There is no such thing as "official footage" footage is footage. A split second puff of debris coming the end of the building on a low resolution film is not a "nose cone" 

[Roch]

There is no such thing as "official footage" footage is footage. A split second puff of debris coming the end of the building on a low resolution film is not a "nose cone" 

Naive in the extreme. And a total misrepresentation. It's patently visible. This is no better than when an arch guilter in the Bamber case totally dismisses something purely because it doesn't suit their stance.

[Roch]

And not only that, you can tell the footage is a crock of shit by the way the plane 'seeps' in to the building as already discussed.

[David1819]

Naive in the extreme. And a total misrepresentation. It's patently visible. This is no better than when an arch guilter in the Bamber case totally dismisses something purely because it doesn't suit their stance.

Its a gust of debris and air being forced out the building.

https://streamable.com/kj0897

[David1819]

And not only that, you can tell the footage is a crock of shit by the way the plane 'seeps' in to the building as already discussed.

All 62 of them?     

[Roch]

Its a gust of debris and air being forced out the building.

https://streamable.com/kj0897

That is clearly not what was shown on the broadcast. Why would you need to subsequently redact a gust of debris and air, by deploying a banner?

[Roch]

All 62 of them? 

Again, you are conflating.