What if I SHOWED you that, from the very beginning, they TOLD us what we were looking at wasn't real live footage? What if I showed you that they told us this dozens of times on the morning of 9/11?
Check into Dr. Judy Wood’s work. She has a PhD in engineering and knows her stuff. She wrote a book entitled Where Did the Towers Go? She’s claimed the towers were destroyed using some form of direct energy weapons and described the process as ’dustification’ because the towers literally turned into dust during their destruction.
Knows her stuff? She's an agent pushing one of the many streams of propaganda about how exactly the buildings came down. We have DEWs, nuclear, thermite, nanothermite.
It's all PROPAGANDA.
WTC-7 is a classic implosion - they obviously used normal explosives - so why would they use a different method for the Twin Towers? As Agent suggests (and so does Simon Shack) what we see could be phony.
There are many streams though aren't there for the method of destruction. That's a simple fact. So if there are a number then we need to be suspicious, don't we? Why are they giving us a number of streams and is it likely that any one of those streams represents the truth? I'd say no. We can see that WTC-7 is a classic implosion using explosives so, a priori, why would they use a method that has NEVER been used in large building destruction before for the towers? Where did they test it? How could they be certain it would work? Why would they use a different method?
When has conventional explosive building demolition been used before on a building the size of the twin towers? Where did they test it? How could they be certain it would work?
I don't get how you see Revisionists's work and how he compares normal 'classic implosions' (like you put it) with regular explosives to the wtc complex event and not agree that it definitely wasn't done with regular explosives. Nevermind all of the things that cannot be explained by a 'classic implosion' such as flags, trees, paper, and *people* not burning right next to 'toasted and melted' cars, or the complete lack of debris, or the complete lack of sound of building 7 when it came down, or the strange hole in building 6, or the damage to building 8 that had no 'fire' in it, etc.
If you look at all of this evidence, it is evident that there was no 'classic implosion'
"Where did they test it? How could they be certain it would work?"
Well, the argument is that it is black technology (just like there are people doing stuff in the dark regarding faking other events, there are other groups of people doing sutff in the dark with powerful technology they don't want you to know about), therefore they would test it consistently as they develop it, which is very reasonable. I guarantee you this was not the first time this technology has been used.
"Why would they use a different method?"
Well, if they used regular explosives, 1) It would be obvious that it was an inside job because you would have plenty of videographic and eyewitness evidence of loud bangs and explosions, 2) using this fantastic method is a revelation of power to anyone looking closely, letting you know they have the technology to dominate you in ways you're not even aware of
Also, there are images taken of a parking lot in the vecinity before and after the destruction of the complex. The before pictures show regular cars; the after pictures show the same cars, unmoved, and discolored, hinting at the 'toasting' effect. These couldn't have come from a junkyard because the cars are clearly unmoved throughout the event and we know they were ok before, but look 'toasted' after the event. Of course, you could argue it's all photoshopped, and that's a real possibility, but given that this effect is also seen in Lahaina, that there are so many videos and photographs of vehicles that have been 'toasted' in the 9/11 event, it makes me believe they are not photoshopped.
Of course, Judy Wood presents a series of strangely 'toasted' cars near the complex, and as I mentioned earlier, with unburned paper and trees around them. There are eyewitnesses claiming the cars where combusting spotaneously.
The lack of number plates and door handles are explained through the effect of the technology used to destroy the complex. The argument is that the technology dustified the towers, including all of the steel and ceramic and *polymers* inside it. The claim is that the attack hit the vehicles in the vecinity of its main target, albeit at a lower intensity, which would be why the cars are still standing but some things pertaining to the vehicles have been 'dustified' as well, such as the engines and license plates ('soft' iron) and the handlebars (polymers or plastics).
I think, all in all, the evidence doesn't show the effects of a controlled demolition but of some type of energy weapon technology: there were no loud explosions (see building 7 that was hollowed out and fell silently), there is a clear lack of material/debris on the ground to account for a regular demolition, there was way too much dust compared to regular demolitions, there are strange 'toasted' cars around the site, building 8 which was nowhere near the 'explosions' and didn't collapse had visible structural damage/corrosion to its steel which meant it had to be rebuilt, you can visibly see some pieces of steel become dust as they are falling to the ground, etc.)
because both Petra & 911 Revisionist are obvious plants.
(however in the interest of fairness, I was surprised at what a good counter argument Petra made here. While we have quite opposing views on many things on this she appears to be reasonable & insightful about the main problems, although I doubt the death toll she imagines is genuine!)
Thermite was defiantly used, other techniques as well most probably.
DEW's (what a phonetic joke!) can cause terrible biological issues, but so far there is no proof they can turn brick into dust, certainly not unless a stable /focused emission is made.
911 Divisionist & Dew'dy Wood can not specify what equipment was used , nor provide footage of any similar occurrence of DEWs destroying concrete & steel. A laser cutting metal from a few millimeters away is not proof of a DEW being capable of building demolition, just like lighting a candle is not comparable with setting fire to a forest.
Dew'dy Wood & 911 Retardist both make their claims from CONSTRUCTED FOOTAGE, as was uncannily pointed out to 911 Revizer only a few days ago!
There’s definitely no evidence of thermite not controlled demolition, as I pointed out in my precious comment. The buildings clearly turned to dust in midair. There is footage where you can clearly see solid objects dustifying before they fall to the ground. Anyone that denies this easily observable fact is sus
What you have to do is distinguish what might be faked or omitted and what is clear fact. Seismic data can be faked but in any case I wouldn't be surprised if a controlled demolition would register seismically. There's no sound! Are you kidding me? They didn't play it ... perhaps to hide the unmistakable sounds of explosions?? WTC-7 looks like a classic implosion - if it walks like a duck ... and we know that Controlled Demolition, Inc achieve three world records in large building demolition projects in the three years before 9/11. What would you say is the probability of those three world records constituting a PRACTICE RUN?
You need to address important facts and not place importance on things that don't tell you anything.
IMPORTANT FACT: Cars are missing door-handles and number plates indicating they are junkyard cars and Judy Wood is responsible for FAKED DATA which immediately undermines her theory.
If they'd really dustified the buildings can you imagine how choked up everyone would be. I know there was some suffering inevitably but dustifying ONE MILLION TONNES of building would have caused massive dust ... but we don't see that.
In any case the most important element of 9/11 isn't how the buildings came down - the buildings is distraction from the FAKERY OF THE MAIN CRIME. The real crime - or rather the real ALLEGED crime was the deaths of 3,000 people and injury to 6,000.
Didn't happen though so to distract people from the FAKERY OF THE MAIN CRIME they've got them chasing their tails on exactly how the buildings came down.
"This rules-out any possibility of layering because the plane in the video “entered” the building correctly."
Seriously?
The plane did not enter the building correctly because 142-tonne 767-200 airliners don't "enter" 500,000 tonne steel frame buildings whose steel supports are very close together.
A 142-tonne airliner would COLLIDE with the building and show evidence of crash physics such as deceleration and destruction of its parts in the same way a sedan crashing into a semi-trailer would. Moreover, a 767 airliner would look like this, not the "plane object" we are shown. https://www.modernairliners.com/boeing-767
I don't need to know a thing about how the footage was faked, physics says it was faked, that is all I need. This is a good video showing how the faked plane crash in The Medusa Touch (1978) actually abides by crash physics better than Flight 175. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuhNR6lx97E&feature=youtu.be
Funny. I was just watching the National Geographic documentary on U tube 2days ago.
While watching the first episode I was reminded of a cameraman/crew with the fire men who caught the first plane footage. I was like who the heck he is? Why is he following fire men first thing in the morning? It made me suspicious when he repositioned to show the towers in the background once.
What are the odds a film crew supposedly captured the first plane? Has anyone found out who the cameraman is? Whose idea was it for him to be there?
... and the firefighter testimonies are all 100% bullshit.
One firefighter stationed on the Upper East Side describes his route to the WTC as heading west along Houston and then down the West Side Hwy. Wrong way. Can't turn south from Houston the East Side Hwy would be much more convenient.
In all 118 testimonies not one mention of any of the alleged deaths of their 343 colleagues.
They call them "oral" histories but while we have transcripts, no audio. Why not, transcripts would be based on audio. Where is it?
One of the Naudet brothers. They were NYU grads who happened to know a firefighter (who is also an actor). They were supposedly filming a documentary on the journey of a probie (probation period firefighter) and just so happened to conveniently pan to get that shot. There are three known shots of the first "plane" hitting.
Very interesting, Agent ... but, indeed, they told us all over the damned place.
These two brilliant songs ... were made by THEM and the reporters were all scripted, they weren't speaking candidly as suggested by some 9/11 analysts. No reporter would allude to controlled demolition ... unless they were told to, unless they were scripted.
Conversation between Brian Williams, MSNBC News Anchor and David Restuccio, FDNY EMS Lieutenant about WTC-7, the third building to collapse at the WTC on 9/11, after its collapse:
"Can you confirm it was No 7 that just went in?" ["Went in" is a term used in controlled demolition that comes from the fact that the buildings fall in on themselves.]
"Yes, sir."
"And you guys knew this was comin' all day."
"We had heard reports that the building was unstable and that eventually it would either come down on its own or it would be taken down."
You are so right to draw attention to the use of the word "picture" instead of live video, live feed, etc. So, yes, they fulfilled the disclaimer requirement, as you point out. In addition, if they had referred to having a film crew somewhere that was actually filming this, they would have had to say where they were, and how they knew to be there at this moment so they could be filming this completely unexpected event. I would think they would make a big point of the perspective from which they were shooting, how they even knew to be there, it was almost been using itself.
Besides their use of the word picture, the shocking nature of what is in those pictures also draws attention away from anybody questioning where this live feed is supposedly coming from. It reminds me of the supposed film of the Apollo astronauts, hopping around on the surface of the moon and planting an incredibly phony looking flag. And the spacecraft blasting off to return to earth. Who was behind that camera? That one question alone makes it clear that it's completely fake. We are so used to seeing realistic film of various events, such as in movies, or even news reports that are actually live, that we don't even wonder, who took these pictures? Who filmed this scene? Who is behind this camera?
Yes, beautifully put, Betsy. Great summary & I completely agree with your comments here.
In addition to the physics of events, we always have to apply Occam's Razor to them too. When Agent comes to the realization everyone is analyzing (faked) 911 pics/vids as if they are real, game over. We live in a faked reality & govts shamelessly lie to us about everything.
(Re: alleged moon trips - how could the combustible "rocket ship" actually go thru the Van Allen Radiation Belts safely & fly through the "vacuum" of space (rocket propulsion theory) to the moon & back without "refueling," & how was it possible for astronauts to survive moon's extreme temp swings for even 5 minutes?? Finally, there was no fukn technical way astronauts talked to Nixon from the moon in the 1960s as the tech then was piss-poor. We still had clunky rotary phones & no digital/only analog machines back then with only giant mainframe room-size computers (no microchips or micro-tech-size communications at all). Even so, we couldn't talk with astronauts on the moon today either cause no interstellar WiFi - not to mention the fact that we can't physically go to the moon anyway & never have. ;-)
Govt w/complicit Hollywood & Stanley Kubrick's help - director of "2001: A Space Odyssey" - tricked all of us into a mass delusion that seeing filmed "moon" scenes on TV was reality.)
Today's advanced software/deep fake tech shows us even more that reality is easily faked. :/
To be clear, I have reservations about what happened that day and who was really responsible. However, I have to take exception to several of the things you have decided to point out as being illogical. First, the first witness, the CNN financial person. You keep pointing out that he doesn’t know which tower has been hit. I don’t think that’s a gotcha at all. Not everyone knows the North Tower versus the South Tower. Just because he was well aware of flight patterns is irrelevant to whether he knew which tower was which. Second, the 2nd witness I believe, stating that the tower just blew up, or exploded could have been a true perspective at the same time as it could have been true that a plane hit the tower. You never explained her position to the tower, only that she was closer than the CNN guy. If her view of the building was the opposite of where the plane entered it would make sense that what she saw was the building exploding. As far as all the reporters calling the video pictures doesn’t in and of itself point to conspiracy. While there was smoke billowing from the towers the image was completely static, non moving. Without any of the other deep dives into 911, especially regarding building 7 and the dustified theory, I’d have to look at this as being not so much really.
Most of your other digging has impressed me, though. To be clear.
The 911 videos/interviews were all faked/scripted as Agent so clearly described. If you are impressed with Agent's work, then the simple fact that he proves image fraud will dispute your CNN-related point that the CNN guy was a "real witness" & on "live" TV.
DEW's (what a phonetic joke!) can cause terrible biological issues, but so far there is no proof they can turn brick into dust, certainly not unless a stable /focused emission is made.
911 Divisionist & Dew'dy Wood can not specify what equipment was used , nor provide footage of any similar occurrence of DEWs destroying concrete & steel. A laser cutting metal from a few millimeters away is not proof of a DEW being capable of building demolition, just like lighting a candle is not comparable with setting fire to an entire forest & making it instantaneously combust.
Dew'dy Wood & 911 Retardist both make their claims from CONSTRUCTED FOOTAGE, as was uncannily pointed out to 911 Revizer only a few days ago!
Old people call videos "pictures." My grandparents referred to the tv set as "the picture box." They used "rabbit ears," so they'd refer to "adjusting the picture." Merriam Webster definition:
noun
pic·ture ˈpik-chər
Synonyms of picture
1
: a design or representation made by various means (such as painting, drawing, or photography)
2
a
: a description so vivid or graphic as to suggest a mental image or give an accurate idea of something
the book gives a detailed picture of what is happening
I thought the news reporter who said "the tops of both towers are gone" actually lends a bit of authenticity. He says that the smoke and dust clouds obscure whatever is left below. Since NO skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire before or since, how would he know that the entire things just turned to dust? I'd have expected a huge twisted mess underneath. Ironically, it's a reminder that the twin collapse into its own footprint makes no sense unless you've been conditioned to accep it.
I would have expected a charred frame. Fires don't obliterate a building; they burn it. I speak as someone who has seen burned buildings, no special expertise.
2012 was also the year, when most of the US media was bought up by globalist investors... No wonder telling lies has been "legit" ever since (not that it wasn't before, but it may have been done more cautiously, but most of the time, real news were left untouched.
These videos are apparently using what I call the "shock effect," which can even be initiated by a little cussing. :) Most of the time, it's usually a Big Lie that is so terrible that it would be "criminal" (it often is) to question it:
Ray - What proofs do you have that: "...but most of the time, real news were left untouched"?
Contrary to your assertion, I would argue that the PTB's MSM has always been complicit w/manipulating/covering up the govt's/corps' false flags & scripted wars (cultural, financial, medical, military or political) over many centuries (Another example is related to even earlier civilizations too, e.g. see Anatoly Fomenko's theories on manipulated historical timelines.)
Ray, realize that prob above comment was a throwaway line but, still, just gotta respond ;-)
Briefly, in quick summary, examples on exactly what the MSM has lied about & manipulated:
> Native Genocide/Relocation/Trail of Tears/Reservations, US Civil War, Spanish Civil War, Titanic/1913 Fed Reserve conspiracy, US "lynching campaigns", 1918 Spanish Flu & vaccines (hoaxes), Great Depression (created financial collapse), WWI/WWII, US govt/corp/banksters' support/funding for Hitler/Nazis, Operation Paperclip/Nazis to US, Cold War/McCarthyism, MK-Ultra, JFK/RFK murders, "SPACE Race, COINTELPRO, Operation Mockingbird, Viet Nam, "Moon Landings", JEdgar Hoover/FBI/CIA/Laurel Canyon/Rock & Roll, "youth" movement, Nixon/Watergate, "Peak Oil", Reagan Admin's IranContra/Franklin (pedogate) Scandal, Ice Age/GlobalWarming/Climate Change scams, GMOs/pesticides/insecticides dangers, cancer cures, Green New Deal/Sustainability, the Great Reset (NWO/Agenda21) & on & on...
JFK to 911: Everything Is A Rich Man's Trick - 2014 documentary by Francis Richard Conolly.
Watched the doc/film above a decade ago when it was shared widely & mind was boggled as the analysis is so well-supported & the conclusions are so self-evident that all men... well...
So much deception...
And that only takes us from early US founding to mid-2000s or so but shows exactly how complicit the promoted "news"/history/textbooks have been when presenting "facts" to us.
So much evidence that the powerful MSM invents a reality & stories that are foisted on us for purpose & ignores the actual behind-the-scenes machinations of a controlled country/system. Why would anyone vote if they knew that elections are selections only & the PTB allow only the choices that they can manipulate or utilize for their own scripted purposes? The Biden/Harris' Dims' Agenda21/NWO or the Trump/Vance/Musk's Pubs' Project 2025 will/would both lead to the same hellish dystopian bio-digital-tech controlled future. Unity-party.
Realize you prob agree w/most of my points here but just couldn't leave your "real news" comment alone without responding so that others will perhaps see how manipulated MSM "news" has always been the rule & never an exception. Depressing as hell but that's reality.
Witness "Winston" = Winston Smith, the beleaguered protagonist of 1984 and the most widely known victim of propaganda in all of world literature. They think we're stupid.
I see 2 holes in the side of the building but NO PLANE! Those 2 holes have a solid mass in between them... If a plane had hit there would be a hole right across....not 2 separate holes with a solid mass in between them!
The entire event was a fakery caused by frequency modulation weaponry. Hence the sonic boom the lady heard that knocked out her tv reception momentarily.
I watched a podcast a few months ago that mentioned the lack of people actually working in the towers. They were almost empty. (Wasn't there an issue with asbestos or something?) Also the complete lack of videos of people streaming out of the buildings during the attack. You would think people on the ground outside would be filming this. I wonder why that reporter kept asking something about what was on the street level? Also this podcaster mentioned the recorded city death levels did not rise during the event (though we know these figures can be faked, it's their system after all). He apparently asked Judy Wood for an interview several times and she ignored him.
Can you provide a link to this podcast since it affected your understanding of 911? Would be valuable to watch the podcast & know who Dr Wood turned down for an interview.
It was Brian Staveley's channel on YT, Dose of Reality. He's done quite a bit of digging into 9/11, amongst other things. Just had a quick look and the channel seems to be on a strike at the moment, though he has mentioned an Odysee channel. Though to be fair, I am even now hearing different opinions on what happened that day so I have to take everything with a pinch of salt lol
They don't report the news,,, They broadcast it.
They CAST the spell BROADLY.
"Please stand by for our News "entertainment" broadcast."
They LITERALLY call it entertainment! Nough said.
EXCELLENT ARTICLE!
Also reminds me of N.E.W.S. North,East, West, South ....WITCHES, Broad Casting.
Yep, Witches & Wizards ....War PIGS!
Verse 1]
Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerer of death's construction
In the fields, the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds .......
EXPOSE THEM as THEY expose themselves in media & the lilke.
Check into Dr. Judy Wood’s work. She has a PhD in engineering and knows her stuff. She wrote a book entitled Where Did the Towers Go? She’s claimed the towers were destroyed using some form of direct energy weapons and described the process as ’dustification’ because the towers literally turned into dust during their destruction.
Knows her stuff? She's an agent pushing one of the many streams of propaganda about how exactly the buildings came down. We have DEWs, nuclear, thermite, nanothermite.
It's all PROPAGANDA.
WTC-7 is a classic implosion - they obviously used normal explosives - so why would they use a different method for the Twin Towers? As Agent suggests (and so does Simon Shack) what we see could be phony.
https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2388338&sid=86ddfc7e3d0c89e58464ed02bdd36a9d#p2388338
YOU ARE ´´an agent pushing one of the many streams´´!!!!
There are many streams though aren't there for the method of destruction. That's a simple fact. So if there are a number then we need to be suspicious, don't we? Why are they giving us a number of streams and is it likely that any one of those streams represents the truth? I'd say no. We can see that WTC-7 is a classic implosion using explosives so, a priori, why would they use a method that has NEVER been used in large building destruction before for the towers? Where did they test it? How could they be certain it would work? Why would they use a different method?
When has conventional explosive building demolition been used before on a building the size of the twin towers? Where did they test it? How could they be certain it would work?
I don't get how you see Revisionists's work and how he compares normal 'classic implosions' (like you put it) with regular explosives to the wtc complex event and not agree that it definitely wasn't done with regular explosives. Nevermind all of the things that cannot be explained by a 'classic implosion' such as flags, trees, paper, and *people* not burning right next to 'toasted and melted' cars, or the complete lack of debris, or the complete lack of sound of building 7 when it came down, or the strange hole in building 6, or the damage to building 8 that had no 'fire' in it, etc.
If you look at all of this evidence, it is evident that there was no 'classic implosion'
"Where did they test it? How could they be certain it would work?"
Well, the argument is that it is black technology (just like there are people doing stuff in the dark regarding faking other events, there are other groups of people doing sutff in the dark with powerful technology they don't want you to know about), therefore they would test it consistently as they develop it, which is very reasonable. I guarantee you this was not the first time this technology has been used.
"Why would they use a different method?"
Well, if they used regular explosives, 1) It would be obvious that it was an inside job because you would have plenty of videographic and eyewitness evidence of loud bangs and explosions, 2) using this fantastic method is a revelation of power to anyone looking closely, letting you know they have the technology to dominate you in ways you're not even aware of
What is your response to the alleged "toasted" cars being junkyard fakeries - no number plates and no door handles?
https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2388338&sid=86ddfc7e3d0c89e58464ed02bdd36a9d#p2388338
Are you aware of any evidence of "toasted" cars outside data connected to Judy Wood?
I would say that the toasted car phenomenon was also seen in Lahaina, so it is not only connected to Judy Wood.
Here, look at this video. 'Toasted' cars surrounded by unburned trees in Lahaina:
https://twitter.com/WillingWitness/status/1696182951552455068
Also, there are images taken of a parking lot in the vecinity before and after the destruction of the complex. The before pictures show regular cars; the after pictures show the same cars, unmoved, and discolored, hinting at the 'toasting' effect. These couldn't have come from a junkyard because the cars are clearly unmoved throughout the event and we know they were ok before, but look 'toasted' after the event. Of course, you could argue it's all photoshopped, and that's a real possibility, but given that this effect is also seen in Lahaina, that there are so many videos and photographs of vehicles that have been 'toasted' in the 9/11 event, it makes me believe they are not photoshopped.
Of course, Judy Wood presents a series of strangely 'toasted' cars near the complex, and as I mentioned earlier, with unburned paper and trees around them. There are eyewitnesses claiming the cars where combusting spotaneously.
The lack of number plates and door handles are explained through the effect of the technology used to destroy the complex. The argument is that the technology dustified the towers, including all of the steel and ceramic and *polymers* inside it. The claim is that the attack hit the vehicles in the vecinity of its main target, albeit at a lower intensity, which would be why the cars are still standing but some things pertaining to the vehicles have been 'dustified' as well, such as the engines and license plates ('soft' iron) and the handlebars (polymers or plastics).
I think, all in all, the evidence doesn't show the effects of a controlled demolition but of some type of energy weapon technology: there were no loud explosions (see building 7 that was hollowed out and fell silently), there is a clear lack of material/debris on the ground to account for a regular demolition, there was way too much dust compared to regular demolitions, there are strange 'toasted' cars around the site, building 8 which was nowhere near the 'explosions' and didn't collapse had visible structural damage/corrosion to its steel which meant it had to be rebuilt, you can visibly see some pieces of steel become dust as they are falling to the ground, etc.)
because both Petra & 911 Revisionist are obvious plants.
(however in the interest of fairness, I was surprised at what a good counter argument Petra made here. While we have quite opposing views on many things on this she appears to be reasonable & insightful about the main problems, although I doubt the death toll she imagines is genuine!)
Thermite was defiantly used, other techniques as well most probably.
DEW's (what a phonetic joke!) can cause terrible biological issues, but so far there is no proof they can turn brick into dust, certainly not unless a stable /focused emission is made.
911 Divisionist & Dew'dy Wood can not specify what equipment was used , nor provide footage of any similar occurrence of DEWs destroying concrete & steel. A laser cutting metal from a few millimeters away is not proof of a DEW being capable of building demolition, just like lighting a candle is not comparable with setting fire to a forest.
Dew'dy Wood & 911 Retardist both make their claims from CONSTRUCTED FOOTAGE, as was uncannily pointed out to 911 Revizer only a few days ago!
There’s definitely no evidence of thermite not controlled demolition, as I pointed out in my precious comment. The buildings clearly turned to dust in midair. There is footage where you can clearly see solid objects dustifying before they fall to the ground. Anyone that denies this easily observable fact is sus
By the way, without any disrespect, I need no explanations from any of what someone post. I will get my own opinion from what I read !
What you have to do is distinguish what might be faked or omitted and what is clear fact. Seismic data can be faked but in any case I wouldn't be surprised if a controlled demolition would register seismically. There's no sound! Are you kidding me? They didn't play it ... perhaps to hide the unmistakable sounds of explosions?? WTC-7 looks like a classic implosion - if it walks like a duck ... and we know that Controlled Demolition, Inc achieve three world records in large building demolition projects in the three years before 9/11. What would you say is the probability of those three world records constituting a PRACTICE RUN?
https://www.controlled-demolition.com/world-records/
You need to address important facts and not place importance on things that don't tell you anything.
IMPORTANT FACT: Cars are missing door-handles and number plates indicating they are junkyard cars and Judy Wood is responsible for FAKED DATA which immediately undermines her theory.
https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2388338&sid=86ddfc7e3d0c89e58464ed02bdd36a9d#p2388338
If they'd really dustified the buildings can you imagine how choked up everyone would be. I know there was some suffering inevitably but dustifying ONE MILLION TONNES of building would have caused massive dust ... but we don't see that.
In any case the most important element of 9/11 isn't how the buildings came down - the buildings is distraction from the FAKERY OF THE MAIN CRIME. The real crime - or rather the real ALLEGED crime was the deaths of 3,000 people and injury to 6,000.
Didn't happen though so to distract people from the FAKERY OF THE MAIN CRIME they've got them chasing their tails on exactly how the buildings came down.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/911
"This rules-out any possibility of layering because the plane in the video “entered” the building correctly."
Seriously?
The plane did not enter the building correctly because 142-tonne 767-200 airliners don't "enter" 500,000 tonne steel frame buildings whose steel supports are very close together.
A 142-tonne airliner would COLLIDE with the building and show evidence of crash physics such as deceleration and destruction of its parts in the same way a sedan crashing into a semi-trailer would. Moreover, a 767 airliner would look like this, not the "plane object" we are shown. https://www.modernairliners.com/boeing-767
I don't need to know a thing about how the footage was faked, physics says it was faked, that is all I need. This is a good video showing how the faked plane crash in The Medusa Touch (1978) actually abides by crash physics better than Flight 175. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuhNR6lx97E&feature=youtu.be
And I agree that wordplay was used by the US government and MSM to pull of their false flag attack and start another war in the Middle East.
Dr. Judy is counter intel to make you look foolish. We have pics of mossad next to boxes of fuses for demolition. https://peakd.com/conspiracy/@budz82/9-11-and-the-israeli-bomb-expert-infiltrated-art-groups-gelatin-demo-wiring-team-and-e-team-sol-gel-team
Whatever you say Jayro.
Funny. I was just watching the National Geographic documentary on U tube 2days ago.
While watching the first episode I was reminded of a cameraman/crew with the fire men who caught the first plane footage. I was like who the heck he is? Why is he following fire men first thing in the morning? It made me suspicious when he repositioned to show the towers in the background once.
What are the odds a film crew supposedly captured the first plane? Has anyone found out who the cameraman is? Whose idea was it for him to be there?
... and the firefighter testimonies are all 100% bullshit.
One firefighter stationed on the Upper East Side describes his route to the WTC as heading west along Houston and then down the West Side Hwy. Wrong way. Can't turn south from Houston the East Side Hwy would be much more convenient.
In all 118 testimonies not one mention of any of the alleged deaths of their 343 colleagues.
They call them "oral" histories but while we have transcripts, no audio. Why not, transcripts would be based on audio. Where is it?
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/nonsensicalities-in-the-911-firefighter
One of the Naudet brothers. They were NYU grads who happened to know a firefighter (who is also an actor). They were supposedly filming a documentary on the journey of a probie (probation period firefighter) and just so happened to conveniently pan to get that shot. There are three known shots of the first "plane" hitting.
Very interesting, Agent ... but, indeed, they told us all over the damned place.
These two brilliant songs ... were made by THEM and the reporters were all scripted, they weren't speaking candidly as suggested by some 9/11 analysts. No reporter would allude to controlled demolition ... unless they were told to, unless they were scripted.
Free Fallin' (to Tom Petty's song) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgx8Uwo-Vxc
I Believe in Miracles - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71fwKA9Udso
From the Free Fallin' song
Conversation between Brian Williams, MSNBC News Anchor and David Restuccio, FDNY EMS Lieutenant about WTC-7, the third building to collapse at the WTC on 9/11, after its collapse:
"Can you confirm it was No 7 that just went in?" ["Went in" is a term used in controlled demolition that comes from the fact that the buildings fall in on themselves.]
"Yes, sir."
"And you guys knew this was comin' all day."
"We had heard reports that the building was unstable and that eventually it would either come down on its own or it would be taken down."
You are so right to draw attention to the use of the word "picture" instead of live video, live feed, etc. So, yes, they fulfilled the disclaimer requirement, as you point out. In addition, if they had referred to having a film crew somewhere that was actually filming this, they would have had to say where they were, and how they knew to be there at this moment so they could be filming this completely unexpected event. I would think they would make a big point of the perspective from which they were shooting, how they even knew to be there, it was almost been using itself.
Besides their use of the word picture, the shocking nature of what is in those pictures also draws attention away from anybody questioning where this live feed is supposedly coming from. It reminds me of the supposed film of the Apollo astronauts, hopping around on the surface of the moon and planting an incredibly phony looking flag. And the spacecraft blasting off to return to earth. Who was behind that camera? That one question alone makes it clear that it's completely fake. We are so used to seeing realistic film of various events, such as in movies, or even news reports that are actually live, that we don't even wonder, who took these pictures? Who filmed this scene? Who is behind this camera?
Yes, beautifully put, Betsy. Great summary & I completely agree with your comments here.
In addition to the physics of events, we always have to apply Occam's Razor to them too. When Agent comes to the realization everyone is analyzing (faked) 911 pics/vids as if they are real, game over. We live in a faked reality & govts shamelessly lie to us about everything.
(Re: alleged moon trips - how could the combustible "rocket ship" actually go thru the Van Allen Radiation Belts safely & fly through the "vacuum" of space (rocket propulsion theory) to the moon & back without "refueling," & how was it possible for astronauts to survive moon's extreme temp swings for even 5 minutes?? Finally, there was no fukn technical way astronauts talked to Nixon from the moon in the 1960s as the tech then was piss-poor. We still had clunky rotary phones & no digital/only analog machines back then with only giant mainframe room-size computers (no microchips or micro-tech-size communications at all). Even so, we couldn't talk with astronauts on the moon today either cause no interstellar WiFi - not to mention the fact that we can't physically go to the moon anyway & never have. ;-)
Govt w/complicit Hollywood & Stanley Kubrick's help - director of "2001: A Space Odyssey" - tricked all of us into a mass delusion that seeing filmed "moon" scenes on TV was reality.)
Today's advanced software/deep fake tech shows us even more that reality is easily faked. :/
To be clear, I have reservations about what happened that day and who was really responsible. However, I have to take exception to several of the things you have decided to point out as being illogical. First, the first witness, the CNN financial person. You keep pointing out that he doesn’t know which tower has been hit. I don’t think that’s a gotcha at all. Not everyone knows the North Tower versus the South Tower. Just because he was well aware of flight patterns is irrelevant to whether he knew which tower was which. Second, the 2nd witness I believe, stating that the tower just blew up, or exploded could have been a true perspective at the same time as it could have been true that a plane hit the tower. You never explained her position to the tower, only that she was closer than the CNN guy. If her view of the building was the opposite of where the plane entered it would make sense that what she saw was the building exploding. As far as all the reporters calling the video pictures doesn’t in and of itself point to conspiracy. While there was smoke billowing from the towers the image was completely static, non moving. Without any of the other deep dives into 911, especially regarding building 7 and the dustified theory, I’d have to look at this as being not so much really.
Most of your other digging has impressed me, though. To be clear.
If you were working every day for many years on a high floor with a view of the area and the Hudson, you'd have a fair idea of where the planes fly.
Mimi - Reminder:
The 911 videos/interviews were all faked/scripted as Agent so clearly described. If you are impressed with Agent's work, then the simple fact that he proves image fraud will dispute your CNN-related point that the CNN guy was a "real witness" & on "live" TV.
DEW's (what a phonetic joke!) can cause terrible biological issues, but so far there is no proof they can turn brick into dust, certainly not unless a stable /focused emission is made.
911 Divisionist & Dew'dy Wood can not specify what equipment was used , nor provide footage of any similar occurrence of DEWs destroying concrete & steel. A laser cutting metal from a few millimeters away is not proof of a DEW being capable of building demolition, just like lighting a candle is not comparable with setting fire to an entire forest & making it instantaneously combust.
Dew'dy Wood & 911 Retardist both make their claims from CONSTRUCTED FOOTAGE, as was uncannily pointed out to 911 Revizer only a few days ago!
Old people call videos "pictures." My grandparents referred to the tv set as "the picture box." They used "rabbit ears," so they'd refer to "adjusting the picture." Merriam Webster definition:
noun
pic·ture ˈpik-chər
Synonyms of picture
1
: a design or representation made by various means (such as painting, drawing, or photography)
2
a
: a description so vivid or graphic as to suggest a mental image or give an accurate idea of something
the book gives a detailed picture of what is happening
b
: a mental image
3
: image, copy
he was the picture of his father
she was the very picture of health
4
a
: a transitory visible image or reproduction
b
: motion picture
c
pictures plural : movies
5
: tableau sense 2
6
: situation
took a hard look at his financial picture
I thought the news reporter who said "the tops of both towers are gone" actually lends a bit of authenticity. He says that the smoke and dust clouds obscure whatever is left below. Since NO skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire before or since, how would he know that the entire things just turned to dust? I'd have expected a huge twisted mess underneath. Ironically, it's a reminder that the twin collapse into its own footprint makes no sense unless you've been conditioned to accep it.
I would have expected a charred frame. Fires don't obliterate a building; they burn it. I speak as someone who has seen burned buildings, no special expertise.
Exceptional research.
2012 was also the year, when most of the US media was bought up by globalist investors... No wonder telling lies has been "legit" ever since (not that it wasn't before, but it may have been done more cautiously, but most of the time, real news were left untouched.
These videos are apparently using what I call the "shock effect," which can even be initiated by a little cussing. :) Most of the time, it's usually a Big Lie that is so terrible that it would be "criminal" (it often is) to question it:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/the-shock-effect
Ray - What proofs do you have that: "...but most of the time, real news were left untouched"?
Contrary to your assertion, I would argue that the PTB's MSM has always been complicit w/manipulating/covering up the govt's/corps' false flags & scripted wars (cultural, financial, medical, military or political) over many centuries (Another example is related to even earlier civilizations too, e.g. see Anatoly Fomenko's theories on manipulated historical timelines.)
Ray, realize that prob above comment was a throwaway line but, still, just gotta respond ;-)
Briefly, in quick summary, examples on exactly what the MSM has lied about & manipulated:
> Native Genocide/Relocation/Trail of Tears/Reservations, US Civil War, Spanish Civil War, Titanic/1913 Fed Reserve conspiracy, US "lynching campaigns", 1918 Spanish Flu & vaccines (hoaxes), Great Depression (created financial collapse), WWI/WWII, US govt/corp/banksters' support/funding for Hitler/Nazis, Operation Paperclip/Nazis to US, Cold War/McCarthyism, MK-Ultra, JFK/RFK murders, "SPACE Race, COINTELPRO, Operation Mockingbird, Viet Nam, "Moon Landings", JEdgar Hoover/FBI/CIA/Laurel Canyon/Rock & Roll, "youth" movement, Nixon/Watergate, "Peak Oil", Reagan Admin's IranContra/Franklin (pedogate) Scandal, Ice Age/GlobalWarming/Climate Change scams, GMOs/pesticides/insecticides dangers, cancer cures, Green New Deal/Sustainability, the Great Reset (NWO/Agenda21) & on & on...
JFK to 911: Everything Is A Rich Man's Trick - 2014 documentary by Francis Richard Conolly.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/8alCyL83Quw4
Watched the doc/film above a decade ago when it was shared widely & mind was boggled as the analysis is so well-supported & the conclusions are so self-evident that all men... well...
So much deception...
And that only takes us from early US founding to mid-2000s or so but shows exactly how complicit the promoted "news"/history/textbooks have been when presenting "facts" to us.
So much evidence that the powerful MSM invents a reality & stories that are foisted on us for purpose & ignores the actual behind-the-scenes machinations of a controlled country/system. Why would anyone vote if they knew that elections are selections only & the PTB allow only the choices that they can manipulate or utilize for their own scripted purposes? The Biden/Harris' Dims' Agenda21/NWO or the Trump/Vance/Musk's Pubs' Project 2025 will/would both lead to the same hellish dystopian bio-digital-tech controlled future. Unity-party.
Realize you prob agree w/most of my points here but just couldn't leave your "real news" comment alone without responding so that others will perhaps see how manipulated MSM "news" has always been the rule & never an exception. Depressing as hell but that's reality.
Everything is fake and gay. Everything is fake and gay. EVERYTHING IS FAKE... AND GAY.
Is that a desperate admission regarding your own state of being Thworsh?
NEWTOWN was a total joke and ALEX JONES is CONTROLLED OPPOSITION ...keeping the stupid evil LIE alive...
Enjoyable article, on point, even get Simon's blessing.
https://fakeologist.com/words-matter-you-saw-a-picture/
https://shortfake.com/scwp we discuss the September Clues series in depth.
Witness "Winston" = Winston Smith, the beleaguered protagonist of 1984 and the most widely known victim of propaganda in all of world literature. They think we're stupid.
It can be shown, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that airliners were not used as weapons. Therefore TSA has absolutely no excuse for its existence.
I see 2 holes in the side of the building but NO PLANE! Those 2 holes have a solid mass in between them... If a plane had hit there would be a hole right across....not 2 separate holes with a solid mass in between them!
The entire event was a fakery caused by frequency modulation weaponry. Hence the sonic boom the lady heard that knocked out her tv reception momentarily.
I watched a podcast a few months ago that mentioned the lack of people actually working in the towers. They were almost empty. (Wasn't there an issue with asbestos or something?) Also the complete lack of videos of people streaming out of the buildings during the attack. You would think people on the ground outside would be filming this. I wonder why that reporter kept asking something about what was on the street level? Also this podcaster mentioned the recorded city death levels did not rise during the event (though we know these figures can be faked, it's their system after all). He apparently asked Judy Wood for an interview several times and she ignored him.
Can you provide a link to this podcast since it affected your understanding of 911? Would be valuable to watch the podcast & know who Dr Wood turned down for an interview.
Hi Lucinda,
It was Brian Staveley's channel on YT, Dose of Reality. He's done quite a bit of digging into 9/11, amongst other things. Just had a quick look and the channel seems to be on a strike at the moment, though he has mentioned an Odysee channel. Though to be fair, I am even now hearing different opinions on what happened that day so I have to take everything with a pinch of salt lol