Keeping it simple…

Was the coverage of 9/11 by the major news networks real or fake? That’s a controversial question of which many people have ingrained opinions. Opinions have become so ingrained that many refuse to watch videos or look at evidence that advocate contrary ideas. With that in mind, the arguments need to become as short and simple as possible.

Here’s a hypothetical: You want to explain what happened on 9/11 to your child who is 5 years old. You show your child these four videos of a plane crashing into the World Trade Center which were aired on different networks. There is a North Tower (WTC 1) and a South Tower (WTC 2). The North Tower is the one with the big antennae and the smoke is blowing to the southeast. A map is provided for reference.

World Trade Center Map

In this video the North Tower is on the right, the South Tower is on the left, and we are facing south and slightly to the east. The plane is approaching from the right which means the approach is from the west.

This shot was from nearly the same angle, but the plane is not flying level like the first video.

Watch the plane appear from above the smoke then drop below the smoke. Here, the North Tower is still on the right. We are looking south and a little west. The approach of the plane is still moving right to left, but its approaching more from the south and it’s diving like the second video.

Here, the North Tower is on the left and the South Tower is on the right. We are looking east. The smoke is now blowing to the right. The plane still approaches from the right, but since we are looking east, the approach is from the south and the plane is now flying under the smoke.

Did the plane come from the west or south? Was it in a steep dive or level? Oh my. It’s enough to confuse a 5 year old or convince him that the videos are fake. A 5 year old may not know much about remote control Boeings, but I believe he could figure this out.

The problem with the top and bottom videos is that they show 2-D animations from two different points of view. With 2-D animation, the plane appears to fly perpendicular to the line of sight. The middle videos have better 3-D effects. The intention may have been to have the plane come from the southwest, but the 2-D effect looking south shows it coming from the west and the 2-D effect looking east shows it approaching from the south. 2-D animation was not a good choice for this operation.

Another item of note was that the weather was clear and the sky was cloud free that morning. But the three videos above show grey or murky backgrounds. Is there a video of the second strike that shows a more clear background and a more natural sky? Here is a more realistic video which shows something very small approaching from the southwest.

What is that thing that hit the tower? Could it have been Wonder Woman’s jet?

There are dozens if not hundreds of cringe inducing anomalies in the network 9/11 videos. September Clues has enumerated many of them, the most famous of which is probably ‘Nose Out’.  I know no one likes being fooled by the TV, but the sooner we come to terms with this the better.

For those who don’t see the logical sense of faking the 9/11 plane crashes, Killtown wrote an excellent article. It would have been impossible to use real planes because of the perception created by real planes hitting the buildings. Real planes would have crumpled up near the edges of the buildings and would not have created huge explosions on impact because jet fuel is not that combustible, though there would have been small fires. If the buildings would have been blown up in that case, the collapse would have looked so absurd that no one would have believed that the planes knocked the buildings down. Take a look at the B-25 that crashed into the Empire State Building in 1945:

If the Empire State Building had collapsed after that crash, would anyone have believed that the B-25 brought down the building?


5 Responses to “Keeping it simple…”

  1. mike the disc golf champ Says:

    while i do believe the high possibility of government involvement/coverup in this, i don’t think the three smoke vids show as good evidence as you point out. i was looking at the positions of the other buildings around the WTC and pausing the vids. if the smoke stream is really going in only one direction at one angle, then i see where you’re coming from, but if the smoke stream is actually fanning out, covering 45-90 degrees of a certain angle (east to south) then i don’t think the camera angles would detect that.

  2. revolutioncalling Says:

    You only need to see where the North and South Towers are located. I added a map and more explanation of the direction the cameras are facing.

  3. I am so bummed that your vids are removed.

  4. Excellent posting. Will you please write a lot more about this subject.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: