9/11 Truth 2.0: Truth Reloaded

Once you have seen Steven Jones’ and Richard Gage’s presentations on the WTC disaster and the eyewitness’ who heard/saw/felt explosions, you can understand that the evidence for explosives in the WTC buildings is unequivocal and irrefutable. However, we can take the argument one step further and consider the implications of explosives in the WTC buildings.

Jim Hoffman touched on these implications briefly at the end of his ‘Lifting the Fog’ presentation. He speculated that remote control airliners could have hit the buildings instead of passenger planes piloted by suicide hijackers. He had absolutely no direct evidence to support that theory and admitted it was only an implication of the fact that WTC buildings were lined with explosives from top to bottom and the perpetrators could not afford to have the planes miss the buildings. Other circumstantial evidence suggests that passenger planes and human pilots were not used in the attacks: First, on pilotsfor911truth.org, in the interview with John Lear, Rob Balsamo claims that one of the member pilots, who was a check captain on a Boeing 737, was in a flight simulator on 9/11 and tried to fly an airliner into the WTC but failed to hit the towers after five attempts. Hitting the towers with a piloted airliner on the first attempt may be near impossible. Second, the explosions that brought down the towers seemed to begin near the impact sites. Debunkers have used this fact in an attempt to debunk the idea of explosives in the buildings. They ask, “How could the demolition crew know the exact floors where the planes would hit?” Maybe an unpiloted craft was precisely aimed at the floors where the explosions initiated.

This circumstantial evidence raises the possibility of remotely piloted airliners hitting the buildings, but there is no direct evidence of these planes ever being built or tested anywhere in the world. The logistics of designing, building, and testing such a craft and having two of them work reliably on 9/11 is staggering and strains credibility.

But if Occam’s razor is applied, is there a more simple explanation that can account for the above implications of explosives in the buildings? Yes. The buildings were hit with guided missiles and the camera angles which supposedly caught the planes flying into the buildings were modified using computer graphics and video layering. The live camera angles could have been pre-planned and controlled. Also, the CGI could have been refined and polished well ahead of time. Think of it from a movie producers point of view: If you want an image of a plane going into a building, would you build a full scale remote control plane to fly into a building, or would you use a few camera tricks and CGI?  GPS guided missiles were proven and reliable and could have hit the buildings at precise points without fail.

This theory implicates some of the camera operators who shot the planes flying into the buildings as criminals as well as many of the eyewitness’ who claimed see planes fly into the WTC. That guy in the Harley Davidson T-shirt keeps looking more guilty as more time passes.

The ground breaking documentary ‘September Clues‘ exposed many anomalies of the second tower impact: Some eyewitness’ who claimed to be looking at the buildings at the time of the impact said that they did not see a plane. Other witnesses were reported to have seen a missile. The video of the different camera angles showing the second plane going into the building seem to contradict each other by showing different aircraft: one losing altitude as it comes into the building and another flying level and straight. Also, there is the famous shot of the second plane going into the building without the building or the plane deforming in any way and building mysteriously ‘healing’ itself behind part of the wings as they pass through the face of the building. Some of the more surreal moments uncovered include live shots of news anchors in the studio trying to convince a correspondent on the street that a plane hit the building, but the person on the street can’t seem to confirm or believe it. For me, proof of the CGI plane was the ‘nose out’ footage shot by the Fox helicopter. The plane flew through the building without slowing down and the nose of the plane emerged on the opposite side of the building completely intact and undeformed. That footage was shown only once and every attempt was made to cover it up afterwards. That digital effect mistake was made on a live TV signal which resulted from the helicopter drifting slightly in the few seconds it took to compose the shot after the explosion.

The best resource on second strike video is the site run by Killtown.  After looking at all these videos, Killtown seems sympathetic to the idea of no planes hitting the towers (from the highlighted news dialog that suggests a missile instead of a plane). There is also good engineering analysis of the second strike videos on Still Diggin’s blog which shows evidence of video manipulation and promotes the no-plane theory.  The first objection people have to the no-plane theory is that there should be some videos of the explosion that were not modified with a plane. Indeed, there have been postings on YouTube of different camera angles showing a missing plane. But, with every posting, there are people screaming in the comments: FAKE, OBVIOUSLY FAKE. Unless they can show specific evidence of video manipulation in the no-plane videos, I’m more likely to believe these videos than not.

Something big: This video, which was live on NBC, shows a plane flying into the building.

Something small: This video, which may have been taken from the same camera, shows something much smaller flying at the same speed on the same trajectory.

Something level: This video, shot at close to the same angle as the above shots, shows a plane on a much more flat trajectory.

Something missing: This video from the Empire State Building, again shot at close to the same angle as above, shows that either nothing or something too small to be resolved hit the building.

What’s going on? These videos can’t all be accurate. Which ones were modified? What other clue do we have to indicate what hit the building? The speed is the clue. The top two videos show different objects flying at the same speed on the same trajectory. What speed are they traveling? Here is a report on the measured speed: Five different institutions (MIT, British Royal Air Force, FAA, NIST, and FEMA) independently measured the speed of the object that struck the building. Every institution estimated a speed above 500mph. The maximum cruising speed at cruising altitude of a Boeing 767 is about 536mph. At 700 feet altitude, the airliner would be physically unable to fly faster than about 330mph, and would begin to break apart at about 220mph. However, a missile could fly that fast at that altitude. SO WHAT DO WE HAVE? It’s certainly not a commercial airliner, and most probably a missile. The airplane, which was graphically created, could fly at any speed they wanted. However, they needed the plane image to mask their missile so the plane is seen traveling at the speed of a missile.

Scholar and former Department of Labor Economist Morgan Reynolds advocates a no-plane theory for the WTC disaster. His main contention is that a commercial airliner or any large aircraft hitting the WTC should deform and break apart as it impacts the building since an aircraft is essentially a hollow, fragile structure. It isn’t solid like a bullet.  However, the plane is seen gliding into the building almost intact. The exterior columns should have deformed or crushed the fragile wings and fuselage. Even cars undergo impact studies to make sure they don’t crumple when they hit something, but planes are not crash tested because they are only suppose to fly and land.  In contrast, a missile, unlike an aircraft, is designed to penetrate standing structures and would more plausibly pass through the tower and cause an explosion on the side opposite the impact.

The opposing side of this argument is what I call the “open hangar” theory. This theory supposes that the aircraft flew into the WTC like the Millennium Falcon flew into the Death Star: because there was essentially an open hanger waiting for it to enter.  Despite first appearances, this theory isn’t easy to debunk. The discussion gets into the abundance of glass on the outside of the building and the tensile strength of the exterior metal. All I can say is show me this “open hangar” theory in another situation to prove that its reproducible. There were no airplane parts seen falling from the building, and no airplane parts were seen in the entry hole. Another example of a large aircraft hitting a tall building is the B-25 that struck the Empire State Building in 1945:

The Empire State Building Plane Crash

The Empire State Building wasn’t an “open hangar” for the B-25. Parts of the B-25 are seen hanging out the building. I know it isn’t the WTC, but I’m trying to make a point. The above photo obviously shows a plane crash and not a missile strike. What other time besides 9/11 has a plane crash looked so much like a missile strike? Certainly, the people near the crash sites in the towers should have seen plane wreckage. If many of them had survived, they could have told us conclusively whether or not planes hit the buildings. Unfortunately, the doors on the roofs were locked and FEMA helicopters made no attempt to rescue anyone from the roofs of the WTC.

Take a close look at that picture of the Empire State Building. Imagine that you are planning a terrorist attack on the WTC with the full intention of blowing up the buildings and having them fall to the ground. You want the images to appear as though plane impacts made the towers fall. Through diligent research, you come across this picture of the B-25 hanging out of the ESB. You ask yourself, “If the ESB would have collapsed straight down after the plane hit, would anyone have believed that the plane made the building fall?” A building collapse soon after this picture was taken would have been seen as absurd. The main body of the plane didn’t penetrate the building and the explosion wasn’t big and dramatic. Most of the plane is crumpled up near the edge of the building. Planes are sometimes referred to as flying beer cans and this B-25 beer can got crushed near the side of the building. A real plane hitting the building could not serve as a plausible mechanism to cause collapse. However, a missile could hit a precise window, penetrate deep into the building, and explode. The size of the explosion could be controlled depending on the warhead. So what do you use, a real plane with a number of unpredictable variables on the nature of the crash and the explosion which may or may not seem like plausible cause of collapse, or a missile where you know precisely where its going to hit and the size of the explosion? Hmmmm. I would go with the missile. Read Killtown’s article.

From the information in the interview with John Lear and also from the observed speed of the object that hit the second tower, one can dismiss almost conclusively the idea that commercial airliners struck the towers. I’m reluctant to speculate on the fates of Flight 175 and Flight 11, but we deserve a complete accounting of those flights when a proper criminal investigation moves forward.  However, I can offer some educated speculation.  From independent research and American Airlines page on Wikipedia, Flights 11 and 77 did not exist on 9/11.  There is no video of anyone boarding any of the flights.  On all the flights, we have a combination of fictitious names, fake relatives of fictitious names, and government insiders.  The government insiders (notably on Flight 77) could have easily moved and changed their identities. I believe Barbara Olson is out there somewhere. She was Ted Olson’s third wife.  There was probably little love loss between them, and she was paid to change her identity.  These government insiders and fake relatives have no incentive to reveal the truth.  Some have suggested that the passengers were disposed of at an undisclosed location.  I contend that would have been an unnecessary complication.  Fake names and fake relatives and a few government insiders voluntarily disappearing would have been much easier.  Recently in a radio interview, Ellen Mariani, wife of passenger on Flight 175 claimed that she was the only relative of the passengers on UA 175. Where are the other relatives of that flight? Without any video of anyone boarding the flights, all the flights remain highly suspect.

For those aware of the relevant facts of the WTC attacks, the main question of the attacks is what type of aircraft hit the buildings. Was it remotely piloted airliners capable of such precise flying as to strike the WTC towers? The technology to remotely pilot a large aircraft may exist, but its quite a leap to say that this technology is capable of flying an aircraft into the WTC without direct evidence of these aircraft being prepared and test flown for this type of mission. Or did missiles strike the buildings combined with manipulation of the TV, video, and photgraphic images of the attacks to make it appear as though commercial airliners were used? Given the evidence we have of TV fakery, and also the evidence that the images in the videos were not what was witnessed on the scene, a strong case can be made for a missile attack. The speed of the object that hit the second tower and nature of the explosion in that tower (occurring on the opposite side from the impact) also point towards missiles hitting the buildings.

Some people question why the major news media companies are so reluctant to talk about 9/11. These videos may give a good explanation. Some have asked whether the news media’s constant spin and ridicule of the 9/11 truth movement constitutes obstruction of justice. From the evidence in these videos, obstruction of justice may be the least of their worries. When the criminal investigation of 9/11 crimes moves forward, some top people in the media companies may be facing serious consequences. Involvement of the media companies in the 9/11 crimes may have been a cunning move. One of the best ways to keep someone quiet is to involve them in the crime.

This article provides a simple, common sense approach to the no-plane theory of the WTC attacks. However, a more technical analysis of the WTC second strike videos is required for better proof. The articles by Still Diggin on his blog contain the best analysis I have seen of these videos which demonstrates well known layering techniques to compose the shots.  Still Diggin emphasizes that proof of video manipulation almost conclusively points towards no planes hitting the buildings. The perpetrators would not use the image of a plane to cover-up another plane.  For anyone who saw news coverage of the first Gulf War (ten years prior to 9/11), it’s apparent that the technology to hit a building with a missile from several miles away with great accuracy was well developed and could have been used in the WTC attacks.

The problem with the video manipulation strategy is that no matter how good their layering and CGI effects are, the videos cannot stand up to the scrutiny of a frame by frame analysis.  Special effects in movies are considered good enough if they look real on a casual viewing. If people accept the illusion of the effect after a casual viewing, the viewer considers it entertaining, and the effect is considered a success. But special effects in a serious crime like 9/11 are a different matter. Investigating the reality of the situation is the prerogative, not accepting an illusion of reality. Under careful analysis, these videos fall apart and the techniques used to compose them become apparent (which one would expect).  The real mystery is how anyone would consider this strategy a good idea. The media is only protected for now by public incredulity, not from any convincing TV fakery. Once the public’s unwillingness to look at reality fades, the media will be in trouble.

This evidence belongs in an entirely separate category from the evidence of explosives in the WTC because of its potential to confuse someone approaching the 9/11 evidence for the first time. It is certainly an advanced topic. But it may be the most simple explanation to account for the WTC attacks.

The purpose of this article is to inform and also encourage a protest movement against the news networks themselves. Anywhere there are news network cameras reporting live, someone should be holding up signs that read: “NO PLANES HIT THE TOWERS”, “FAKE PLANES”, “9/11 was a CNN/ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX job!”, or “Watch ‘September Clues'”.  If you meet someone that works for the news media, you could ask, “How does it feel to work for a criminal organization?” and inform them of ‘September Clues’ and the video analysis at http://911logic.blogspot.com/ . The news media could be the soft underbelly of the entire 9/11 operation. It may be the least equipped to stand up to public pressure and the key to breaking the 9/11 story.  The public’s willful ignorance about 9/11 cannot be overestimated. But the prospect of losing one’s job, livelihood, or investment (once a criminal investigation begins) should have a more sobering effect and make one look at things with a more clear view as opposed to Joe Public who would prefer to close his eyes and pretend that none of this is real.

I created a separate show in the ‘9/11 Evidence’ channel called ‘TV Fakery’ which features the ground breaking documentary ‘September Clues.’  This isn’t some joke or theoretical thought exercise. This is real life and these are serious allegations. Everyone needs to look into the technical analysis of these WTC second strike videos and decide for themselves what’s going on.

      “We have before us many long months of toil and struggle.

       You ask what is our policy. I will say, it is to wage war with all our might, with all the strength that God can give us, to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime.

       You ask what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs. Victory in spite of all terror. Victory however long and hard the road may be. For without victory there is no survival.”

       —Churchill, First speech as Prime Minister, House of Commons, 13 May 1940.

2 Responses to “9/11 Truth 2.0: Truth Reloaded”

  1. Joe Anybody Says:

    Hey, excellent page, and I completely agree..

    9/11 used tv fakery, the impossible flight speeds, and lack of vortices are proof enough.

  2. Your comparision to the Empire State Building crash of 1945 is very inaccurate. It was a slow traveling twin engine propeller plane with a small amount of fuel in it compared to the massive jet fuel containers in a modern day jet airplane. Plus the fact the pilot of the B-25 was going quite slow because of fog and wasn’t trying to create a huge effect in a New York building. The 9/11 planes were much larger, were going faster, and had massive amounts of flammable jet fuel on them.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: