0 0 votes
Article Rating
simple-ad

This is a demo advert, you can use simple text, HTML image or any Ad Service JavaScript code. If you're inserting HTML or JS code make sure editor is switched to 'Text' mode.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

31 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

John le Bon
John le Bon(@john-le-bon)
3 years ago

Thanks to Ab for sharing this video. I felt too tired to do anything ‘productive’ last night, and making videos is my version of entertainment. When others are watching TV or playing video games or whatever, my own method of ‘relaxing’ is producing videos. I saw a video by Steve Willner (Labyrinth of the Psychonaut) which featured the ‘Rose’ tune by Ezra Sandzer-Bell, and for some reason felt like making a 9/11-related video with that music as the basis. There’s not one of those. There’s many of those. @TERRAN: It is not merely the footage of the planes fusing into… Read more »

Gaia
Gaia(@gaia)
3 years ago
Reply to  John le Bon

Yeah, it’s such a beautiful piece of art. After all, “war is a hoax”, the parroting meme of the moment, it doesn’t matter that Afghans and Iraqis got invaded, taken over, chased from their lands, their cultures changed and their women “educated”, right?

It’s all about the “Elites are not at all bad”, ain’t it?

I don’t know fear, they don’t come to me, I am not unhappy and I don’t have enemies who I can’t see, drop that schtick, it gets greasy.

John le Bon
John le Bon(@john-le-bon)
3 years ago
Reply to  Gaia

You are still buying into the false narratives on your telescreen.

Iraq and Afghanistan were completely under control well before any ‘war on terror’.

Who do you believe drew their ‘national borders’?

Your crabs-in-a-bucket mentality is no good for you or anybody you associate with, including the innocent folk here at Fakeologist.com

Gaia
Gaia(@gaia)
3 years ago
Reply to  John le Bon

Prof. Dr. John Le Con, the last time I watched the telescreen you were still playing with LEGO (or dolls, which may be more appropriate in your case; full domination without feedback). Another easy schtick you maybe need to take care of. Are you saying the Jordanian guy I met who hosted Syrian refugees in his house was lying to me? That the overall, bird-eye, helicopter view control of those “countries” was in the hands of we-all-know-who(-or-not) for centuries (indeed those lines on a map -not the terrain- are arbitrary) doesn’t change the situation on the ground. For real people.… Read more »

John le Bon
John le Bon(@john-le-bon)
3 years ago
Reply to  Gaia

1) You are a grown man. Try to act like it. 2) Yes, the person you spoke to may have been lying to you. People lie all the time. Of course, he may have been telling the truth — or, at least, the truth as he understood it. 3) Are there ‘refugees’ leaving the middle east? Sure. I have met many of them here in Brisbane. Are these people fleeing an actual war? That is what is in contention. The ones I have met seemed quite happy to be in a first world country. If that means carrying themselves as… Read more »

Terran Downvale
Terran Downvale(@terran-downvale)
3 years ago
Reply to  John le Bon

JLB: Feel free to toss my half-baked impromptu catcher’s mitt theory onto the burn pile with the rest of the minutia musings. I agree that those kinds of details are ultimately meaningless and it’s the esoteric/symbolic layer where the real truther’s gold is to be found. Or more accurately, meant to be found. Some, like Faye below, may believe the fluorescence of symbolic meaning that emits from these events like a fox’s stench begging for a bloodhound is nothing but manipulation. A misdirection from more mundane criminal motives. But I can clearly see there is something more going on here… Read more »

Gaia
Gaia(@gaia)
3 years ago

Terran, the imagery of 9/11 with planes morphing into buildings is not refuted on the basis of “media fakery” (which it is of course), but on the basis of physical laws. Please provide a coherent, logical and above all physical description how a highly heterogeneous object as a plane can produce complete homogeneous “collision” behavior with another heterogeneous object (the WTC tower). Feel free to include the terms: – density – point mass – area – velocity – rigidity – shear stress – kinetic energy – friction angle – Poisson ratio – tensile strength – compressibility – and similar useful… Read more »

Terran Downvale
Terran Downvale(@terran-downvale)
3 years ago
Reply to  Gaia

Gaia: First, while I’m not totally throwing away what could reasonably be argued as a throw-away theory, I did concede below that the relatively short time window between the two reported plane strikes may pose less of a problem than I had previously thought regarding the live eyewitnesses, if you didn’t catch it. That said and going along with the original theory, I’m afraid I don’t have the necessary knowledge to get very scientific about it. I just wonder if a particular section of the tower (the target “window”) could have been constructed in a way (using certain materials and… Read more »

Gaia
Gaia(@gaia)
3 years ago

Many if not the majority of the buildings of the 70s were built using asbestos, it is not strange to assume the WTC was no exception. The idea you sketch means that 7 floors were not massive concrete, like they should have been, that steel columns were not steel, how can you ever explain how such a “structure” can support the outside parts of the 30 floors above? You don’t have to be an engineer to understand that such a “structure” cannot exist. The plane is even more impossible. Consider what a plane is, it is not a coherent single… Read more »

Terran Downvale
Terran Downvale(@terran-downvale)
3 years ago
Reply to  Gaia

Gaia: I definitely won’t argue with the common sense physics. Such a structure doesn’t make sense to me either as far as I can imagine. I’d like to know if someone else could offer a possibility, though. Because the idea that the WTC was an anomalous structure built in a very specific way that allowed for its main ultimate purpose (to come crashing down in a spectacular yet safe manner) makes perfect sense to me. So I would have to disagree with your statement: Many if not the majority of the buildings of the 70s were built using asbestos, it… Read more »

Rollo
Rollo(@rollo)
3 years ago

Vespadouglas
Vespadouglas(@vespadouglas)
3 years ago

its like time lapse…..years old shit

Terran Downvale
Terran Downvale(@terran-downvale)
3 years ago

Watching the “hot knife through butter” footage got me thinking. If the towers were built specifically to be taken down with relative ease and minimal “danger” (see the possible “asbestos” red herring, Gaia), could it also be that they were designed to easily absorb an airplane and even “catch it” in the way we see in the footage? The “no planes” idea always bothered me as the potential mass eye witness problem would be too difficult to deal with. So maybe there were “planes” (also possibly specifically crafted for this purpose) that were efficiently and conveniently “caught” by the towers… Read more »

Terran Downvale
Terran Downvale(@terran-downvale)
3 years ago
Reply to  Fakeologist

And how have you determined that this is absolutely not possible? It could be just as easy as tossing a paper airplane into an open window.

Misom
Misom(@misom)
3 years ago

Terran, there are many reasons that stand against your hypothesis, even if we assume that the buildings were built for that “plan”. We take as given that there were no attacks by any terrorists in real Manhatten, but only on Tv.
What is the easiest, fastest, most predictable and secure way to disappear buildings ?
Exactly.

Terran Downvale
Terran Downvale(@terran-downvale)
3 years ago
Reply to  Misom

Well, of course there were no “attacks.” It was a harmless stunt/trick. Could they not have performed the stunt live? And of course the towers were taken down by controlled demolition, in the safest and easiest way possible. Toss a couple “paper airplanes” in what are essentially “open windows” along with some harmless special effect explosions, turn on some smoke machines and then demolish the towers. It could be that what was shown on TV was not an actual recording of this “live stunt” but something more dramatic and impressive. But the live stunt could have loosely approximated it enough… Read more »

Misom
Misom(@misom)
3 years ago

I am convinced that all the stories about occult, spritual and other such stuff are plain marketing exploiting the emotive qualities of humans. There is nothing spiritual or transcendental of any kind in criminal deception as program.
We do not know how exactly the film sequences were produced other than they were not produced on that day. My personal favorite of hypothesis is, that they used architectural models.

UNreal
UNreal(@unreal)
3 years ago

The fact the planes can be seen entering the buildings in the footage does require a better explanation than what is normally accepted. – As many wonder whether the footage of the plane crash was real or CGI – the real indication is lurking just behind these techniques that both are misleading – and why so many well-known alt-truthers bring them up. – We know that the demolition was planned and we have realistic images where the planes enter the building. – The only explanation that really holds up to what we observe from the 911 footage and from what… Read more »

Terran Downvale
Terran Downvale(@terran-downvale)
3 years ago
Reply to  UNreal

Interesting idea about the models as opposed to pure CGI. I’m inclined to think actual physical elements would always be preferable to purely digital ones from the standpoint of the movie makers, for 9/11 and any other hoax we’ve seen since then. But I know this goes against the CluesForum position. One example where I really disagreed with the CGI claims was the Bataclan balcony dangler. I also think we are regularly being baited by “simulated simulation” where things are intentionally made to appear as if they could be CGI when they are not (possible example, the recent YouTube shooter).… Read more »

UNreal
UNreal(@unreal)
3 years ago
Reply to  UNreal

Maybe we ought to entertain the idea that Cluesforum are not always right – nor investigates every type of alternative truth*. – Lately they have fostered some very poor models in their Flat Earth DBA* (acronym BAD) where they set up a perfect strawman argument tearing down the messenger thus dispensing themselves for any serious inquiry. – The latest foray into the vacuum of space with TYCHOS (acronym – The Sycho) model is just as misleading where they analyse a gravity driven space with heavy objects floating in a vaccum – which is simply not reproducible nor rely on proved… Read more »

Vespadouglas
Vespadouglas(@vespadouglas)
3 years ago

give ’em enough rope and they hang themself

Terran Downvale
Terran Downvale(@terran-downvale)
3 years ago
Reply to  Vespadouglas

Or maybe enough rope to climb out of the echo chamber? This is just a theory, of course. I’m in no way stating it as a “rule” like no planes. And I should make it clear that the “hot knife through butter” clip we see could just be a stylized, made-for-TV version of what actually happened “live” with the planes and towers, as I mentioned in my previous comment.

Terran Downvale
Terran Downvale(@terran-downvale)
3 years ago
Reply to  Fakeologist

Well, I can certainly see that working with the first plane. The second one is more of a problem as there were surely MANY eyes on those towers at that point. But yes, the smoke screens, etc. So I will revise my theory from “yes planes” to “yes PLANE” (possibly).

Misom
Misom(@misom)
3 years ago

Terran, the “first” and the “second plane” existed only in the film material. In reality the buldings were not demolished in the time modus.
We do not know the exact time and time modus of the real destruction of the buildings. Even if thousands of eyes were viewing the buildings disappearing from in one or the other perspective, they would not know how they disappeared. The explanation came afterwards.

Terran Downvale
Terran Downvale(@terran-downvale)
3 years ago
Reply to  Misom

OK, it’s been a while since I looked at the timeline of events and I didn’t remember exactly how it played out. With a mere 17 minute window between reported “plane strikes,” I can see how the power of suggestion might be enough. A plane-catching stunt tower would be impressive, though! Carry on.

Misom
Misom(@misom)
3 years ago

I think you come closer to the idea that there were two different “events” on that day: the film and the reality. All you know about planes and minutes, 08:46 north t, 09:02 south t, etc. etc. was only in the film. In reality was only controlled demolishion.