First,
the initial article containing my initial response was mixing Pilots for 9/11 Truth references in with the no plane holographic imagery references. That's like mixing cheap ketchup with crawfish etouffee! I don't take issue with information posted on
http://pilotsfor911truth.org, but I am also not familiar with any member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth that subscribes to the "no plane theory".
In the paragraph underneath the heading "Pilots for 9/11 Truth", you ask "If there were no planes, what happened?" I see Pilots for 9/11 Truth refuting airspeeds, flight data, pilot skill, flight lists and cell technology.but I haven't found Pilots for 9/11 Truth taking planes completely out of the equation. Through Operation Home Run, the planes did not need to be modified to be flown remotely and I suspect Dov Zakheim had a hand in this technology, although a real investigation may confirm or deny this. Concerning the Pentagon, there is a lot of suspicion and strong circumstantial evidence refuting the official story. In addition, Pilots for 9/11 Truth's analysis of the flight data recorder goes further and indeed places the plane well above the Pentagon with two independent altitude readings (both Doppler and barometric). Jeffrey Latas, an ex Gulf war fighter pilot, commercial pilot and a member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, confirms the flight data analysis, but is not entirely convinced himself about the idea that no jet hit the Pentagon. I do not believe Latas is compromised over the issue of 9/11. Obviously, there needs to be a thorough investigation of this theater of 9/11, but it's close to impossible to avoid speculation. This potential pitfall seems to be exacerbated by the FBI's confiscation of 80 or more odd recordings from different security cameras around the area.
I view the Pentagon as a potential honeypot propaganda tactic that attracts as many bees to the hive as possible before destroying the nest. Here, the Pentagon can simply pull or modify evidence they are in control of and use it to discredit (justified or not) the whole movement dealing with all theaters of 9/11. Thankfully, we have New York. As you state in your lectures, it seems like the establishment is asking us not to believe "our own lying eyes".
The following three conditions cannot be explained without explosives:
1. Molten iron in the basements of all three buildings.
2. The complete annihilation of all three buildings.
3. The rate of which all three buildings collapse while they are being destroyed.
It has been demonstrated time and again that the establishment has nowhere to go with this. Presenting these three basic items is the equivalent of placing your hands onto the neck of the establishment and squeezing. They are stuck. The more they dispute it, the worse it gets for them. Instead, trade groups are reduced to committing libel and slander by accusing folks like Richard Gage of anti-Semitism. That means Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are winning - and not the "Charlie Sheen" kind of winning.
All that is left for the establishment shills is deflection. Occupy peoples' time and attention with something like the "no plane theory". Perfect Cass Sunstein material.
In Portland, all of this no plane hologram speculation seems to center around a movie called "September Clues", which is the strongest influence among the no planers. This 90 minute film suggesting holographic imagery, "September Clues", places a great deal of emphasis on issues of timing, pixellation, audio discrepancies, camera angles, building perspectives, lower thirds station I.D.'s, silhouettes, auto-focus, reflections and protruding nose cones.
I already want my time back.
"September Clues" insists that news correspondents on the ground in New York needed to have seen the planes' impacts in order for us all to believe the planes hit the buildings. To be fair, I should mention that it looks like no on-site correspondent witnessed the actual impact of the planes. Every time reporters refer to an explosion, "Clues" cuts to giddy text over pastel colors declaring a moment of deception.
The maker of this film did not like seeing the nose cone popping out of the other side of the building. As the plane explodes with impact, you see all or part of the nose cone of the jet protrude through the other side of the building before it is consumed by the explosion. Apparently, the idea that the cone made it through the building to the other side is "monstrous video trickery". Everyone is supposed to assume that this is impossible. Like there is no way a vertical portion of the cone could make it past the 48 steel beams before exploding from the impact.
What does the editor of this movie do with this image of the emerging nose cone? Smooth out its pixels. Every frame of video footage only has so much information. There are only so many pixels. Bitmap software like photoshop is often tapped to remove the "video look" of a still video frame by smoothing out the pixels. They grab an earlier frame of an unmolested jet nose cone and superimpose it over the part of the nose cone that may have made it through the building. The protruding nose cone is slightly wider, a lot smoother, but matching! It's the fact that they match that we are supposed to realize the video-trickery of it all.
Posts
