9/11: The movie

Yes, the three towers came down ... but what did we see?

The last two minutes of Fight Club (1998), the final 30 seconds showing collapses of a number of towers ending with the collapses of twin towers.

Destruction of the Empire State Building in Independence Day (1996)

OK, so if you watched the clips perhaps you’re thinking the WTC twin towers’ collapses look more real … but do they really? Yes, the Empire State Building isn’t in the middle of the road as depicted in Independence Day but then neither is the Chrysler building visible as shown from the World Trade Center - being four miles north in midtown on East 42nd Street. A little Revelation of the Method, no? I cannot help but be amused.

Snapshot from a National Geographic clip seemingly showing the collapse of the South Tower from Liberty St with the Chrysler building in the background where it doesn’t exist.

Compare Chrysler building in above snapshot with aerial image from One World Observatory.

Other anomalies in the six seconds from 0:42 to 0:48 in the National Geographic clip of the South Tower collapse:

Problems with the vantage point

The initial vantage point is nonsensical. It is very, very close to the towers but significantly higher than ground level - the two apparent bands across the North Tower occur at the 44th and 78th floors. Regardless, the vantage point seems much too close - no other demolitions are filmed from so close and we can only infer the implied vantage point would be within the area cordoned off.

Moreover, the furthest edges of the twin towers were 166m apart. Therefore, from such a close vantage point the towers could not possibly both be in view.

Compare with a typical vantage in controlled demolitions (Mina Plaza demolition, Abu Dhabi, 2020).

Lack of clarity and shadow anomaly

In addition to vantage anomaly, there is the problem of lack of clarity and shadow anomaly.

On left, South Tower beginning to collapse; on right South Tower between 9:03 (alleged plane hit) and 9:58am (destruction).

From such a close distance we’d expect the definition of the steel columns to be visible as it is in a photo seemingly taken at a similar distance less than an hour earlier (see above). Moreover, considering the time between the alleged airliner crash into the South tower and its collapse is less than an hour (9:03am crash / 9:58am collapse) it’s odd that the collapse snapshot has the towers in seeming shadow while they are brightly lit less than an hour prior.

Cloud of smoke and change of vantage point

• At 0:41 we see a white cloud of smoke to the right of the smoke that seems to be emanating from the towers which has no explanation.

• At 0:46 while it seems as though the footage of the building is simply continuing to collapse, there is, in fact, a cut and the vantage point changes from what would seem to be West St to around the corner on Liberty St (see image below) and also higher and the height also seems an odd position from so close.

• The first three seconds shows fluffy white smoke topping black smoke in a clear atmosphere while the second snippet shows a very smoky-looking atmosphere with the colour more being black on top, white underneath. Other demolitions do not display this clear two-tone delineation that we see in the first two seconds.

Simon Shack’s Clues Forum - CGI collapse footage - Twin Towers

The notion that the twin towers’ footage was faked didn’t occur to me until I came across it on the Clues Forum site a couple of years ago - I didn’t research at the time, however, I thought it a very likely probability. The CGI collapse footage forum started in 2011 and it is a great shame that 13 years later it is still not widely recognised that the twin towers’ footage was faked.

I’d imagine the real footage would too clearly show controlled demolition so by showing us fake footage it is easier for them to maintain that they didn’t come down by controlled demolition because the footage doesn’t actually show real demolitions! I’d tend to think that rather than straight-down demolitions - as the entire WTC was evacuated - they would have had the buildings topple into it to minimise concern for the surrounding area as well as maximise destruction.

Below are summaries of the first five posts with links on the CGI collapse footage forum (there are 35 pages!), followed by a couple of selected posts:

• The top crush-down global structural collapses of WTC1/2 shown 'live on TV' with smoke ejected sideways and upwards, wall steel column panels 6 floors tall, 20 meters wide ripped off and thrown out and dropping down followed by dust clouds, corner structures breaking up floor by floor, etc, etc, is not possible physically (energy and force not available) or practically ... so what you see of global collapses is 100% animation Hollywood style. [cont.]

• The towers were most likely enveloped in thick smoke (military obscurants) as they collapsed – and no real footage exists of that brief event. All collapse shots are computer-generated animations, much like the ones we saw in the Independence Day Movie (1996)... [cont.]

Discrepancy in number of tower columns: Etienne Sauret’s footage shows 59 (the real number); while Dimitri Khazelov’s shows 39. (Image below adapted from Simon Shack’s).

• Evidence of cloned smoke clouds.

• Antenna is shown falling in opposite directions

• Antenna direction and smoke cloud discrepancy

• Fakery of dead firefighters

Clues Forum - WTC-7’s collapse - started at the bottom but another fakery

Clues Forum also exposes the fakery of WTC-7’s collapse. While I readily accepted the possibility of the twin towers’ collapses being faked when introduced to the idea by CF, I thought that - as it seemed to show a typical implosion starting at the bottom - the footage of WTC-7’s collapse was real. But in all three cases what we might anticipate is that explosives would be laid at regular intervals in such tall buildings - 415m, 417m and 226m - and in such a scenario, controlled demolition would be too obvious - see ejections at regular intervals in the Mina Plaza demolition (tallest building 169m). Whatever the reasons they faked the footage of the demolitions, the evidence is clear they did.

Mechanical penthouse collapse anomaly

A problem from a casual viewing using the fakery lens: I believe it makes no sense for either the fire or controlled demolition hypothesis for the mechanical penthouse (HVAC, etc machinery ) atop WTC-7 to collapse before any signs of weakening of the main structure. Also, after the east penthouse collapses what seems to happen in the west penthouse is that the eastern side of it seems to extend and then retract which is further against expectations.

Video (10m) by Simon Shack on the fakery of the footage of WTC-7’s collapse first published on YouTube in 2009 - oh dear, so very long ago, and still most truthers have no idea, myself included until just now. A few of the points made:

• Typical psyop contradiction of show and tell: an alleged witness says there was no fire “whatsoever” but alleged footage shows fire on both the eastern and western sides of the building.

• Reporter, Vince DeMentri, is supposedly reporting from just near WTC-7 with the expectation that it could collapse.

• Reporting that burnt out cars are a result of debris dropped and yet the area seems deserted.

• Eastern side of building seems to expand eastward as building comes down in some footage but not other.

Forum thread, WTC-7 Fake Re-visited (2013), by Simon Shack.

They tell us we’re being shown lots of pictures

Agent 131711 has done an excellent analysis of the news broadcasting on the day exposing a number of anomalies including the constant reference to “pictures”.

Mind-Blowing NEW 9/11 Discoveries: What You NEVER HEARD 💥 The Truth was Right In Front of Us All Along...

Just like Pearl Harbor, 9/11 was a movie

In this post, I stated about the event, “Pearl Harbor”, that it was no less of a movie than any movie made about it. The same applies to 9/11 … except, of course, that three skyscrapers and other large buildings were destroyed.