Signaled the dawn of "virtual" reality, further camouflaging now with AI. Everything that used to be accepted as natural, real––can be simulated. Even if personally witnessed?––you've got to calmly consider being suspect. Biggest movie screen sky itself.
This is unprecedented in human history. Even the technology in Atlantis wasn't used to literally switch worlds (could be wrong; what happened Atlantis was pretty bad). So, one takeaway––this is new and you're afforded decades (or lifetimes) to figure out.
Hadn't crossed my mind either! But I have always wondered why, when it was a bright sunny day (albeit with a hurricane parked just off the coast which never gets mentioned) so much of the footage before (say, from the helicopter) and during the collapse show a very grey day, I think with a fair amount of cloud cover. When we get to the ground for the vox pops (seriously, why would you do vox pops on a day like this) it's sunny again. I think those shots of Giuliani are in bright sunshine too. Two different days could well explain the two completely different complexions of weather.
It has just occurred to me, after reading your reply, that for the CGI they would have had to make a decision on what the weather would be on the day. Grey and overcast would have been preferred as it will hide things and anyway isn't a bad bet for a September day.
One might ask (especially given the payoff they were about to get), why wouldn't they do both a grey day AND a sunny day? There are a few possibilities for why not, like more people in the know and probably huge amounts of work back then, but maybe they did and it showed all the handywork. Or maybe they only had one model, and once Roadrunner had made his mark, that was it.
It was well known at the time and it wasn't far off NY either, perhaps 12 to 20 miles from memory, though that may unreasonably close. I bet if you Google it you'll see it was there. Maybe it was there to change the weather to match the film, but that might have been a fair way down the list of priorities on what must have been a busy day. 😂🤣
Edit: Re. whose radar, I think it was a standard Weather Forecast meteorological map and/or photo. So belonging to whoever does those in the USA or NY.
The "hurricane" that never made landfall, never produced any damage. But it did keep visitors with prying eyes away from Bermuda & thereabouts.
"Shortly after reaching its peak intensity, Erin passed 105 miles (169 km) east-northeast of Bermuda, its closest approach to the island."
"Throughout its path, Erin caused no casualties, no injuries, and minor damage."
"The threat of the hurricane cancelled several flights in and out of the Bermuda International Airport,[14] stranding hundreds of travellers. Cruise ships and cargo ships also cancelled or delayed their arrivals"
Am I being a bit dim here? Are you suggesting it might never have been there and was just another media concoction? These media types sure do like to keep busy. ;)
Oh definitely. Without clear evidence, there is simply zero to believe about what we are told, especially on the subject of 9/11. It drives me crazy how people are so selective in what they accept as true and what they disbelieve. It's true you can get caught out and for years I accepted the footage of the twin tower destructions as real ... and even when I was alerted to claims they weren't it took me awhile to get around to verifying.
I've given you a like for highlighting the fakery - it's important to keep records of this kind of stuff.
Obviously I have a somewhat different take on it from you, though (as you are aware). Ironically I've got an offbeat 9/11 article taking shape in my long-suffering head at the moment. It was this morning's freshly ground arabica what did it, your honour.
I think when we identify fakery we always have to bear in mind the intended audience. Like with narrative theory and the writer-reader relationship. All this 9-11 stuff now is 'old news' to the vast majority of let's call them 'normal people' - normal people no longer think about 9-11 (or Pearl Harbour etc.), and they certainly don't ask questions or spend any time analysing fake footage and all the other anomalies. The bad guys are fully aware of this of course. Normal people, even at the time of 9-11, simply took what they saw at face value and formed their opinions in a purely emotional way. Like 'some bad terrorists have attacked us, killed lots of fellow Americans, I'm feeling really insecure right now, so I'm going to support our government in their plans for draconian homeland security measures and to do a war on terror; oh and I hate Muslims and brown people so I'm going to be pushed to the political right'. That's it. It really is that simple when we're talking the vast majority of people thinking about 9-11 (again, or PH).
As I say the perpetrators perfectly understand this. So from a certain point of view they don't need to do elaborate fakery for normal people, because it'll just go over their heads unless pointed out to them (even then they probably wouldn't believe it because cognitive dissonance).
Thus - this fakery, and highlighting this fakery, has a different intended audience. And that audience is let's call it the 'conspiracy theory subculture' - people, potential dissidents etc., who do in fact ask questions and, if left to their own devices, may well end up waking up enough people to reach a critical revolutionary mass. So something has to be done about these sceptics and dissidents (hence cognitive infiltration etc.). So, one option is to keep them busy discussing fakery, and indulging in arguments about what did or didn't happen on 9-11. The so-called 'revelation of the method' is absolutely not intended for the majority of normal people. Like I say, they don't notice. More importantly, they don't even notice subliminally.
So with this in mind - the intended audience - that should be our starting point for asking the more important question - 'why?' - why do they create fakery and want the sceptic movement to talk about all this stuff? They don't, after all, ever provide information without a reason or agenda. And as far as I remember, all this fake stuff didn't exist in 2001. Maybe the original footage has been scrubbed from the Internet, leaving only manufactured anomalies for the conspiracy theorists to argue about - pushed along by the cognitive infiltrators, of course. Until ultimately, those conspiracy theorists 1/ are made to look increasingly deranged and fantastical (e.g. directed energy weapons and all that jazz) and 2/ totally forget the very simple, big picture. Which is, there is a nasty cabal of malevolent monsters with a long-term plan for 'the new century' who have needed a series of long-planned and well thought-out catalysing events to achieve it (9-11, 2007/8 banking crash, Arab Spring, pandemic, war in Ukraine, Israel's war for Greater Israel and the elimination of Iran, leading to encirclement of Russia/China and potential ww3 if Russia/China don't intervene to protect Iran - ww3 after all can be used to implement their stupid great reset technofeudalism rubbish - other interpretations are possible).
Anyway - I think, for my two pfennigs worth, that these are the more pertinent questions. Identifying fakery is, however, very important, but only if we remember not to allow it to entrap us down interminable rabbit holes.
I always loved that Pixies track by the way - the closing one on their exceptional first LP, which I very proudly have in my collection. I saw them play that one live and Kim Deal's backing vocals at the end were indeed haunting. Possibly the best band I ever saw live, actually.
Evelyn, I wouldn't call what I have a "take" what I have is a rigorous approach basing my evaluation solely on evidence and reasonable inferences, eg, the demolition company, CDI, was heavily involved in the destruction of the WTC and I cannot see how they would be persuaded to leave people behind in buildings in complete opposition to their ethos and standards merely for a terror story when there was no need to kill anyone for real and there is no clear evidence of any desire to kill people only clear evidence of propaganda designed to make us think certain people were targeted. Moreover, it is obvious that the media was heavily in involved in the terror story that is 9/11 - in fact, hundreds and hundreds of people were involved.
What you have is merely speculation about what you think would / should / might / must have happened with not a skerrick of evidence favouring your hypothesis of real death and injury. Of course, I cannot say no one died or was injured but I certainly state with confidence that no one had to die or be injured and if they were it was either very deliberate or accidental.
It's interesting how the propagandists are utterly scrupulous in never providing any single piece of evidence that favours their story over fakery while those who analyse do not exhibit the same level of scrupulousness.
The only "fakery" worth mentioning and investigating is the 2005, formation of the "Scholars for 9/11 truth" and everything tat transpired as the 9/11 "truth" movement was forming....
9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." - Vladimir Lenin
Simon Hytten (Shack) did work for the European Space Agency. His father worked for the United Nations and his brother had connections to the Bin Laden family....
9/11 Planes, Layers of Deception
Mark Conlon & Andrew Johnson on RichPlanet TV (Sept 2017) - 9/11 planes research into the "alleged" video fakery of Flight 175 videos.
You're not considering the line of sight - we're not talking from the top of the South tower from which the Chrysler building would have been seen ... and nor are you considering the distance.
--- Here we see more of Lower Manhattan included (but not all) in the view from One World Trade and the Chrysler building looks tiny - Empire State is in middle of shot with Chrysler between it and RHS of photo at back of tall buildings. There is zero comparison with how close it seems in the still from the alleged footage of South tower destruction. https://tinyurl.com/566syk5j
Actually, I've modified my article with an image for comparison for those who are spatially-challenged - I'm spatially-challenged myself big time, however, I try to compensate for that limitation whereas obviously not everyone makes that effort ... or perhaps are simply unaware that they suffer that limitation.
Good look at things!!!
Signaled the dawn of "virtual" reality, further camouflaging now with AI. Everything that used to be accepted as natural, real––can be simulated. Even if personally witnessed?––you've got to calmly consider being suspect. Biggest movie screen sky itself.
This is unprecedented in human history. Even the technology in Atlantis wasn't used to literally switch worlds (could be wrong; what happened Atlantis was pretty bad). So, one takeaway––this is new and you're afforded decades (or lifetimes) to figure out.
Great post; was unaware of cluesforum.info. Thank you.
Hadn't crossed my mind either! But I have always wondered why, when it was a bright sunny day (albeit with a hurricane parked just off the coast which never gets mentioned) so much of the footage before (say, from the helicopter) and during the collapse show a very grey day, I think with a fair amount of cloud cover. When we get to the ground for the vox pops (seriously, why would you do vox pops on a day like this) it's sunny again. I think those shots of Giuliani are in bright sunshine too. Two different days could well explain the two completely different complexions of weather.
Yeah, there's too much mixing up of images showing grey and sunny.
It has just occurred to me, after reading your reply, that for the CGI they would have had to make a decision on what the weather would be on the day. Grey and overcast would have been preferred as it will hide things and anyway isn't a bad bet for a September day.
One might ask (especially given the payoff they were about to get), why wouldn't they do both a grey day AND a sunny day? There are a few possibilities for why not, like more people in the know and probably huge amounts of work back then, but maybe they did and it showed all the handywork. Or maybe they only had one model, and once Roadrunner had made his mark, that was it.
"Hurricane parked off the coast"
As per radar only? Whose radar?
It was well known at the time and it wasn't far off NY either, perhaps 12 to 20 miles from memory, though that may unreasonably close. I bet if you Google it you'll see it was there. Maybe it was there to change the weather to match the film, but that might have been a fair way down the list of priorities on what must have been a busy day. 😂🤣
Edit: Re. whose radar, I think it was a standard Weather Forecast meteorological map and/or photo. So belonging to whoever does those in the USA or NY.
Very thought provoking. I had completely forgotten about that ending to Fight Club.
The "hurricane" that never made landfall, never produced any damage. But it did keep visitors with prying eyes away from Bermuda & thereabouts.
"Shortly after reaching its peak intensity, Erin passed 105 miles (169 km) east-northeast of Bermuda, its closest approach to the island."
"Throughout its path, Erin caused no casualties, no injuries, and minor damage."
"The threat of the hurricane cancelled several flights in and out of the Bermuda International Airport,[14] stranding hundreds of travellers. Cruise ships and cargo ships also cancelled or delayed their arrivals"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Erin_(2001)
------------
What If Hurricane Erin Had Hit the East Coast on 9/11?
By Jonathan Erdman September 10, 2021
https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/september-11-hurricane-erin-missed-east-coast
Am I being a bit dim here? Are you suggesting it might never have been there and was just another media concoction? These media types sure do like to keep busy. ;)
Just thinking aloud.
There's so much fakery, why not a fake hurricane warning?
Oh definitely. Without clear evidence, there is simply zero to believe about what we are told, especially on the subject of 9/11. It drives me crazy how people are so selective in what they accept as true and what they disbelieve. It's true you can get caught out and for years I accepted the footage of the twin tower destructions as real ... and even when I was alerted to claims they weren't it took me awhile to get around to verifying.
Here you go - A lot of anomalies with regards to hurricane Erin....
Hurricanes and September 11, 2001?
What do hurricanes have to do with the 9/11 attacks?
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/hurricanes-and-september-11-2001
I've given you a like for highlighting the fakery - it's important to keep records of this kind of stuff.
Obviously I have a somewhat different take on it from you, though (as you are aware). Ironically I've got an offbeat 9/11 article taking shape in my long-suffering head at the moment. It was this morning's freshly ground arabica what did it, your honour.
I think when we identify fakery we always have to bear in mind the intended audience. Like with narrative theory and the writer-reader relationship. All this 9-11 stuff now is 'old news' to the vast majority of let's call them 'normal people' - normal people no longer think about 9-11 (or Pearl Harbour etc.), and they certainly don't ask questions or spend any time analysing fake footage and all the other anomalies. The bad guys are fully aware of this of course. Normal people, even at the time of 9-11, simply took what they saw at face value and formed their opinions in a purely emotional way. Like 'some bad terrorists have attacked us, killed lots of fellow Americans, I'm feeling really insecure right now, so I'm going to support our government in their plans for draconian homeland security measures and to do a war on terror; oh and I hate Muslims and brown people so I'm going to be pushed to the political right'. That's it. It really is that simple when we're talking the vast majority of people thinking about 9-11 (again, or PH).
As I say the perpetrators perfectly understand this. So from a certain point of view they don't need to do elaborate fakery for normal people, because it'll just go over their heads unless pointed out to them (even then they probably wouldn't believe it because cognitive dissonance).
Thus - this fakery, and highlighting this fakery, has a different intended audience. And that audience is let's call it the 'conspiracy theory subculture' - people, potential dissidents etc., who do in fact ask questions and, if left to their own devices, may well end up waking up enough people to reach a critical revolutionary mass. So something has to be done about these sceptics and dissidents (hence cognitive infiltration etc.). So, one option is to keep them busy discussing fakery, and indulging in arguments about what did or didn't happen on 9-11. The so-called 'revelation of the method' is absolutely not intended for the majority of normal people. Like I say, they don't notice. More importantly, they don't even notice subliminally.
So with this in mind - the intended audience - that should be our starting point for asking the more important question - 'why?' - why do they create fakery and want the sceptic movement to talk about all this stuff? They don't, after all, ever provide information without a reason or agenda. And as far as I remember, all this fake stuff didn't exist in 2001. Maybe the original footage has been scrubbed from the Internet, leaving only manufactured anomalies for the conspiracy theorists to argue about - pushed along by the cognitive infiltrators, of course. Until ultimately, those conspiracy theorists 1/ are made to look increasingly deranged and fantastical (e.g. directed energy weapons and all that jazz) and 2/ totally forget the very simple, big picture. Which is, there is a nasty cabal of malevolent monsters with a long-term plan for 'the new century' who have needed a series of long-planned and well thought-out catalysing events to achieve it (9-11, 2007/8 banking crash, Arab Spring, pandemic, war in Ukraine, Israel's war for Greater Israel and the elimination of Iran, leading to encirclement of Russia/China and potential ww3 if Russia/China don't intervene to protect Iran - ww3 after all can be used to implement their stupid great reset technofeudalism rubbish - other interpretations are possible).
Anyway - I think, for my two pfennigs worth, that these are the more pertinent questions. Identifying fakery is, however, very important, but only if we remember not to allow it to entrap us down interminable rabbit holes.
I always loved that Pixies track by the way - the closing one on their exceptional first LP, which I very proudly have in my collection. I saw them play that one live and Kim Deal's backing vocals at the end were indeed haunting. Possibly the best band I ever saw live, actually.
Evelyn, I wouldn't call what I have a "take" what I have is a rigorous approach basing my evaluation solely on evidence and reasonable inferences, eg, the demolition company, CDI, was heavily involved in the destruction of the WTC and I cannot see how they would be persuaded to leave people behind in buildings in complete opposition to their ethos and standards merely for a terror story when there was no need to kill anyone for real and there is no clear evidence of any desire to kill people only clear evidence of propaganda designed to make us think certain people were targeted. Moreover, it is obvious that the media was heavily in involved in the terror story that is 9/11 - in fact, hundreds and hundreds of people were involved.
What you have is merely speculation about what you think would / should / might / must have happened with not a skerrick of evidence favouring your hypothesis of real death and injury. Of course, I cannot say no one died or was injured but I certainly state with confidence that no one had to die or be injured and if they were it was either very deliberate or accidental.
It's interesting how the propagandists are utterly scrupulous in never providing any single piece of evidence that favours their story over fakery while those who analyse do not exhibit the same level of scrupulousness.
The only "fakery" worth mentioning and investigating is the 2005, formation of the "Scholars for 9/11 truth" and everything tat transpired as the 9/11 "truth" movement was forming....
9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." - Vladimir Lenin
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truth-suppression-timeline
Is the 9/11 "truth" movement a distraction movement?
What happens if you ask TRUTH questions?
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/questions-for-the-911-truther-talking
Simon Hytten (Shack) did work for the European Space Agency. His father worked for the United Nations and his brother had connections to the Bin Laden family....
9/11 Planes, Layers of Deception
Mark Conlon & Andrew Johnson on RichPlanet TV (Sept 2017) - 9/11 planes research into the "alleged" video fakery of Flight 175 videos.
Link: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/911-planes-layers-of-deception
September Clues - Layers of Deception - (Part One)
Exposing The Disinformation
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/september-clues-layers-of-deception
September Clues - Layers of Deception - (Part Two)
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/september-clues-layers-of-deception-086
September Clues - Layers of Deception - (Part Three)
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/september-clues-layers-of-deception-3ff
September Clues - Addendum - Deceptions - Part One
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/september-clues-addendum-deceptions
September Clues - Addendum Deceptions - Part Two
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/september-clues-addendum-deceptions-bcd
Simon Shack’s Amateur Effort of Video Fakery
Cutting Through the Disinformation
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/simon-shacks-amateur-effort-of-video
Simon Shack "Misrepresents" Plane Flight Path in 9/11 Video
Independent Analysis: Exposing Falsehoods of Simon Shack
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/simon-shack-misrepresents-plane-flight
Why Ace Baker's Video Fakery Compositing Theory Is Invalid
Independent Analysis of Ace Baker's Video Compositing Theory
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/why-ace-bakers-video-fakery-compositing
Analysis of Steve De'ak's "Frozen Smoke" Claim in the Michael Hezarkhani Video
Independent Analysis
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/analysis-of-steve-deaks-frozen-smoke
Wait. The "Chrysler Building is not visible from WTC"?
Oh, now I get it: you're just a complete fucking retard.
You're not considering the line of sight - we're not talking from the top of the South tower from which the Chrysler building would have been seen ... and nor are you considering the distance.
--- We can see it clearly from the top of One World Trade now although it is much further east than displayed in the image in my article - what needs to be considered in this image showing the Chrysler building however is that a zoom lens is used and much of lower Manhattan is not included in the shot. https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a-view-to-the-north-towards-midtown-manhattan-from-one-world-observatory-170276328.html).
--- Here we see more of Lower Manhattan included (but not all) in the view from One World Trade and the Chrysler building looks tiny - Empire State is in middle of shot with Chrysler between it and RHS of photo at back of tall buildings. There is zero comparison with how close it seems in the still from the alleged footage of South tower destruction. https://tinyurl.com/566syk5j
--- This is a shot from the 61st floor of the South Tower where it is faintly seen in the distance. We can see the Empire State and the building that appears white I believe is the Chrysler ... but very hard to distinguish no? ... and yet in the footage it is very easy despite the atmosphere looking very smoky. Second photo in gallery - https://www.reddit.com/r/TwinTowersInPhotos/comments/1861l32/views_from_the_61st_floor_south_tower_2_wtc/#lightbox
Actually, I've modified my article with an image for comparison for those who are spatially-challenged - I'm spatially-challenged myself big time, however, I try to compensate for that limitation whereas obviously not everyone makes that effort ... or perhaps are simply unaware that they suffer that limitation.