Page 1 of 1

9/11 Raw Video - Bombs, not planes

Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2020 6:42 am
by Djchrismac
A reminder of what the perpetrators of this pandemic psyop are capable of - proof that the second WTC tower was definitely NOT hit by a plane, it was a bomb:



Around 11:30 minutes in the guy moves the camera away from tower two for a split second then turns around again when the explosion happens. There was no plane seen anywhere and no noise of a plane to be heard. He spends the rest of the video telling the people who were tuned into the TV that it was not a plane that hit, it was a bomb and he filmed the building exploding.

Up until around 18 minutes in they discuss this then again on the street and at the end of the video he continually tells people what he has just witnessed and filmed. As we now know full well, beware of mainstream media fakery.

Re: 9/11 Raw Video - Bombs, not planes

Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2020 4:02 pm
by Ilkka
Only bad thing about this video is that he turned around for just a moment when the tower blew up. If he hadn't then this video would be deleted most likely, because the masses wont believe this because of that split second. I know what I saw in that one video back in 2002-2004 when the first conspiracy theory videos appeared in internet. In that video it showed the moment when the other tower collapsed and under that collapse from one side there were these "puffs" of dust coming out right before the rubble was coming down, indicating of explosives usage to help that controlled demolition of a building and what comes to controlled demolitions it was a masterpiece of them. Not sure how windy it was that day in there, not too bad I recon and probably they needed to wait for the right moment (perfect weather, wind etc.) to bring those buildings down.

Re: 9/11 Raw Video - Bombs, not planes

Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2020 3:39 pm
by 7Serpent
Ilkka wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 4:02 pm
Only bad thing about this video is that he turned around for just a moment when the tower blew up. If he hadn't then this video would be deleted most likely, because the masses wont believe this because of that split second. I know what I saw in that one video back in 2002-2004 when the first conspiracy theory videos appeared in internet. In that video it showed the moment when the other tower collapsed and under that collapse from one side there were these "puffs" of dust coming out right before the rubble was coming down, indicating of explosives usage to help that controlled demolition of a building and what comes to controlled demolitions it was a masterpiece of them. Not sure how windy it was that day in there, not too bad I recon and probably they needed to wait for the right moment (perfect weather, wind etc.) to bring those buildings down.
Check out the work done by PHD doctor Judy Woods. She could not explain th edestruction in terms of the most modern education we have on earth.... SHe called it dustification as the rubble that remained does not add up volumetrically... IT VANSISHED into thin air. Actually the entire block was also destroyed including building 7 which was touched by nothing bomb or plane. I have her book and she was not allowed to speak publically on her scientific findings. I think she did 7 years or more of research and then the book of finding and photos. Ihaven't checked to see if her website still exists. Engines melted out of fire trucks without burning the paint from inches away on hood.... all the vehicles parked in the lot across the street suffered the same effects... very amazing work she did and then risked her life to disclose it.

Re: 9/11 Raw Video - Bombs, not planes

Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:13 am
by Djchrismac
We know of Judy's work very well on this forum, it's the next phase of tower destruction on that day, a directed energy weapon to melt the towers into dust, create a very hot base for weeks after, leave paper unburned and much more. There should be plenty of posts about her work elsewhere on this forum. Her work is brilliant.

True Ilkka but it is just a split second and you see or hear no plane hitting the second tower and the person who was there in the flesh insists it just exploded.

Re: 9/11 Raw Video - Bombs, not planes

Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2020 1:05 pm
by Ilkka
Djchrismac wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:13 am
True Ilkka but it is just a split second and you see or hear no plane hitting the second tower and the person who was there in the flesh insists it just exploded.
Indeed you could not hear plane just explosion and they should've heard some noise from the plane since in those videos they showed to masses planes were flying at subsonic speed so they should've heard it from behind and then above, right before the explosion. However "ignorance is bliss" as the saying goes.

Re: 9/11 Raw Video - Bombs, not planes

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:07 am
by animus
Skip to 18:25 in the video and witness how "very naturally" a huge troll face appears in the smoke, completely detailed with forehead, two eyes, big nose, upper lip, teeth, lower lip, chin and I'd say you can even see the ear standing out on the other side of the building. What are the chances... I wonder who is trolling and laughing here.
Don't be tricked by the video's title. This video is by absolute no means "raw" footage. It is just another fabricated waste of time.
Detonations may have indeed taken place but I wouldn't take videos with troll faces in them as proof for it. :)

Re: 9/11 Raw Video - Bombs, not planes

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2020 6:07 am
by Djchrismac
I wouldn't put it down to the video being tampered with, smoke face simulacra happens often:

https://7news.com.au/news/vic/haunting- ... d-c-630943

Australian bush fire:
Image

Mount Vesuvius:
Image

Your image is consistent with photographs taken of the south tower from other angles so it was there at the time:

Image

Just because a face appeared in the smoke doesn't make the video or title invalid. I spent a lot of time as a child observing clouds outside and smoke in our house fire, bonfires or beach fires and the many shapes they create, thanks to the opacity and fluidy of the medium.

See Paredolia & https://archmdmag.com/what-is-pareidolia-and-simulacra/:
The Word Pareidolia comes from the Greek ‘Para’ – beside, with or alongside, and ‘eidos’ meaning image, form or shape. Pareidolia is the term used to describe the psychological phenomena involving a vague and random stimulus, typically a sound or image, being perceived as significant. Pareidolia is a type of Apophenia – a term coined in 1958 by Klaus Conrad, who defined Apophenia as ‘Unmotivated seeing of connections accompanied by a specific experience of an abnormal meaningfulness’.

Simulacra, (from the Latin Simulacrum which means ‘Likeness, similarity”) is the term used to describe ‘A representation of another thing, such as a statue or painting, esp. of a god’ and therefore refers to an object or likeness that has been deliberately created to resemble something else. Pareidolia include EVP or electronic voice phenomena. In 1971, Klaus Raudive wrote ‘Breakthrough’, detailing the discovery of EVP, which is described as auditory Pareidolia, as indeed is ‘backmasking’ in popular music.

Typical examples of visual Pareidolia include ‘seeing’ the shapes of animals in clouds and faces in orbs and other random objects. Carl Sagan hypothesised that humans have the ability to identify the human face from birth, and there is evidence to suggest an innate tendency to pay attention to faces from infancy and by two months of age the child’s face perception skills have developed to such a degree that specific areas of the brain, namely the fusiform gyri and lesser temporal gyri are activated by viewing faces. The face is an important site for the identification of others and conveys significant social information, such as moods etc. which suggests our ability to recognise faces from such a young age is part of our fight or flight system. This ‘Hard-Wired’ ability allows us to use basic details to recognise faces from a distance and in poor visibility, but can also lead us to misinterpret random images or patterns of light and shade as faces. A common theme of Pareidolia is the perception of iconic religious imagery in ordinary objects, most commonly the image of Jesus, The Virgin Mary and the word ‘Allah’, although the simplicity of letter forms in the Arabic alphabet, and the flexibility in Islamic calligraphy (and the particular shape of the word Allah’) make it easy to read into many formations of parallel lines and lobes on a common base.
Along with many others I see this all the time when climbing mountains, rock simulacrum that resemble something else, yet it doesn't mean the rock is a frozen troll face or rhino or similar. It often depends on the viewing angle and sunlight too:

Boar:
Image

Dolphin:
Image

Dinosaur:
Image

Old man of Tarsuinn:
Image

Giant's fingers:
Image

Horse/monkey:
Image

Rhino:
50090228091_9a1bd89826_k.jpg

Watch out for some that are genuine though, this seal sculpture by Marvin the wood carver back home catches a lot of tourists out: :D

"The image below is is of a seal on a rock at Corrie. Takes a few looks to realize it is a sculpture, although there are seals in the area, so if there is more than one, the others will be real."

Image

https://www.arranbanner.co.uk/2014/03/1 ... -to-arran/
A couple have told how they found the Corrie seal washed up on an Ayrshire beach.

The iconic sculpture has now been returned to Arran and is sitting proudly once-again on a rock in the centre of the village.

As reported last month in The Banner there was devastation when sculptor Marvin Elliot’s famous wooden seal was found missing from his rock off the Corrie shore after strong winds and high tides battered the north shore.
Image
animus wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:07 am
Detonations may have indeed taken place but I wouldn't take videos with troll faces in them as proof for it. :)
I also wouldn't take a troll face in smoke as proof that something isn't genuine, the rest of the video is strong evidence for the 9/11 deception and this demon/troll face that many others saw and photographed shouldn't take away from that. :)

Re: 9/11 Raw Video - Bombs, not planes

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:59 am
by animus
The video you posted was originally published by the "9/11 surviver" Joshua Good aka Joshua Lentz aka Joshua Fifer on his own Youtube Channel "Josh Good" on September 10, 2016.
Here is an excerpt from the comment section of this original upload:
yt comment.jpg
Here is WNBC NIST Dub #4, clip 32 that was mentioned in the above comment. It shows the moment of explosion. Comparing both videos, it is apparent that the purported "raw video" is indeed zoomed in and stabilized and thus not raw at all. Now you can rack your brain on which video is more raw. The long videoclip that is zoomed in, stabilized and without a plane, published on September 10, 2016, or the short videoclip with a plane, published on September 12, 2001, possibly even the day before. Here is a gif showing the plane:
Image

So, which forgery is more raw? :)

I like how in the long version at 12:15 the wall on the left comes very incrementally into the picture. Doesn't that look odd to you? Once you understand that all those 9/11 videos of crashes/explosions/collapses are not showing reality, you may be more inclined to accept that the troll face in the smoke was not a natural coincidence to be explained away with mere pareidolia but in fact a deliberate artificial CGI construct made to laugh at you.

Re: 9/11 Raw Video - Bombs, not planes

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:19 pm
by Ilkka
animus wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:59 am
So, which forgery is more raw? :)
It may be that we will never know, since CGI has gotten more better in the last 15 or so years.

By the way, that "plane" could've easilly been a cruise missile disguised as an airplane (size is important factor also but you always can make a cruise missile bigger than normal and paint it the way you want and carry 100 or more gallons of gasoline for the fireball we could see), as we could only see the nose of it just peeking out from behind the building. Interesting also was the case of Pentagon "plane" which even didn't have any plane parts, only some rubble on the ground that was burning, as if the alleged plane just vaporized into thin air after the crash.

Just have to use your "tool box" of a brain if you have many things for reference and deduce things what could be more plausible theory. Troll faces might be the latest edition too so I wouldn't count on that either it is just so perfectly turned away for a moment. Also perfect for being messed with too if it really has been raw footage.
Djchrismac wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 6:07 am
Your image is consistent with photographs taken of the south tower from other angles so it was there at the time:

Image
This face seems totally CGI, it says "9-11/10th anniversary" in that picture so someone has had that much of time to do a face in there. It is so pronounced with grey colored smoke I just gotta wonder what it was that was burning there if it truely is genuine, however it is too perfect to be some random face. However this doesn't change my mind about the towers falling. Also I remember from that documentary video that they mentioned something about gold missing from the building and trucks going in and out a week (days or month not sure about the time) before the destruction of those buildings. It also mentioned some closed floors and drilling sounds weeks before, said something about witnesses/survivors saying that. That video might've been in 2-3 parts too now that I dig a little deeper. I saw it in early 2000s and memory might get jumpy in some parts but I remember some huge steel beams that was shown had cut like with plasma cutter in about perfect 45 degrees, which is one give away of human tampering, probably can be done with explosives too.

I gather if there had been planes in real life that made those towers go down, they would've in all likelyhood tip over on one side or another. Perhaps that was their goal to slam in big tower against the building 7, but had go to plan "B" and blow it up, because those demolition fellows were too damn good at saving other buildings and brought down just 3 and not more.

Thats what I think on this short notice of the whole thing, but all of this is speculation of course and probably a great waste of time.