There is no denying that the event happened. The towers and the whole building complex are gone. The question is only how it was done. Simon's conclusion is pretty much the same as the one you get when analyzing the Apollo missions. You have a prefabricated film airing on TV as alleged reality. This prevented any possible mishaps that could have occurred when airing actual live footage. Here are a few very good examples of the blatant video fakery ,  Why go to all this trouble of fabricating entire sceneries if you are going to show real images anyway? The contradictions between those two would be tremendous because even with DEW nobody could have foreseen how the towers would go down. With faking all tower footage you can at least match the collapses and make the contradictions far more subtle.Djchrismac wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2017 7:33 pm[...] that this event did happen, there was some video fakery and most likely holographic projections of planes (see the radar data video by Richard Hall), few people died as the buildings were mostly empty at the time, the towers did fall unconventionally by a DEW
Of course, with Simon's conclusion that no footage is real, there is no knowing whether it was a simple detonation, DEW or whatever. But I am siding with the easiest solution until I find credible evidence for a different one that logically surpasses the first one. And CGI is an easier solution than directed energy weapons and holographic projections from planes! The media is completely owned anyway, and has been so since decades, so naturally they would go along with it. They already have gone along with it with the Apollo missions.
radar data video by Richard Hall gave me this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMYPhKCShY4
The first two minutes perfectly assist my point. How can so much footage of the same day at the same time give you so many different skies (darkblue, lightblue white, gray, bluegray, greenishgray)? Is it not more likely to assume that they do not depict the actual sky of that day? You have experience with filming the sky. If you took 10 different cameras (from 2001), do you think you would have that big of a discrepancy in the color of the sky? Also the sheer amount of videos that managed to show the plane crashing into the buildings (53 videos) is ridiculous. How can so many people manage to film an unexpected plane? (Why were they filming anyway, were they expecting something to happen besides smoke coming out of tower one? Nobody knew that there was another plane coming or that the towers would collapse. And this was before cell phones had a camera!) Also, did you ever saw the full videos. They don't show you a plane far away where the cameraman says "what's that, another plane coming?" It is always a segment of a clip showing the plane in its last seconds. If I were a bystander who just happened to film this most crucial moment, I would upload the full video. Why are most of these clips so short? They started filming and just happened to catch the crash? That would be some next level intuition. I'm going to stick with Occam's razor.
Just for a comparison: I have studied last year's truck attack on the Berlin Christmas Market. I have seen a lot of footage and counted easily over 100 firefighters and medics. Officially they spoke of 150 but by the count of the head of the fire department they were almost 400, police not included. I don't know if they were all real firefighters or partly just actors given the outfit. Since they didn't really need to do any real first aid, the latter is a good possibility. But the key figures, which are usually the heads of departments, were all in on this. What we have to realize is that "they" don't only own the media, they have taken A LOT of the key positions in power (political leaders, judges, heads of police, heads of fire departments, Chief medical staff, directors of hospitals, highest ranking people in corporations and whatnot. And if this is the case in Germany, you can bet it is the case in America.) Most people who were present there had to be acting, since the truck never drove through the Market. Nobody died or lost a leg or whatever. It would be pretty difficult not to see the simulation if you were a legit medic on site/set. It was a complete simulation from begin to end, even CGI was involved. And this was only a lousy executed B-class PsyOp. With something like 9/11, which probably has been planned for years if not decades, I am sure many more precautions were taken (like electing certain people into certain positions to make various things happen in pursuit of the PsyOp).Djchrismac wrote: , crisis actors were used but in no way was every single video faked, nor was every single person an actor and some real life fire fighters did actually die when the towers collapsed, because they were there trying to save some of the few people in the towers and on the ground. That's their job and I doubt the globalists would have let every single emergency service in on the big secret of what was really happening, better to have a few real people die and then pad it out to appear worse with the crisis actors.
And I have to disagree with you, it is not better to let a few real people die. This would result in real lawsuits because any affected family member would want to seek retribution. And family members of killed white collard people who were working in the Twin Towers would probably have the money for some good lawyers to cause a real stir in courts. This very unpleasant outcome could very well be avoided if murder was not an option. And analyses of subsequent PsyOps also confirm that murder is never being committed. It is all simulation. Whether you destroy a truck or several buildings, it is still the same concept, just on a different scale. Afterwards you can cash in on insurance money, donations (or you can launder money), frighten the public, make new laws, and in the case of 9/11 even justify wars of aggression.
I agree, it is the evidence that counts, not the messenger (though it does help sometimes to know the messenger's background). Simon and the whole CF are selective in their evidence, which most of the times are images, video footage and people's backgrounds, because they mostly concentrate on things that a layman can follow and check for himself without the need to rely on experts with PhDs.Djchrismac wrote: I trust Andrew and Judy Wood more than I trust the work of Shack, as Andrew points out quite well, he seems and unusual character, being selective with the evidence he looks at and throwing a 9/11 party with a twin towers model for example. Although September Clues does make some valid points, I don't think we should be taking sides here, it's the evidence we should be focusing on:
The towers are down, yes, but whether it was a collapse, a DEW attack or a detonation has yet to be determined with actual proof. As for the cameras recording in Manhattan: Simon has taken apart every single Amateur Footage, some of which have only been released several years after the event! And the conclusion is no different: they, too, showed signs of video fakery. And not only this, many of them, along with eyewitnesses, were found out to have some sort of connections to the media or video productions (same in my truck attack analysis, no real amateur filmer or eyewitness there). Here's an excerpt of a 9/11 witness report that might actually be true, related from the witness' brother:Djchrismac wrote: I've noticed a trend of people stating that absolutely everything is fake and I think it distracts from the facts and diverts people away from the topic at hand. If they faked two skyscrapers being pulverised to dust then I am seriously impressed but the logical answer is that the collapse did happen and then the supporting fakery, diversion and cover up went into full swing. The initial plane strikes were easier to fake, but the collapsing towers had almost every camera in Manhatten recording it and countless witnesses around observing it happen in real time.
[...] At this point he says one cop approached him aggressively because he wasn't moving fast enough or whatever (something interesting that I guess helps support your hypothesis : Stephen claims a rather fast evacuation was in effect minutes into the event, people being directed out of there in a jiffy - being pushed up Church St and Broadway). The group in the area questioned why the 'accident' would warrant such an aggressive evacuation on the ground. He had given up on the cam - looking around to see if anyone was filming but saw NO ONE at it. [...]
Not sure what your point was with daniel's quote. It doesn't present any further evidence, so I am just going to ignore it. But this seems an appropriate time to say the following: daniel gives a lot of information, not all of which is verifiable. I try to check his analyses where I can and when I have the time, as should we all--and as many do. daniel assesses our posts and the information we bring to the table in the same way. So far I can say that I have no doubt that daniel is an honest researcher who tries his best to make sense of the world around him, as does anybody, based on the information and material he has seen or in his case even had the privilege of experiencing himself. But he, too, can be wrong at times. Nobody is infallible. However, there is no harm in being wrong. Our goal should be to assess information together and see where it leads to. And this forum has done a great job so far, most of which was daniel's contribution. Depending on free time, mood, experience and even luck (or should I say intuition) some people find more valuable information, some people find less. Others may have a knack of piecing it all together. You, Chris, seem to be quite the reader. I have a knack for finding errors, don't know why. (I am a serious grammar Nazi. There were times (plural) where I would write posts on CH or AQ and when I went to bed hours later, my subconscious reminded me of errors made in the posts. That can't be healthy! )Djchrismac wrote:daniel wrote:[...]via the use of our own “Star Wars” program, the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). This was successfully tested on the World Trade Center.32
32 See the research of Dr. Judy Wood, http://www.drjudywood.com/ regarding the technology used to destroy the World Trade Center and nearby buildings.[...]
A lot of daniel's posts lack sources to back his statements up. It would definitely not hurt to throw in the origin of source when making some bold claims. The problem with some of daniel's sources is that we can't verify them because we are/were not privy to certain information. Personally, I don't have too much of a problem with it, as I learn a lot on my way when I look for clues myself. That is, when I bother to try. I take what I get. Also, most of his statements stem from research done over decades, so he has established an own opinion on a lot of topics because he has seen the material behind them. As a comparison, I am still on the "quoting level" because I have not yet fully developed an own strong opinion on various matters. I am still assessing new stuff and it takes time to do so. Everybody has his own pace.
Not sure where I was going with all this. I guess I just wanted to say that I appreciate the collaboration here and would very much like to see it grow, not recede. I am still sad that infinity and deepfsh don't visit these fora anymore. Both had a lot of valuable information to offer.
Definitely true. I know they try to keep it a clean forum but there is a lot of hate in there. On the other hand, there are a lot of detestable people in the world acting out their power... I am not really active in CF and only looked into a few threads. I am thankful that there are people who document the PsyOps. But after you have seen a handful, it is usually enough to know what is going on and then you can move on. That's why I prefer these fora as well. They offer something new.Djchrismac wrote: Shacks large group of forum followers (who do not exactly have the nicest forum manners)
I dislike the Clues forum and find it, the people that post there, the language used, the constant "shill calling" and so on hard to digest. They are also very selective with their "research", despite having fora for various subjects. Not only are all 9/11 events fake but almost everything is... UFO's for example, so do we just ignore centuries of evidence for them?
hoi.polloi gave DSKlausler the reasons why the CF doesn't discuss UFO topics. And his explanation is very reasonable. I am even glad that they refrain from those topics because it gives newcomers, who have never been into conspiracy theories, a first platform where they can learn about media's lies without being scared off by topics that are too far out of their comfort zone. And I know from experience that you scare most people off, immediately, as soon as you say the a-word (alien). Unless it is said in jest.
I hit the space-bar when there is text.Djchrismac wrote: I'm not sure how much you will take in at 400x speed though...
Not everybody is ready for a new concept which is putting their whole world view upside down. There are a lot of barriers to work through before you can open up yourself to a complete new line of thought. I have devoured alternative media for years, good and bad, so I my threshold for accepting something new and extraordinary has been lowered a good amount. But I know what it felt like being in my old paradigm. I was always open to UFOs and aliens but never to the spiritual stuff. I can't speak for the CF members, but since most of them show a strong rejection to the UFO topics my guess is that they want to keep the forum clean and/or they are simply not open to the topics (yet).Djchrismac wrote: Gopi did try to reason with some of the posters there and introduce Dewey B. Larson and the Reciprocal System to them but some of the responses were... well, I think it shows why I am not a fan of Shack, his forum, his followers, or his theories... he believes the sun revolves around the earth, seriously:
Before I make up my mind on what Simon's perspective on our solar system is, I need to see his research first, otherwise I don't know how he has arrived at such conclusion. Don't judge by the conclusion alone. RS and RS2 have plenty of seemingly absurd conclusions that would scare anybody off, yet here we are trying to understand it.
Both Simon and hoi.polloi know about my translation work for the RS but I don't talk to them about the RS because, unless they show an interest, I don't see any point in it. People who frequent this forum, usually arrive here out of their own curiosity. As did I. (Btw I am probably one of the few who hasn't heard of David Wilcock before coming here or reading daniel's papers) Luckily this forum is very quiet, meaning there are no attacks here and no ones tries to spread bad information, intentionally. I really enjoy the harmony here and it is a stark contrast to the CF. (But they do get attacked!) Also, most active members are near the Tier 2 border, some even above it, so naturally we try to approach things more holisticly and with a lot more harmony.
Lastly, I want to say that I don't really care that much if the towers were destroyed by explosives or DEW. It is not that important in the greater picture and we definitely shouldn't concentrate on secondary issues too much. And I think you will agree that both you and I have more important stuff to do than discussing 9/11 details. After all, disputes on this topic have already kept too many good researchers from doing more good research.
Everybody has his own favorite platforms and researchers--which should be seen as a good thing because the more diverse our backgrounds are the more ideas we can bring to the table. I have ignored other posts about Judy Wood in the past because I knew it would lead to long posts like this one. Not sure, why yesterday I thought it to be a good idea to start beefing about something that is not even on-topic.
I am certainly not going to write another long post on this topic, takes too much time. Everybody can make up his own mind after comparing Judy Woods evidence with the one from Simon Shack.