| "Sometimes
you think you've done everything you need to and you still forget
to do something.
I did
actually update the site yesterday, but due to fatigue or perhaps
incompetence I forgot to rename the file when I dumped it on the
server and consequently it never appeared as the new front page.
Those of
you checking the site a little earlier would have seen it. All I can
say is `D'oh!'
I'm
still trying to make sense of the 9/11 videos. I don't know quite
how to get my head around the issue of apparent editing of the DVD of
the 9/11 Firefighters, removing the flash before the plane enters the
WTC tower.
Without
all the footage to see for myself, in its original format rather than
digitised, it's hard to tell what can actually be seen.
One
thing I am increasingly certain of though, is that the first plane
that hit, `Flight 11', was not a Boeing 767. It was while I was looking
at one frame of footage as it hit that I saw what had previously just
washed over me.
Look at
the picture below.
I've done nothing to this whatsoever, just taken a
grab from one of the videos and cropped it down to fit on the page.
This frame comes after the `flash' and the `plane' is
almost completely now inside the tower. There is very little tail
sticking out, so clearly the wings would have made contact with the
tower by this point.
What's wrong with this picture? Where's the damage
from the wings? Certainly to the left of the `plane' body, there is
nothing. No damage whatsoever. The plane looks more like a worm
disappearing into a hole. Does that look like a Boeing 767 to you?
The sun is coming in from the left hand side of the
frame, as demonstrated with the shots of the second plane, flight 175
which approaches from the other direction. The shadow to the right of
the plane entry must be from the remaining `plane body' that is still
outside the building. But there is NOTHING on the left hand side of
the `plane'.
I have clearly just committed a
ThoughtCrime by
suggesting that the first plane to hit it's target on 9/11 was not
what they said it was. Some will no doubt call me loopy. But take a
look at the picture and decide for yourselves. Think about it. Where
is the damage from a 767? This isn't the supposedly `reinforced'
Pentagon. They can't use that excuse, even though it's flimsy even for
the lack of evidence in DC. No damage. Why? It's too small to be a
767.
Discussion of flashes had distracted me from noticing
this. I kept playing the footage over and over looking for the flash,
and I couldn't figure out why things didn't look right until I saw
this frame after the plane had made contact with the tower and, more
importantly, fully appreciated its importance.
I know the footage from the Naudet brothers is a
little blurry, but it's all we have, apart from the `new footage' that
shows a speck in the sky. Despite this, any damage to the
building would be apparent, despite the enlargement and any digital
artefacts. Look at the picture - it's clear that the appearance of the
tower to the left of the entry point is still untouched and uniform.
Simple trigonometry would also show that the plane is
too small to be a 767 - the footage of Flight 175 hitting the other
tower shows a much larger object flying towards its mark and clearly
it's a passenger jet albeit possibly with some customisation (what IS
that object on the underside?) Considering the promity of the
firefighters and their accompanying cameramen, the Naudet brothers, to
the World Trade Center, there is no doubt that if the first plane was
a Boeing 767 it would have filled more of the frame, even in a blurry
shot.
Of course some will say that this is a distraction
from the real issues of prior knowledge and military stand-down, as
well as issues like the activities of the Pakistani intelligence
chief. However, if we want to try and establish the true course of
events that day, we can't do so unless we actually know what hit what
and when. Hey, I could be wrong. Maybe it is just digital artefacts
and poor footage that have led me to a false conclusion. But people
have spent nearly 40 years pouring over the Zapruder film of JFK's
assassination. I've heard it said that if it wasn't for the film, the
Feds could have argued that aliens landed in Dealey Plaza and took out
the President because there would be nothing to counter that stand.
If it turns out that what hit Tower 1 was not actually
Flight 11, a Boeing 767, but rather something else, then deducing what
it was and where it came from will help explain the events of that
day.
I think that even a lot of Americans could agree that
there is a cover-up over the events of 9/11. Most people can accept
that there's a `cover-up', even if they're not prepared to consider
what is being covered-up. To propose, as I have, that it was an inside
job, is a step to far for some. So suggesting that in fact two planes
weren't in fact planes and not just one (the Pentagon, and WTC Tower
1) will have some just switch off and label me a crank.
I know this issue was covered by the page at Serendipity
but it takes one's own epiphany to appreciate what others have been
seeing for some time.
This has brought me back to the apparent explanation
for the collapse of the towers - you know, fuel fire heating up the
metal causing the building to fail.
Approximately 3-4 seconds after `Flight 11' has
disappeared into Tower 1, the fireball erupts from within the building
but has almost completely dissipated within 15 seconds of the impact.
After this, we only see dark smoke coming from Tower 1, indicative of
smouldering rather than fire. What brought the tower down then? And
why did Tower 2, the south tower, which was hit second, collapse
first? Especially considering most of the fuel was combusted on impact
OUTSIDE the tower. Fuel fires my arse.
Watching the footage of Tower 1 collapsing with
VirtualDub, it is clear that the puffs of smoke emanated before the
building began to collapse. The official account would lead us to
believe that the puffs of smoke and debris are caused by the collapse
of the building, but how can this be if the collapse doesn't start
until after the puff?
Anyway, I'm devoting too much time to this and there
is a lot of other stuff going on in the world. I am no expert in
architecture, aviation or photo analysis. But I did study physics at
A-Level and I believe I have the basics in gravity down pat. I'm just
engaging my brain as best as I can, which is more than they want me to
do.
Those who rule us would like nothing better than for
us to just soak up the headlines and the spin, without even reading
the meat of the story. Any story. Thinking is going too far, because
you'd actually be able to spot the lies and the bullshit.
In light of this,
PropagandaMatrix has posted
the video file of the BBC's Tim Sebastian interview with William
Pepper, lawyer and journalist who argues that James Earl Ray did NOT
kill Martin Luther King. (By the way, why is it that so many assassins
or patsies have their middle names used so much?) I'll have to get a
copy of Pepper's book, but no doubt it will be the forensic dissection
of a cover-up, as Colodny and Gettlin did with `Silent Coup' about the
Watergate affair. As much as journalists, not least Bob Woodward,
tried to discredit and smear the authors and their work, it stands as
possibly the best account of who was really up to what with Watergate.
The book is very hard to get a copy of, and has been posted
on the web. I don't know whether to let you guys in on the main
conclusions of the book - I don't want to spoil it for you, but if
you're not going to read it, drop me an email and I'll let you know
what the main conclusions were.
Several times as I was reading the book I had to shake
my head in disbelief at what I was reading, only to have to accept it
because of the methodical approach of the authors. The revelations in
the book have never been adopted by public consciousness at least in
the UK (I'm not sure about the USA since I don't live there) and thus
many do not appreciate what really happened.
`Silent Coup' makes the point however that even once
the public believe that the cover-up has been revealed, they may still
be in the dark with the real story still waiting to be told. In that
event, there will be many interests involved in killing a new exposé,
not least the journalists and authors who patted themselves on the
back when they thought they had scooped the cover-up story. The
suggestion that they either wittingly or unwittingly furthered a
fictitious account threatens their credibility and as such they will
fight to maintain their reputation and their `accuracy' of their own
account. Woodward was too close to Watergate - far too close. Anything
which suggests that he lied will be forcefully repudiated by both
himself and the Washington Post because the two have become
synonymous.
Will the real story of 9/11 ever come out?
Cartoon from the Village Voice, with thanks to a
reader for bringing it to my attention (click to enlarge):"
Good
luck to Lotfi Raissi, the Algerian who spent months in a London
prison because the American authorities were too dumb to think when
they looked at the `evidence' against him. He's
now suing and quite right too. This is indicative of the problems
we face when the powers that be give themselves more power to
intervene on `suspicion of terrorism'. Considering they had the
flimsiest of cases in the first place and that it was torn apart when
examined more closely, it shows that these idiots act first and maybe
think later, but only if you can cause enough of a fuss. A national
security blanket over these stories, as has happened in the US, would
ensure a muzzled press and our own `leaders' can then do whatever the
hell they want.
Americans
have given up their freedoms for safety despite Franklin's warning
about doing so. The conditions of Nazi Germany are being replicated in
the UK and the USA whilst we attack a faceless enemy with the `war on
terrorism'. According to Bush Jr, Iraq is now the front line in the
war on terrorism. Funny that, because Iraq was not a terrorist haven
before the west invaded earlier this year. Now anyone who opposes
western occupation is a `terrorist'. That's it. Simple.
We
walked around for decades believing that the Soviet Union was the
enemy, without trying to understand why we felt like that or why the
Soviet people were similarly persuaded that WE were the enemy. For a
better understanding, maybe we should look at Cuba or Venezuela in
today's political climate. It seems that they are more concerned with
preventing the western multinationals from taking over their
production and being enslaved by what we endearingly refer to as a
free market.
How
many people is the so-called free market benefiting? Besides those who
own the banks and the corporations, the rest of us have had to suffer
longer hours, lower pay and a gradual dumbing down as we have elevated
currency as our new God, supplanting thousands of years of belief in a
higher power.
That
the communists had removed the notion of God from their belief systems
doesn't detract from some of their honest intentions with their
system, even if it was just as poorly managed as our own. Don't think
for a second I'm a communist though, I'm merely explaining that the
east versus west situation gave us two ideologies locked in a
stand-off for decades. North Korea is the new Soviet Union. All they
want to do is keep away from the rest of the world and our marvelous
capitalist system. Both sides keep upping the ante though so we may
eventually start lobbing nukes at each other. It reminds me of what
happened in Vietnam where villages were destroyed to `save' them.
It
occurred to me that all those countries that were eventually persuaded
to be pro-USA or pro-western civilisation are merely those who have
been bought off. Would you fight forever or would you eventually sell
out? The problem with this world is that so many of us have sold out
before we've even thought about it.
The picture carried yesterday at PropagandaMatrix
showing `chemtrails' over the UK was very interesting (click to
enlarge):
Whatever
they are, those trails are pretty big and they're certainly not
clouds. Of course if you read the newspapers, you'd think that there
was no such thing as `chemtrails'. The squadron leader liaison officer
at RAF Northolt, not too far from me, has never even heard of
chemtrails apparently. Sadly that doesn't explain the junk I see on a
regular basis up in the sky above my home."
- Editor |
