Not Mutually Exclusive

[Andy Tyme]

Rather than bicker and quibble unproductively (and to Manichaean excess), about the presumed mutual exclusivity of the "Hologram Hypothesis" versus "Total-video Trickery," how about considering a scenario in which key aspects of BOTH EXPLANATIONS could be valid? So here goes: Assuming that most of the truthers who regularly visit this forum agree that the official account of two 500mph jumbo-jets smoothly penetrating the towers is physically impossible and therefore DID NOT HAPPEN, we are nevertheless left with the need for some credible, alternate explanation of the aerial phenomena later reported by purported eye-and-ear witnesses in Lower Manhattan.

Thorough comparative analyses of their testimonies have been done by several investigators over the past decade, and the consensus of their reports reveals that the 9/11 eye/ear witnesses differ widely, even wildly, as to what they recall seeing and hearing. I hope that you have taken into consideration the distinct possibility that at least SOME of these witnesses are mendacious shills in league with the perps, while others are likely so post-trauma influenced by the repetitious deluge of mass-media reports "clarifying" the situation that these people now suffer from false-memory syndrome. But that still leaves open the chance that at least a remnant of the witnesses REALLY DID see and/or hear SOMETHING resemblng (or simulating) a roaring, speeding and crashing passenger jet. And perhaps what they did perceive that morning was actually the result of some high-tech, DARPA-developed, holographic-style trickery -- the arcane details and principles of which are still understood by only a small coterie of mil-intel boffins to this very day. If, indeed, there is one faction of witnesses who are neither lying nor deluded yet honestly attest to the sound and/or sight of a large aircraft that morning, then I grant you that the "Hologram Hypothesis" (buoyed by radar data of satisfactory provenance) is a plausible explanation for their accounts.

But this hypothetical use of such witness-fooling future-technology, amidst the generally poor sight lines of Lower Manhattan's concrete canyons, DOES NOT PRECLUDE the simultaneous possibility that the TV-news networks were themselves complicit in the casus belli fraud -- to the extent that THEY SHOWED NO "LIVE" TV IMAGERY AT ALL from Lower Manhattan, substituting customized variants (for each network) of a spectacular, Spider Man/Batman-style, 103-minute CGI movie, pre-manufactured under military secrecy and playing back on the networks until AFTER the towers had really been brought down by conventional, from-the-bottom-up demolition, hidden from any still-working cameras in civilian hands under the cover of strategically generated, giant clouds of white smoke. Tapes of the supposed "live" network coverage have long been available, at the Internet Archive and various other sites, and dozens of sharp-eyed, independent researchers (the sharpest of them being Simon Shack) have pored over the images for years, with far greater curiosity, scrutiny and honesty than the bureaucratic drones at NIST, who were politically "under the gun" to come up with a Warren Report-like confirmation of the 2001 version of the "magic bullet" theory, this time involving "magic planes," "mystical kerosene" and "supernaturally supple steel".

What Shack, his cohorts (and even some of his severest critics!) have come up with is stunning evidence of a whole range of giveaway defects and inconsistencies in the CGI-simulation tapes which point not only to the jumbo-jet images being faked, but the also the cityscape itself, the running crowds, and most shockingly -- the bizarre and (official) explanation-defying, TOP-DOWN/FREE-FALL collapsing/dustifying of the towers! I know it is regrettable that the (elusive and temperamental) Simon Shack has refused all of Dr. Fetzer's multiple invitations for interviews and in-person presentations, but that still should not be a viable excuse for a scholar of science, such as he is, to dismiss, out of hand, Shack's discoveries without rebutting them point-by-point -- if Dr. Fetzer can. And if he can't, then I trust he will grant them at least the same measure of plausibility he has given to holograms. As I have demonstrated above, the two lines of explanation are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

[Danny White]

Andy: I watched September Clues again after reading your blog.  It is a very good video for sure.  You brought up

something I haven't heard talked about.  " Not only were jumbo-jet images faked, but the cityscape, running crowds,

and the bizarre explanation-defying top-down/free-fall collapsing/dustifying of the towers."    The shock and awe

top down videos themselves might be fake.  Interesting.

[Andy Tyme]

You raise a very good point about "tube structures" above 35 storeys, Shallel, but that still doesn't necessarily validate the suspicious videos of the destruction, which contain a host of internal contradictions pointing to CGI fabrication, as well demonstrated in the "September Clues" documentaries.  The likelihood that the corporate-news/propaganda networks played back a stream of fake videos, in sync (but not quite!) on that morning persists, strongly suggesting that whatever  technology WAS deployed to destroy the towers -- it was a process we were NOT supposed to analyse from accurate imagery. 

[Shallel Octavia]

Thank-you and welcome, Andy. Very well said. Who knows what mil-intel boffins have? Not I. I do not trust anything portrayed by the MSM. It could all be fake, and though I fail to understand the physics of holograms in plain air, that doesn't mean THEY don't. You are right that they are not mutually exclusive. 

I think Ace Baker has proved in multiple videos that the plane images have different camera motion, and therefore were filmed separately. Not all the tapes of the live network coverage are available; Chopper 5 comes to mind. All we have are poor quality dubs of vhs tapes. The original is not available on any Internet Archive or WNYW, (I have tried to obtain licensing for that footage myself). It has been memory holed. This is a classic case of mens rea. The media is obviously complicit. IMO, the FACT that the crashes as portrayed by officialdom are in violation of many physical laws is our best evidence. 

As for the Towers being brought down by conventional demolition, I cannot agree. Up until 9/11 conventional demolition had only been used for 35 story buildings, tops. It was never used to bring down a tube structure like the WTC Towers. So, by definition it would not be conventional. I was at the site a week after the event and the lack of debris from two 110 story buildings was stunning.

I look forward to more contributions from you. We sorely need fresh perspective.

Blessings, Shallel