Sure, it's possible. But, why would they risk everything on the signing of a bunch papers, like that?!

Sorry, just trying to come up with something dumber than the proposition.

These were iron clad NDA's. As advanced as the computers in the early 2000's able to render in real time fake, but photo realistic airliners hitting a tower.

Or were they holographic NDA's?

Well, your incredulity doesn't change the damage evidence. What if what you think of as competing news departments are nothing more than the propaganda arm of the military, as the evidence you're avoiding suggests.

What happoens in the Real World when you have a plan with too many moving parts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw

Fuel consumption calculations showed that the extra 90 minutes idling on the ground had made fuel critical for one of the EC-130s. When it became clear that only six helicopters would arrive at Desert One, Kyle had authorized the EC-130s to transfer 1,000 US gallons (3,800 L) from the bladders to their own main fuel tanks, but Republic 4 had already expended all of its bladder fuel refueling three of the helicopters and had none to transfer. To make it to the air tanker refueling track without running out of fuel, it had to leave immediately, and was already loaded with part of the Delta team. In addition, RH-53 Bluebeard 4 needed additional fuel, requiring it be moved to the opposite side of the road.[citation needed]

To accomplish both actions, Bluebeard 3 had to be moved from directly behind the EC-130. The aircraft could not be moved by ground taxi and had to be moved by hover taxi (flying a short distance at low speed and altitude).[21][Note 4] A USAF Combat Controller attempted to direct the maneuver from in front of the aircraft, but was blasted by desert sand churned up by the rotor. As the Controller attempted to back away, Bluebeard 3's pilot perceived he was drifting backward (engulfed in a dust cloud, the pilot only had the Controller as a point of reference) and thus attempted to "correct" this situation by applying forward stick in order to maintain the same distance from the rearward moving marshaller. The RH-53 struck the EC-130's vertical stabilizer with its main rotor and crashed into the EC-130's wing root.[22]

In the ensuing explosion and fire, eight servicemen died: five of fourteen USAF aircrew in the EC-130, and three of the five USMC aircrew in the RH-53, with only the helicopter's pilot and co-pilot (both badly burned) surviving.[Note 5] During the frantic evacuation to the EC-130s by the helicopter crews, attempts were made to retrieve their classified mission documents and destroy the aircraft. The helicopter crews boarded the EC-130s. Five RH-53 aircraft were left behind mostly intact, some damaged by shrapnel. Bluebeards 2 and 8 now serve with the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy. EC-130E Republic 5 which returned successfully, was retired by the USAF in June 2013 and is now on display at the Carolinas Aviation Museum.[23]

With compartmentalization, very few people would know the whole story. That's the way the military works. Remember the Manhattan project?

https://savingplaces.org/stories/sec...istorical-park

Which branch did you serve with? And to what rank? MOS?

Or does your knowledge of how the military works come from the same place your understanding of missile technology?

I don't claim to be an expert at anything. Never been in the military. Furthermore, I am not the subject here.

projection again + no clue what evidence is
 

Projection - you are the master of it, along with trump, and both are CTers, and paranoid.

Damage evidnece of a 767 flying fast. You can't comprehend the kinetic energy impact and earn the meme award, again.

https://i.imgflip.com/3n4p9r.jpg

Paranoia.

Not sure you know what evidence is, as you make up nonsense like missiles and this post due to a paranoid imagination spreading dumb lies.

Then you mention The Manhattan Project, and how did Russia get the bomb? oops, and we used it, and knew about the project - thus it did not remain a secret. Plus during the war hundreds of leaks of the project were made. Darn, you can't make a valid argument if you tried.

Look at your failed analysis starting with the BS of a tripod, and then the fictional movie stuff. There are some insane or clueless people who like your work, the comments are evidence of ignorance on earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be
Failed analysis - might want to take this down, it is not nice to make up lies about 9/11

Declassified just like your phantasy belief of the "missiles" into the WTC that no one picked up on radar, no one saw, nor no one filmed crashing into the buildings. That didn't happen, but two planes did crash into the buildings and the evidence fits with an airplane crash, your uneducated untrained eyesight can't recognize the proof.

Yeah, there was a Soviet spy on board. Klaus Fuchs^WP

It only takes one bad apple.

eta: To avoid giving yankee451 wriggle room, Fuchs was a German national but spying for the Soviets.

Then stop making claims of knowledge you flat out do not have. How the military works. How missiles work. The list goes on. You may not be the subject but your abject ignorance over certain subject matter certainly is.

You want us to accept your interpretations of facts over verified experts. People with actual knowledge and experience over your now admitted non-expertise.

There is a reason I take my car to a certified mechanic and not to some nobody who claims, while he has never fixed a car or even so much as changed his own oil, knows exactly what is wrong because of YouTube videos and we are foolish for doubting his diagnosis.

Okay, so even if ALL of the news departments of all of the TV stations in the nation really were all just one, unified part of a propaganda machine: That's still a LOT of people to trust in one's nefarious plans.

Wouldn't a conspiracy master-mind be smart enough to reduce their exposure risks as much as possible?

You're asking for a whole bunch of news crews, specifically, to rehearse filming a disaster scene. They don't need to know the rest of the story, that's still quite a LOT of people who, specifically, know that this is a nefarious plan to cause a great disaster.

You mean the fact that a whole LOT of volunteers were tasked to clean up the mess, and they found nothing but evidence of airplane-induced damage?!

You'd think a high-level conspiracy master-mind would want tighter control over that kind of situation.

What sort of incompetent super criminal would say: "Hey, let's bring down a building in a super secret way, and then let JUST ANYBODY waltz in to help clean it all up!"

I can read. I can think. I don't need an expert to do these things for me. If you have a problem with the conclusions reached by the evidence brought to the table, you're welcome to use the same evidence to explain how it fits your conclusion better than mine. If you need to find an expert to explain it, go for it.

Prove it!

What if indeed. What if _______, sure enough, things would be different. If ______ then _____. Put your variables here, and you'll never be wrong.

What if you are compensating for your inability to form a coherent argument by resorting to ridicule?

Only a few people at the very top would need to know everything, everyone else would just do as they're told.

Right. So the evidence we are "avoiding" is that a piece of cladding is severed most of the way through instead of all the way through and someone can't see debris falling which, at that point in the video, could not have fallen more than 20 inches.

On the basis of this we are to suppose that the US military runs all US news organisations as propaganda wings.

And I am still not clear on what is supposed to have happened to the real planes or how it is that there were allegedly no casualties.

Why would they do as they were told? If someone came up to you and ordered you to participate in a major crime would you? No, neither would I, nor any of us.

So how did these alleged conspirators find so many people from all walks of life to agree to participate in a major crime and then never mention the fact to anyone, even nearly 20 years after the event?

Again, everyone is being told, explicitly, "rehearse filming an epic disaster". Okay, so they still don't know everything. But, now they know enough.

Even if they still "just do what they are told", there is still a massive exposure problem. LOTS of people are now in on the fact that this epic disaster was rehearsed.

Who would they turn to if they wanted to blow the whistle?

Because they were told no one would die. It'll be great. Be part of an historic, epic hoax, make a good chunk of change, be wise like wiseguys are. Who would believe it even if someone wanted to blow the whistle. Look at your reactions to the facts.

You mean apart from friends, family, their church leaders, community activists, the police their congressman, local politicians, the internet, world media organisations etc?

Exactly where YOU are turning to. To the public. The door is wide open and the results are guaranteed - if you demonstrate the logic present evidence and show the numbers. You are failing on all accounts. No chance this would happen if a few thousand people would follow. Nothing holds them. Where are they?

So if someone told you to do that, you would just do it and not tell anyone? "We are going to blow up a big building and pretend that terrorists did it with planes", you would just say "Yeah, fine, no problem" and never tell anyone? No, again, neither would I?
If, say, four people on 9/10 had told everyone that they could that they had been told to participate in the bringing down of both World Trade Centre towers, then on 9/11 both World Trade Centers were brought down, you think that no-one would believe the people who had said so on 9/10? Really?
My reaction to the facts was to examine them dispassionately.

You seem to think that everyone involved would know more than they needed to to get their jobs done. With compartmentalization very few would know everything. Everyone else would do as they're told. Extras in movies don't know squat either, this would be no different.

So go to the NYPD and report it. They planted the plane parts and spread rumors of fires so intense the concrete melted in its path. Good luck with that.

So you tell your local politicians who are just as duped as everyone else and will simply defer to what he/she/it is being told from above.

So you tell community activists. So what? What are they going to do, they think you're crazy, like your family and friends do.

So you go to the Internet, and you stop by the "Skeptics." LOL.

So you go to the same global media outlets that broadcast cartoon planes passing through steel buildings and WTF do you think they're going to tell you?

Seriously, grow up.

Remember the Maine
Plymouth Rock
And the Golden Rule!

Gold.

It would be enough to know that they were being asked to participate in a major crime.
So what you are saying is that if, on the 10th September 2001, I told my wife, my kids, my brother, sister, dad, step-mother and all my friends and the desk sergeant at the local police station, local priest, Rotary Club, my running club "I have been asked to participate in the bringing down of the two world trade centre towers and it is going to be blamed on terrorists flying hijacked airliners", then on the 11th September 2001 they see the news stories about the world trade center towers being brought down by terrorists in hijacked planes, they would just say "Nah, he is crazy, it was just a lucky guess".

Are you serious???

Hmm. Of course your reaction would be counted on. It is the big lie, after all.

Of course he is. You are forgetting they were all involved as well. :D

They would all turn to YOU, yankee451. You're the one would accept their story. All of the hundreds of them. How many have you met, so far?

Extras in movies don't see the scenes they were filmed for used in an actual terrorist attack later on.

You think ALL of the several hundreds of people in on the rehearsals would go: "That's funny. Those exact camera angles we rehearsed several days ago are being used to film the buildings burning today. Nope, that's not suspicious, at all."


Not all of them, I hope! If so, that's an even MORE massive exposure breach, than the filming rehearsals. There are a tens of thousands of cops in NYC, you know. That's a LOT of people to keep silent.

Okay, I agree with you on this one. Politicians are, unfortunately, more often idiots than not, these days.

If there are a LOT of professional news production folks coming forward, with LOTS of evidence that they rehearsed the shots; they would no longer seem so crazy. Not with that many reputations on the line.

Sure, if only one lone production guy spilled the beans, he would seem crazy. But, multiple film crews? And their producers? And their various other support staff?! AND WITH DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE?!


They could also turn to YOU. Where are they?!

They can also turn to the likes of Alex Jones. Where are all of them?!

It's hard to keep score but I gather "the military" are in on it, the TV news people are secretly a branch of the military and also in on it and the NYPD planted the fake evidence so are definitely in on it.

Have TV news staff always been a secret branch of the military? I mean, were they infiltrated or recruited for this one operation or have they always been part of a secret military unit, just waiting to be activated? Were they military during the Vietnam War? Are they still military today? I just want to get a sense of how deep the paranoia goes.

You got nothing
 

Arguments from incredulity noted. When lacking a leg to stand on, desperate men do desperate deeds. Of course you could just admit you don't have an argument rather than go through all these gyrations.

Sceptics are, by definition, not sceptical about everything what doesn't come from the "official" source. They are sceptical about anything what looks fishy. In this case it is YOUR SIDE of the argument.

What you're saying is NOT impossible.

But, by stepping into the shoes of a criminal mastermind, I am simply calling it a stupid plan. An attack on America, of this scale, must be kept as close to the chest of those conducting it, as possible.

It is YOUR job to tell us why the plan you outlined is supposed to be smarter than merely hijacking actual airplanes.


Hijacking planes can be done with FAR FEWER people than rehearsing shots, hiring top CG artists to work on the fly for live TV, and coordinating layers of TV producers to make sure everything is consistent, across various International news channels, etc.

Again, how is your outline smarter?!

Exactly what I was thinking. The problem with yankee's little fiction isn't one that involves a burden of proof, it's that he refuses to shoulder even an elementary burden of testability. He's been asked if he's interviewed any of the eyewitnesses who saw the actual planes; his response was "why would I?" Same thing here- he could go talk to some of the people he's accusing of unknowingly participating in this gigantic hoax, since his argument seems to be that they wouldn't talk to anyone truthfully out of fear of ridicule; he won't do anything more than cling to his beloved pictures, because to do more to test his scenario would wreck it. (Assuming it's a sincere belief- I'm having a hard time believing that anyone could really be so dense as he's pretending to be)

Nice dodge, but you failed to read the post and the material quoted from.

Since we're not having a discussion between informed parties and I have no expectation that you are inclined to discuss actual facts,please allow me to make a point here about untrained/uneducated individuals using terms they don't understand.

"Compartmentalized" in reference to intel operations or law enforcement investigations does not mean that individuals involved in whatever activity that is under discussion are unaware of what they are doing or why they are doing it.

Compartmentalization as policy refers to the protocol involved "in house" that only parties directly involved and with the "need to know" are briefed in and informed of developments, materials and intelligence related to the task at hand.

Your use of the word to insinuate that the practice of compartmentalization is a tool to delude participants in your comic book fantasy is also a no-goer.

Folks that are competent enough to be reliable operators are generally solid enough thinkers to be able to determine when something is wrong with a person, place or thing.

Contrary to the comic book villain and superhero pov, they are fully capable of telling someone (including superior officers in the military or LE) to **** right off.

Earlier in this train wreck of a thread I posted a list of military crimes that - Surprise! - were reported by participants - and - Surprise! - involved those participants testifying in court against officers and/or NCO's and EM's.

I know it puts the brakes to comic book conspiracy fantasies, but thems the breaks - there are no great villains with armies of faceless infallible psychopaths waiting to carry out the genocidal orders from above without question.

Fallacy fallacy noted. You do seem awfully fond of resorting to citing fallacies which you pretty plainly do not understand. In this case, it's no fallacy to be incredulous of a literally incredible scenario. If someone claimed that the Towers were actually brought down by ninjas using hacksaws, it wouldn't be fallacious to be incredulous about it. I know you can't see it, but, yes, your world-encompassing conspiracy is really just that dumb.

Well if the shoe fits... Regardless what you want to believe, the evidence indicates something else happened. All your fallacies, assumed thousands of witnesses, faux outrage, and the other jigs you're dancing won't change that.

You might at least try to find out what these expressions mean before you use them.

Don't forget you are asking us to believe this based on your personal incredulity that, in a head on collision that could severely damage the column, the cladding could be severed most of the way through rather than all way through.

NO!

The evidence accepted by 99.9999999999999999% of the people, including all investigators I have seen published reports is valid. YOU don't accept it. Most Truthers don't accept some or most of it. You don't accept any of it... that is to say all we have is a staged FX "show".

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

Hello, my name is John Smith. I am one of the hundreds of video artists/editors that spent a great deal of time creating dozens of wonderfully interlaced cgi animations of several large aircraft striking world famous structures. While I could take a tremendous volume of time to explain and show how such a task could be done on a technical level, such as showing all of the pre-production work entailed and the problems we faced with 2000 era technology and how the my studio coordinated all such efforts with "The Man", I chose not to. Why? Because I "didn't know everything". As such, my efforts would be in total vain.

No, they very much know that they are extras in a film production. Why else would they spend the time and effort to drive to the film set and do makeup and rehearsal?

"The evidence" being no more than your interpretation of a picture- everything else is a fog you've blown to obscure just how little you actually have.

No outrage here, faux or otherwise- I'm doing the same thing you are, gassing on the internet. The difference between us is that I haven't convinced myself that I'm a stalwart proponent of some world-important truth that (conveniently) I can't do any more with than to argue about on the internet.

no expert required to make up dumb lies
 

Your conclusion is a failed fantasy, you have to prove a 767 can't do it. You have prove the FAA manifests are fake, the Radar is fake, the aircraft never existed, the ATC controllers watching the planes are fake, the debris is fake, the engine in the road show on video flying through the air after impact of 767 is fake. Your fantasy is more complex than The Manhattan Project.

You would not listen to an expert. The video you produce is based on paranoia, ignorance, and doubt an expert could convince you of anything since you are the "common sense" expert from the school of hard knocks.

Bringing fantasy and failed opinions when you need facts and evidence.

The video proves you are no expert on video, but an expert at making up claims about 9/11.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be

Bringing fantasy and failed opinions when you need facts and evidence.

Have you ever answered a direct question in your life, rather than giving your trademark mindless evasions like this?

Would you have agreed to participate in a major crime like this and said nothing? Would your wife? Would any of your family? Or your friends?

Do you know anyone at all that you think would have gone along with this plot without saying anything to anyone ever?

Evidence that you aren't trained to make nor give a reasonable explanation. You provide your version that invisible missiles damaged the towers. No body saw missiles, with the exception of your CGI airplanes. :rolleyes:
Your description of the damage is very poor and you expect reasonable people to accept your belief? You have no knowledge of how physics works to cause the damage and you refuse to read up on the subject to learn what we are trying to explain to you.

Just seeing how this turns out. Not a lot to work with...

https://i.imgur.com/TaGo1p6.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/Oix8MjL.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/J2ZcygW.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/2iz4d7I.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/bsPJ7jE.jpg

Bwhahaha! Outstanding

Somebody give this man a cigar!