November 10, 2014
The Legend of 9/11 — 13 Years On by Anthony Lawson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfz6H-y5zbM
*9/11:Israel did it
*Fox Banned News 9-11 The Israeli Connection
*There is no evidence that Muslims did 9/11
*Jewish Fingerprints All Over 9-11
*David Chandler 2010 "9/11 Analysis"
*Who Controls America?
*Israel belongs to the Rothschilds
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Lawson keeps psychic driving the point that there were so many people murdered on 9/11, but what about the 2500+ missing from the Social Security Death Index?
And he talks about the planes that hit the WTC buildings, as if there aren't serious problems with the videos we have been shown.
All we have for the first plane hitting the North Tower is the Naudet Brothers video. The one where they look over to the tower once the firefighter tips his hat, instead of looking in the direction of the plane, which should be making a screaming loud noise in the opposite direction at least a few seconds beforehand.
And there's that infamous flash just before it hits, and the hole is bigger after the smoke clears than it was when the "plane" hit it. And then there's the weirdness of the smoke, which sort of hangs there and moves to left.
And with the second "plane," in one video it's a descending ball, in another it's a divebomber, another, it shows up within seconds as Kai Simonsen of Fox just happens to zoom in, with it nowhere in sight previously in the wide shot, and then fading to black just after it comes out the other side.
And why is the skyline so hazy on those "live" shots when most of the purported amateur footage shows a mostly clear blue sky?
Then you have a devil's face in the Hezarkhani video, multiple audio versions of it, a hole that looks like something from the Roadrunner and the puffs of smoke coming out below the wings on the video while they come out the top of the wings on the Fairbanks video, with Fairbanks saying the whole thing looked like a cheap special effect (you know what they say about first impressions).
The title of the video should really be "13 years on, no progress in realizing video fakery of the planes."
9/11 - the scene of the crime. The crime was that three sky scrapers in New York City were demolished but no permit was approved beforehand, nor was there a permit submitted - the perpetrators simply proceeded to demolish those buildings without the required permission by the port authority. That is the crime. To confuse the issue, and deflect attention away from the primary crime, issues of planes/no planes, hijackings, bizarre theories about high energy radiation technologies, lawless onlookers with prior knowledge, etc. etc. are floated to keep we the general public going around in circles.
To investigate this crime, the first order of business is to pull the building permit for these three buildings (which were submitted to the port authority in the early 1970's), and study the demolition plan that was originally submitted at that time. Odds are, there is probably only one process that could reasonably be expected to demolish those buildings, into their own footprint, and minimize possible damage to the surrounding area. That plan, which had to be prepared and submitted back in the 70's, is most likely the exact method used by the criminals to bring down those buildings, as was seen on TV, in 2001 - but they didn't bother to get permission first, nor evacuate the building of occupants.
Until someone goes and actually files for a copy of the original demolition plan, unredacted and complete, as was originally filed, then a proper investigation cannot be done. Once that plan is retrieved, published on the net for all to see, and compared with what was actually witnessed on 9/11, then the perpetrators are likely to become obvious since the means to carry out the plan could only have been done by parties with the resources to follow that plan. This is simply crime scene investigation, which has never been done, and not likely to be done since the parties responsible likely have enough clout to thwart any real investigation.
I don't know of ANY so-called 9/11 pundits who have actually gone to the port authority and tried to pull that original building permit - and I can't get too excited about it until that is done, and the plans are published on the internet.
Jlynn, if that was indeed a requirement, it would be useful to know what the demolition plan was, and AE 9/11 Truth, portraying itself as the foremost investigator of the collapse of the WTC towers, should be the one asking for those documents, making FOIA requests, if necessary.
From a previous post on here, I saw that they had been denied FOIA requests, and it would be good to know if the original permit was one of them.
AE 9/11 Truth needs to live up to its billing and it shouldn't have to take some internet blogger to file the request.
As for comparing it to what actually happened, that gets into conflicting evidence and opinions as to what actually happened with the demolition that day, and AE 9/11 Truth and Ricard Gage are deliberately not discussing evidence they admit to be contradictory to their thermite/conventional explosives theory of destruction.
I guess I don't know how things are done in New York, especially the city, but, here in Texas, anyone can pull a building permit by simply filing the duplication fee with the controlling authority - may be as high as $100. This is done often whenever anyone wants to add on or modify an existing building controlled by a building authority.
Here in my teeny little town in the middle of nowhere, however, we just start sawing and hammering without the benefit of any building permits.
But, in NY, they probably enforce the building permit process rigidly with no exceptions, so, the process of pulling a building permit is probably well established and known to all those in the building and improvement business (including architects).
I have always wondered, since shortly after it happened, why no one pulled, and published, the original building permit. Seems to me like the first order of business, given that the primary crime was an unauthorized demolition of three NE skyscapers.
But what the hell do I know - just a dumb Texas hick over here, pondering this crazy world we live in.
Do you think maybe the AE 9/11 Truthers and Richard Gage might just be acting as disinformation agents to keep pumping out weird ideas and scenarios so that a serious and down home nuts and bolts analysis never gets done?
Such as, reading the original building and demolition plan to see how those architects and building experts figured out how the best way to take down those buildings was? Anyone, or group of devils, who had decided they were going to demolish those buildings, would have had to pull these permits (unless they already had copies, such as being an owner or long-term leasee), and study them - they would need to make damn sure that their efforts succeeded and the only surefire way to be absolutely sure about it would be to see what the original designers figured out and got approved by the port authority. Makes a lot of sense to me. But, like I said, what do I know?
Where did you get the idea that a building permit requires a demolition plan? It does not.
Good point, blake121666. I assumed so, since it made sense (extremely high priced and limited space in lower Manhattan where every possible building site needs to be planned out in detail for the present and the future).
But a cursory look on the net came up empty, so far. Thanks for asking that, and forcing me to question my own fundamental assumption, which I am trying to resolve one way or the other. I appreciate your reminding me not to jump to conclusions. I'll post later if I can get a definite answer.
jlynn littleberry, i notice your use of the wor requesting a demo plan, interesting to see its different connotations as lucky larry also used that wod 'pulled' in regards his interview about 'pulling' of tower #7 which he claims was 'pulling out' as opposed to 'pulling down'. Anyway @faux i have never really been down with the 'no planes' lot, i mean come on, new york the city that never sleeps- even at that time of the morning, every morning, the streets are full of thousands of people....nobody saw planes? nobody looked up? everybody just assumed planes? no, the odds are stacked against that, why make a difficult operation even more difficult and risking the whole thing with claiming planes when there wasnt any and showing a stage show on news broadcasts? too risky....the most plausible explanation is fly by wire tech.
Do you get what i mean, knowing there would be thousands of people on the streets to witness the event ,and given the time between the two impacts [more people see the second impact] why would you risk not using the planes when its so integral to the plot, as it were. Makes not a jot of sense.
EDIT
[jlynn littleberry, i notice your use of the word 'pulled'in regards requesting a demo plan....]
Post a Comment