Give people a chance to see your “a ha!” moment for themselves. I know it can be time consuming to go one step at a time, but there really isn’t any other way to work through complex material.

If we could find a loaner Boeing, we could invite anybody that claims planes to give us a demo, they drive. This is a joke, but the psyhoppers have been very successful in divide and conquer. If one is serious, why give an inch towards the “government” version.

I understand your position. I am just “noise”. ‘Story of my life. :-0

A couple of points:
[1] Although, unlike Mr Reynolds, you might not be aware of this, in another thread ” No Planes, media one and done”, I gave links to a research thread that closely examines much of the MSM’s alleged “live” footage for 9/11, and many of the “stills” either taken directly from that footage, or allegedly shot by pro and amateur photographers.

It takes time to analyze and digest and perhaps re-analyze ,re-digest these research findings, but if you are genuinely interested, I suggest you start with that link in that thread where imagery falsification can be clearly demonstrated, rather than here, where I can only use words to describe what I see.

[2] As to my claims/assertions regarding the falsity of imagery posted at “nomoregames” itself , to date I have made that claim regarding 2 specific items.[again only using words,- which is hard to do].

Fake Imagery Claim [i]: My first specific “fake imagery” claim was made in the previously mentioned thread [" No Planes, media one and done"], and referred to [what I see] as the obvious falsity of the video currently at the top of the “nomoregames” homepage, titled ” 9/11-NBC- best of the best” .

In that thread [" No Planes, media one and done"] I pointed out that it was not even necessary to play that “Nomoregames” home page video; in my opinion all the viewer has to do is look closely at the initial still image that confronts him/her _pre-play_ : that of an apparent building explosion [or whatever you wish to call it] in the distance, with the requisite buildings/street imagery directly in front of it.

That video opening still shot dramatically demonstrates [or should] that this is a simple layered composite, where the background image [exploding building] has simply had another layer [foreground building imagery] layered/superimposed directly on top of that background imagery, to create the finished composition [i.e. standard video compositing]. It really should not be that difficult for you [or Mr Reynolds ] to see, in my opinion. Indeed if you cannot see it [the distinct compositional layering], or at least suspect it , you probably need to get your eyes tested

Fake Imagery Claim [ii]: In this very thread I have previously claimed that the still “photo” that heads it ,[ I'm guessing a supposed shot from a helicopter] , of a large column of smoke and dust, from a viewpoint looking down on the WTC complex, is also a fake, given that the sunlight/shadow information within it is contradictory, along with other major visual discrepancies that I will not get into at this time.

I stand by that [fake image] claim, although I understand that it does not convince you, or probably anyone else here either. Once again, it is hard to describe in words what really needs to be demonstrated in pictures, with lines, arrows and circles to point out the obvious discrepancies which will otherwise escape the viewer used to assuming from the outset that these and other images like them are genuine photos, so I will refrain from further describing in words what needs to be visually demonstrated .

In any case, if genuinely interested you first need to develop your viewing power by investing your own time and brain power and repeatedly going over the evidence analyzed in the outside link already given in that other thread here [i.e." No Planes, media one and done"]. I believe that what you will learn there will be invaluable to your photo- analytical skills.

New Photos In This Thread

I see that Mr Reynold’s has since added 2 more photos beneath the original aerial view shot that I had called “fake”, both of which are themselves highly suspect. Since the bottom one, of a view of the WTC destruction from across the river is of very low resolution, even for the internet, I will refrain from commenting on it.

However the middle one, depicting an alleged street scene in downtown Manhattan with various people in the frame,dust in the street etc., has many obvious [to me] visual discrepancies, none of which I am prepared to at this time waste my time trying to describe in words, when it can only really be clearly demonstrated with pictures, drawn circles around its various parts, and drawn arrows pointing to parts of the picture in question by way of illustration.

All I would say at this time by way of a clue to the falsity of that particular street scene photo is : “sunlight never lies”, [although even outside the sunlight /shadow issues, there is _plenty more_ that is visually very wrong with this particular shot ].

If you would like me to attempt a description of what I am seeing here, at this site, I’ll consider it, and if I have time I’ll try to illustrate using words only. But in the end, really, if genuinely interested and open-minded, you and others like you need to learn/educate yourselves about the types of visual clues that for me scream so loudly “Fake image!! Regards, onebornfree.

At the least Mr. onebornfree@yahoo.com, you could give us some: “If this is true, then this and this must also be true”, kind of testimony, then we might be able to appreciate what you’re trying to say. Failing that, your missives do not rise above the “noise” we hear on the net.

Since anyone can say whatever they please on the net, we have to be able to think critically before we accept any presentation or offer as true or not true. If we haven’t the skill sets ourselves, to evaluate an offer, then we must rely on the expertise of those who do, usually hearing from both sides and then deciding who is the more credible “speaker”.

Hope this is of some help! But mere assertions are a waste of everyone’s time.

Is this [name-calling] something you learned from Prof. Wood, who, in private emails to me a few years back, resorted to similar tactics when I pointed out obvious chronological and meteorological errors present in her hypothesis regarding the relationship of hurricane Erin to the events of 9/11? [See: http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-dr-judy-wood-is-probably-mistaken.html ]. Or, did you teach her this technique ?

After all, in the end, we both appear to be on the same side – the only difference seeming to be that you believe that the available evidence can be used to conclusively state what destroyed the towers, where I would say that the supposed evidence used to reach such a conclusion [i.e. all MSM "live" footage, all "amateur" "live" footage, all government, private professional and amateur still shots, all MSM witness interviews, all purported seismic activity evidence etc.] , is , on close examination, inherently untrustworthy, so that we know that the towers were deliberately destroyed that day to start a war, beyond that we just do not [and cannot] know for certain exactly how, beyond the fact that fires caused by none-existent plane strikes does not “cut it”.

Basically, the closer you look at all of the purported evidence, the uglier it all gets , the more suspect it all becomes. Which means that the conclusions that you have reached as to what caused the destruction of the WTC complex seem more than a little tenuous, from where I stand, at least. For whatever _that’s_ worth.

Particularly in light of the fact that if we assume that the MSM “live” footage of that morning was actually live and “real time”, [as you no doubt still believe], and we assume that such destructive weapons exist, the perps would have had to know with absolute certainty that those weapons would perform to absolute perfection that day, as their immediate effects were going to be seen by millions on live TV.

And, of course, to achieve the psychologically necessary “shock and awe” and necessary “war fever” in the masses, it was absolutely critical for the towers to appear to have disappeared in under 20 seconds, a huge risk of things going wrong for those weapons if they exist [and for the perps of course], if both beam weapon technology, and real time MSM coverage are assumed to have been real features of the actual scenario that day.

This makes no sense to me. It’s the exact same argument that goes against the use of actual planes [ why use them and run the risk of them not producing the required result in real time when you have the ability to shut down the MSM and broadcast pre- manufactured at the perps leisure, Hollywood style imagery that would show the required aircraft collisions with a near 100% guarantee of working perfectly, and no worry of possible real-time pilot error?]

Similarly, why risk an experimental, untested beam weapon in front of millions of TV viewers [ to the best of my knowledge, if such weapons exist, there are no known incidences of them having been tested on structures of a similar size and construction materials], when months, or even years before you can just pre-fabricate on computer, entire movie sequences, complete with multiple view angles for extra “realism” and run them and re-run them until they look just right [or "good enough for government work" at least ] , then shut down media central [i.e. WTC1] that morning, and run _those_ computer simulations, knowing in advance that they all would, just like the “plane into/through building” videos, work perfectly, _every time_, in front of the millions of viewers who automatically would assume that they were watching live events, never guessing that they were all just watching a carefully pre- manufactured Hollywood -style movie ,complete with fake smoke and dust ?

Yes, we definitely know that the towers stood on 9/10, and that by the end of the day of 9/11, they and the rest of the complex had apparently somehow been reduced to dust/rubble. But I would suggest that based on the available so-called “evidence”,we do not, and cannot know exactly what brought them down [although I would personally surmise standard, run-of-the-mill, bottom up tall building demolition methods, using pre-installed standard issue demolition explosives, and which in real life took far longer than the 10-20 sec.'s depicted in all tower destruct video sequences] .

But beam weapons, mini-nukes, or standard demolitions or whatever else proposed, what difference does it really make as to what actually brought them down, in the big picture?

I would suggest that speculation about what exactly brought everything down that day is a futile exercise because such speculations are unavoidably based either on seriously comprised “physical” evidence which to a large degree appears to have been faked on computers, or on unverifiable testimony from non-cross examined “witnesses” [ many of those so-called witnesses appear to have been hired actors.]

As to your contention that if, in your mind [hypothetically], most of the video and photographic evidence of the MSM’s “live” coverage of the WTC complex, from the time shortly after flight 11 supposedly struck the North tower, at least up until both towers were depicted as “dustifying”, was proven to have been mostly pre-manufactured fake footage [again, hypothetically, in your own mind] , that both current seismic evidence and witness testimony would still confirm your present conclusions, this would seem a little naive, to me.

Don’t you think that if they went to the trouble to broadcast fake planes gliding effortlessly through steel and concrete buildings,plus hours of “live” footage of smoking towers, plus around 20 secs or so of footage showing 1300 ft tall buildings effortlessly disappearing from multiple angles in front of the very viewers eyes, plus “live” “eye-witness” interviews using actors, that they [ i.e the perps] would also make damn sure that all released seismic activity evidence would also necessarily be faked ?

Furthermore, if you are to trust non-cross examined supposed eyewitness accounts as you claim, why not trust the persons who claim to have heard massive explosions in the basement of WTC1, even _before_ Flight 11 supposedly struck that tower? Why is their testimony not believable- because supposedly trustworthy seismic evidence refutes it?

What’s that old Temptations song, “Standing On Shaky Ground” ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eET1ye8gYmo

regards, onebornfree

Around 3-4 months ago i did a similar comparison of WTC theories :

http://911crimescene.weebly.com/

Would be interested in getting your take on it

Thanks
Ron

Back to content: Dr. Wood has examined 40,000+ images of events at the WTC. The photo in question above and used on the cover of Where…? plus pp. 15 and 171 is not fake in any respect I can identify. If I did see it, I’d then holler, “Fake!” and have the goods to prove it up. Contrary to your accusation, I’m not afraid to admit error and change my mind and tell the tale. That is a good scientist.

The picture shows the North Tower unraveling at 10:28:31 a.m. eastern daylight savings time. We know that was the time because of seismic data, and none of that data supports the official story. A lawyer would call the seismic data an “admission against interest.” And the dustification pictures and videos are contrary to the official story too. That raises a good question: while it’s clear why the perps and their assistants spun plane fakery, why picture an incredible dustification contrary to the official myth? It’s a head scratcher. The time of NT destruction is beyond reasonable doubt (any fool can raise an unreasonable doubt). If we temporarily assume picture authenticity the camera aloft faced southwest and we see the 47-story WTC7 building’s north side in the foreground, in front of the dissolving NT, Ellis Island out in the harbor area in the background, etc. The buildings line up. The shadows fall to the northwest and are consistent with the sun being above to the southeast (left in the pic) as it was at the time. We could go on about the precise angle, etc., but you’d only dispute everything.

But suppose this picture and all other pictures of the destruction process are fake in accord with your superior photo-analytical skills (I’m just supposing all this for the sake of argument). Then “fact five” might superficially be in play for disputation or dismissal (no mid-air dustification proven) because we’d toss out part of the direct evidence of the destruction process because it’s proven fake. Yet the inescapable conclusion that dustification occurred before the towers hit the ground still stands tall because all the rest of the overwhelming evidence of mid-air dustification remains: overwhelming witness testimony about dust, for too little debris, an bathtub intact, no flooding, low seismic impact, relatively quiet destruction, incredibly tiny dust particles, choking, lung illnesses, on and on. The evidence of what happened is cumulative, rather than a chain whose strength depends critically on the strength of each link. Each piece of evidence from the WTC strengthens the conclusion. They are consistent in documenting effects never seen before.

Supposed Angle of Sun?

Just analyze the inferred sunlight angle from the shadows on the roof of the large building at right, [ that angle being roughly above and to the left and behind the smoke column, roughly at a 45 degree angle across the entire picture] then see if that inferred sunlight angle rings true for all other subjects [buildings] in the photo, including the main smoke column.

Obviously, if the sun is behind, above and to the left of the smoke as the shadows on roof of the large building at lower right would indicate, that column of smoke should be casting a shadow in front of it, putting that large building in the right foreground entirely in shadow.

Repetitive Smoke Patterns
Also, although its hard for the uninitiated, given the relative small size of the photo, take a very close look at the smoke patterns- you will find that there are many examples of repetitive patterns within each main cloud, many of them having face, or dog-like images.
Regards, onebornfreeatyahoodotcom.

Assuming a scientist is fully aware of that fact, then I would propose that it is more than a little risky for them to then draw supposedly definitive scientific conclusions from review of the supposedly “live” footage of buildings exploding, collapsing, “dustifying”,[ or whatever other adjective an individual might wish to insert to describe what is seen on the tower destruct footage] , without first establishing, beyond any reasonable doubt, that that destruct footage viewed and used to draw/support those scientific conclusions is in fact genuine, and not just 100% manufactured, just like all of those “plane into/through building” videos.

Why is it somehow still reasonable to carry on with the assumption that the rest of the footage reviewed is genuine, and that the media has merely confined its lying to random images of a couple of planes doing the impossible [After all, even outside of the plane/building fakes, there are numerous examples of media lies, e.g. the events at the Pentagon and at Shanksville] ?

Even if such supposedly definitive “scientific” conclusions had already been reached as to what caused the tower destruction, _prior_ to it being fully understood by the researcher involved that the “plane into/through building” videos were in fact all 100% fakes, then once that _had_ been understood, surely it is no less necessary, [in my laymans opinion ] for that scientist to be fully prepared to ditch those conclusions to date , in order to go back and _thoroughly_ re-review and reexamine all of the previously assumed to be genuine imagery ["evidence"] that those scientific conclusions were based on.[i.e. all of that supposedly authentic tower destruct related imagery , in both video and still form].

I understand that psychologically, for most of us, this is apparently a hard thing to do when one’s reputation is already founded on a supposedly definitive theory of what brought the towers down – after all ,when you’ve already written a book, why bother to go back and re-review that “authentic” footage and risk a danger that it might [just like the "plane into through building" footage] , prove to be 100% manufactured on computers, therefor invalidating the scientific researchers conclusions to date about what actually caused the towers collapse ?

Nevertheless, to my my mind at least, an honest search for truth dictates that a very close and thorough re-examination of all of the tower destruction footage to this point assumed to be genuine, and on which important scientific conclusions have apparently largely been based, needs to be undertaken, by anyone who is interested in a real search for truth, in the face of the obvious 100% falsity of all of those “plane into/through building ” video sequences [as well as all of the other numerous, obvious media lies well known to many here].

After being a Judy Wood/Morgan Reynold’s believer myself for some time [roughly 2006-8], on being repeatedly confronted with the numerous and often very obvious [on close examination] discrepancies/anomalies within _all_ of the tower destruct imagery, which pointed to it mostly being fake,[ _way_ beyond any reasonable doubt to myself], I had to force myself to reconsider my previous conclusions to date as to what really caused the removal of the towers and surrounding WTC complex and to ultimately discard them.

I would suggest that this is an even more urgent process [i.e re- review] to undertake for “name” researchers, seeing as how they themselves and others, have reputations for integrity based on controversial scientific conclusions to date reached via the study of what is, to my mind at least, in the end mostly computer generated and manufactured imagery of towers being destroyed [or "dustified" if you prefer].

Regards, onebornfreeatyahoodotcom

but…

what turned all the steel and concrete into dust? thermite? no way. conventional explosives? i dont think so eighter.

jet fuel?! hahaha yeah right. we all know THAT one is a lie!

did you know that it is forbidden since 2005, to use a geiger counter within manhattan? ive always wondered why, until Dimitrij Khalezov wrote me a mail on youtube. he gave me permission to reup his videos, i basicly just took the clip concerning the NPT, where he clearly has sayed, there were no planes of course!
about a week later i got an “content ID” hit, i posted all that into my blog, and as i found out later on, it was a guy from mossad, taking down all the “mini nuces” videos, and once again i wondered, why

anyways, there are many points, that speak towards the nuces theory, and ive put them all into my blog some time ago. its in german, but you might wanna look in there, with the translator.

just, in case you wanna read it:

http://metalfist616.blogspot.com/2011/08/911-in-die-realitat-geatom-bombt.html

in the end of this post are related posts, where yoll find what i just wrote

and this one is also funny:

http://metalfist616.blogspot.com/2011/08/no-plane-extremisten-bei-asr.html

asr is one austrian “truther”, pretty much the first german speaking truther besides the german info-warrior. well, since about 2 years now, hes not quite sticking to the truth anymore, no wonder, hes a bankster, living in swiss and putting donations into his own shares. but anyways, he called al the no planers “extremists” and i was so pissed off of him, that i wrote an article, where i used his research methods to prove, eighter we are all right, or he isnt (wich is basicly the same, lol) .

well, hope youll post this new reseach soon, which you wrote about!
best regards from germany
mart-kos

metalfist616.blogspot.com

Very early on I was forced to conclude that there were no skyjacked planes crashed into the buildings. Because that was the only conclusion that could explain all of the facts that remained uncontroversial.

Of course, in this missive there are, what appears to be flaws, that are not really flaws at all. There were explosions, but they did not bring the towers down as the article says, and for the reasons enumerated. My guess is that they were there to confuse, confound and mislead. The perps would want as much varied opinion as they could possibly generate, since that would divide and eviscerate the energies of any, who were trying to establish consensus on anything. Looking back over the decade past, that strategy has worked magnificently.

As far as DEW goes, there’s a very strong case for a black weapon of some kind, since I sincerely doubt that, from the characteristics of thermite (thermate or whatever), even enhanced by explosives, they could not account for the rotating building top disintegrating as it
did in the films. Nor could that building top have disintegrated by gravitational or even heat causes. Thus, 911 appears to be some sort of weapons test, where that weapon was then made operational, having passed it’s testing. Only now, what ever it is, it must be kept totally secret, for the obvious reasons.

Now if you look at the video, you see the fireman turning his head. Theoretically the Jet has passed over head at least two seconds ago! Yet the Fireman is looking directly perpendicular to where the craft could only have been two seconds ago. He then pretends to follow the craft until it disappears behind the telephone building about a second or so later. Which is why neither him nor Naudet should have been able to see any logo on the jet, by the time it came out from behind the building the angle would have been to sharp. But more importantly, it should have disappeared from view, almost simultaneously with them hearing it.

All that remains to confirm this is to get a hold of the unedited copy of the video (fat chance eh?) and the frame rate etc.,

Thanks for the note about him not knowing how to operate that camera. I didn’t know he’d said that. But he certainly seems to have done a good job of zooming an framing. I’ve heard many experienced people cite this as expert performance.

On 9/11/2001 I was working on the 27th floor of the North Tower (WTC-1). At 8:45AM only about a third of the employees were in. I was working at my desk about twenty feet from the windows on the north side of the building roughly 500 feet below where the hole would appear. It was very quiet. There were only three of us working in the area at the time. If a jetliner was about to hit the building, I would have expected to feel vibrations or at least heard the roar of engines. Out of the blue there were simultaneous explosions above us and below us. The building felt like it was about to topple to the south which I attribute to an explosion in the basement.

“Eyewitness” testimony must be balanced against eyewitness testimony to the contrary, then examined in light of the possible/impossible. We know that in the hours, weeks and months, even years after events, “eyewitnesses” will “remember” vividly, events they could not have witnessed. This is why such assertions must be weighed against what was possible or not.

Captain Sculley’s aircraft, with both engines cut, glided to a Hudson river landing. It was heard by many people on Riverside drive, prompting a flood of 911 calls. While flight 11, supposedly screamed down the Hudson at 800 ft, with both engines thundering at full throttle, while the aircraft continuously broke the sound barrier presenting a sonic boom all the way down the west side, without causing a single 911 call about the racket. Unlike Air Force One, which overflew the harbor at subsonic speeds, very far from the southern most tip of Manhattan, and which did set off plenty of 911 calls.

Then there’s the “Fireman’s video”, where the firemen, because of the supposed speed of the craft, could not have heard it until it had already passed overhead. By which time, the craft should very likely have been obscured by that telephone building, and about only a second or two from impact. Quite suspiciously, the firemen hear the plane, find time to turn to watch it, and still there are about 5 to 6 seconds to impact. Hardly a wonder then, why that video has undergone at least 30 cuts and splices and the frame rate and other data about it will not be released.
It’s much more likely than not, that any forensic inspection of that film will prove it a fraud.

All of the populations on the planets in the solar system which total about 40 including their satelites and moon aren’t affected by the Van Allen Belt however, some, like Mars, have their own Van Allen belts.

Van Allen belts were put there to keep us in. It is pure fiction that any space mission went through, around, in between, over, under or sideways through the belt as NASA would have you believe.

Most of us would prefer not to believe that so the secret is safe.

Let me explain. What ever device they used to simulate the crash into WTC 1 and 2 whether or not it was holograms or video insertion either became disabled or malfunctioned and therefore could not be used at the 10:30 or 11:00 oclock proposed crash sequence for Building 7.

In order to account for Flight 93 they had to make a fake crash site. They chose Shanksville because it was far enough away nobody would come stumblnig along and see what was going on. It took them about 6 hours to prepare the fake crash site and at 5:00 oclock they let the pes into Shanksvills to see the bopdies and wreckage.

It was a really poor showing but now their problem was how do they fake an airplne crash into Buildng 7. Their thinking was that nobody could be so stupid as to believe that a 47 story building would collapse just due to fire. But they went with it and hoped beyond hope nobody would ask questions.

I _have_ suggested, as a matter of procedure, that when a witness [i.e the media] has subsequently been found to have provided false evidence, that all photographic or film evidence that had previously been assumed to be authentic up until the time of that discovery, [ and upon which "scientific" conclusions had been based ], should now be re-reviewed, but with a higher standard of proof from the reviewer – that is , instead of the reviewer going for a normal, neutral, scientific, unbiased mindset for re-viewing evidence, that all of the previously assumed to be genuine footage/stills, should, upon re-review, be pre-assumed to be possibly [but not conclusively!] fake unless it can be proven, “beyond a reasonable doubt”, that that re-reviewed footage is in fact genuine.

If the re-reviewed evidence is found to be suspect under those new review parameters, _then_ it must be discarded as fake.

P.S as an extremely good example of none – “plane into/through buildings like a hot knife through butter” media fakery, the Youtube video currently at the top of Mr Reynold’s home page [ named:" 9/11-NBC- Best of the Detailed WTC North..." is a classic example.

If you know what to look for IT IS NOT EVEN NECESSARY TO PLAY THAT VIDEO!

Just back off a little and look at the "big picture", which is nothing more than an easy-to -do , simple layering composite, where the foreground buildings [which , incidentally, are not even true to life representations of the actual buildings!] , have been crudely layered directly over another [independently composed] moving image of a ghostly white building in mid-destruct.

The entire still scene [i.e pre- play] contains lighting impossibilities that can only be laughed at they are so obviously ridiculous, however, I understand that if one is new at this, it might at first be hard to see for anyone who has already assumed that the tower-destruct footage is authentic, and is unable, or unwilling, for whatever reasons, to go back and closely re-review all of that footage, because so doing might jeopardize their existing “sacred” [?] conclusions to date. Regards, onebornfreeatyahoodotcom

Regarding the seismic data, how reliable is this? I mean, I find the NASA thermal hot-spot imagery rather too supportive of the intense heat hypothesis, especially as the authorities were pushing that angle from the get-go? And as far as dubious agencies go, NASA would have to be high up.

Jeezus; they walk among us…

Reynolds: Can you even gain access through the door?

Lear: Yes, the door is pretty…but suppose that you put a knife to a flight attendant’s throat and had her open the door. OK, you get in the door and there are two pilots. Now just tell me, say you’re a hijacker and you’re going to kill these guys because you want to fly the airplane. How do you do it?

Reynolds: Well, first of all wouldn’t you threaten them with death and instruct them to leave the cockpit?

Lear: No, no pilot is going to go for that, none. No pilot is going to let his airplane be taken over by somebody who says leave and get in the back and have a drink or so while we take this airplane somewhere.

Reynolds: OK.

Lear: They’re going to fight.

Reynolds: So you have to kill ‘em.

Lear: So you have to kill ‘em, so what I’m asking you is how do you kill ‘em? The only way to kill ‘em is if you had a sharp knife is to slit their throats and get their carotid artery. Now what will happen then is that you will have blood all over the cockpit.

Reynolds: There’s going to be a struggle as well.

Lear: Of course, the pilot is going to get up and he’s going to fight and there’s just going to be all kinds of things happening in the cockpit that one hijacker is not going to…it’s impossible. It cannot happen, one hijacker going in the cockpit, killing both pilots, sitting in the seat and then flying. First of all, he kills these two pilots and gets both of their carotid arteries, blood all over the place, blood all over the controls, everything sticky…

That is, that each of the supposed 3 “different” perspectives shown are nothing more than 3 different yet synchronized, computer simulations/animations [easy to do when you know how and have the correct software], none of which have anything to do with the reality of that days events [ including their original "live" audio].

All of these videos and their audio, and others with similar subject matter involving both the north and south towers, have been exhaustively analyzed by the laser-eyed folks at the link I previously posted, and on other links at the same site. [which again, I am not associated with in any way , for various personal reasons]. Regards, onebornfree

I’ll be interested to know your eventual thoughts/reactions. You can contact me at onebornfree at yahoodotcom if you have any questions about the site and its materials [ I am _not_ a contributing member there, by the way]. Regards onebornfree.