Thanksgiving 2015

Errata: edited in the “planes” (not “edited in the buildings)
The impromptu videos are so informal and unprofessional so I have no qualms about behaving like a total slob.
It’s comfortable.

Advertisements

14 comments

  1. It’s I.C.A. (“Eye See Yay”) Reviews, as in “Ideological Content Analysis”. You’re not the first to wonder, and I had no idea when I named my blog that the URL would cause such confusion. Most embarrassing is when people think it’s the ultra-gay-sounding “I Care Views”.

    I don’t buy the no-planes/hologram/CGI theories of 9/11, and I’ll tell you why. Number one, the no-planes theory was popularized by a suspiciously Jewish-looking character named Simon Shack (not his real name).

    Number two, the no-planes theses that all of the networks collaborated and simulcast three coordinated CG-manipulated shots of the towers (and that these are the only views that exist) and that the nose of one of the edited-in planes is visible exiting the building have been debunked:

    Thirdly, the no-planes theory mainly serves to distract from the inconvenient plane-relevant confluences of evidence pointing toward Zionist and military connections:

    Fourth, if all of the people claiming to have seen planes were paid to say so, then why didn’t they corroborate the official story instead of refuting it? “That was not American Airlines,” one witness says in a famous clip used in many YouTube videos.

    I am, however, open to the theory that the Naudet brothers’ footage was staged, as suggested by Deanna Spingola:

    http://www.spingola.com/jules_naudet.htm

    The low resolution of the images in all of the extant videos (we’ll probably never get to see what the Dancing Israelis filmed) gives the event an admittedly dreamlike quality, but as for how easily the bodies and wings of the aircraft penetrated the Trade Center, Christopher Bollyn has discussed the theory that a depleted uranium warhead was fired into the building just before impact, which would account for the brief flash visible in some footage.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I still don’t believe an aluminum and plastic airplane can punch a hole into a steel building. If you’ve ever flown you could see through the window the wings bouncing around and the tips wobbling as the plane taxis down the runway. There’s no way those wings could slice through two layers of steel girders. Also keep in mind tall buildings are designed and constructed specifically to be impervious to plane crashes.
      I’m not going to quibble about any of the points you brought up because it is just physically impossible that a light structure designed to float on the air like a plane can cut through a tall building that was designed and built to be strong and stable.

      Like

      1. Skyscrapers are designed to withstand airplane impacts, not be totally impervious; and I’m not saying a commercial airliner could punch through the World Trade Center’s exterior as happened with the planes on 9/11. Again, what witnesses are on video claiming to have seen is something OTHER than a commercial airliner. Again, I ask: if these witnesses are crisis actors, why are they giving reports that contradict the official story?

        Like

      2. Again, we don’t know what the planes’ construction was; but multiple witnesses said the aircraft weren’t commercial airplanes, so there’s room for speculation.

        Another reason the no-planes stuff irks me is that it removes Dov Zakheim’s System Planning Corporation from the list of suspicious players involved. That’s a key component of the Israeli 9/11 matrix as Mike Delaney delineates it in his documentary Missing Links.

        Like

      3. System planning system schmanning.What do you mean the planes looked weird, the plane I saw fly through the building looked like a traditional jet.
        Oh, and they make planes light so they can fly.
        Heavy planes would just be trucks with wings. They could only crash through the bottom floors.

        Like

      4. How do we know the planes that were used were made of light materials? If you watch the Airplanes section of the New Pearl Harbor documentary, it demonstrates that the planes were definitely NOT of the same construction as commercial airliners, which would have broken apart at the speeds achieved on 9/11:

        Liked by 1 person

      5. OK maybe, but the easiest way to do it would be too just wire the buildings with explosives than just take advantage of the ensuing confusion to lie about what happened.
        I’ll watch your videos tomorrow, it’s late here.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s