resemble some "flight simulator" sessions I have watched.
Didn't Nico demonstrate, jarringly, how a "plane" could be inserted or
removed from a series of individual frames ?
How much more fake can they get ?
The Pentagon remnants are like a completely sparse matrix; a virtually
EMPTY canvass, on which viewers are invited or "steered" to impose
some projection of a vague kind of "plane-like" object.
When, even as a "cartoon", it looks much, much more like the classic
image of a missile striking the Pentagon wall.
Why would they risk such ambiguity ?
According to their research and results, the programmed ambiguity of
such an utterly sparse matrix of visual clues actually DRIVES HOME
their real, underlying message:
"Accept that you will never know.
What you think, doubt or question, simply doesn't matter.
Because you have no way of doing anything meaningul about it anyway
Now you have no choice but to either trust us or submit to us."
--- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, Rosalee Grable <webfairy@...>
> The Pentagon Art Frames appear to be a virtual world. Nothing is
> It shows an organic wholeness that is more easily mistaken for "real."
> because it has internal consistancy.
> I am studiously ignoring them, cos it's a quicksand swamp.
> Lynn Ertell wrote:
> > Sorry .. my remarks below refer specifically to the new Pentagon
> > frames....
> > The South Tower "hit", disappearing into the Tower, and only
> > "exploding AFTER it penetrates the Tower," is clearly a cartoon plane.
> > Or "Blue Screen" is the technical term used.... right ?
> > But the Pentagon mockery is even more ridiculous ...
> > An exploding pinata on a rail gun ... is what it looks like to me.
> > Haven't we conclusively determined that the police car was pasted on
> > to the front of the "nose cone" and subsequent "explosion" ?
> > - In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, "Lynn Ertell" <lynnertell@>
> > wrote:
> >> Who is to say just what it "really" represents ?
> >> A Hellfire or J-DAM, a Tommy-hawk ?
> >> A fast moving predator ?
> >> A small Exocet fired from a drone ?
> >> Or a giant pinata on a rail-gun ?
> >> Or just a complete artifact ... that started as something "real" and
> >> got edited and morphed into something else.
> >> In which case the challenge becomes technical: to deconstruct the
> >> controlled fragments of video thus far "released" for consumption, to
> >> reconcile those frames with the frames released earlier, to spend
> >> and effort dis-entangling the "real" components of the sequence, from
> >> the contrived or manufctured components.
> >> Has Nico confirmed the authenticity of the police car traversal ?
> >> If so, can that be synchronized with the segment that shows the
> >> explosion ?
> >> If one was overlaid or edited in to the other, can the two be
> >> separated and validated ?
> >> It all becomes a question of REVESE-ENGINEERING selected and
> >> authorized video artifact, courteously supplied by the very same
> >> who did it, after flooding the channels with their engineered mass
> >> distribution of the material.
> >> It truly is a "Dialogue in Hell",
> >> --- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, Rosalee Grable <webfairy@>
> >> wrote:
> >>> (sigh)
> >>> They took the existing frames and morphed them.
> >>> It is patently phoney looking, and OBVIOUS.
> >>> examples:
> >>> http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/voila.htm
> >>> http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/msnbc.htm
|Jolly rogers||Politics||Investigative journalism|
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "911InsideJobbers" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.