If Kathy is shooting ASA 500 (fast) film outside in sunlight, then her shutter speed must be high too. (Also she said she was shooting into the sun.) This would be a good opportunity to test out the theory that the image of the plane is being 'drawn' over a short span of time, since with a short shutter opening some part of what is being 'drawn' might be missed when the shutter closed before it finished the 'drawing' -- as you have suggested before. Of course with a reflex film camera, there would be a curtain that moves quickly across the film and at very short exposures, it would be more like a slit that moves across (but the effect of missing some part being being 'drawn' would be the same).
So it seems we have glitches in photos/videos that are CONSISTENT in 2 (or more ?) shots at exactly the same time, and then glitches that appear DIFFERENT in different shots at the same time (i.e. the lighting effects).
My own belief is that these are not done using conventional, yet very advanced technology, but that it is in effect alien technology (like was used to create illusions of the Virgin Mary in Fatima and with other Marian Apparitions (The Portuguese researchers who did extensive research on Fatima concluded it was a UFO event. one of their books: HEAVENLY LIGHTS: The Apparitions of Fátima and the UFO Phenomenon) Also they discovered after going to the reports of the original witnesses, that what different witnesses said they saw varied widely -- but it was more like the total illusion always remained the same, except that some saw its totality, some only some part of it, while others nothing at all.
So if you consider with regard to the 9/11 planes that it was actually a physical missile which was cloaked in an illusion this would be consistent with the Marian Apparition effect, where that guy in this post saw only the missile (w/o being cloaked the plane illusion) while most others saw the full illusion over the missile. And some seem to have vacillated between seeing a plane, then something else -- unknown or unremembered to them. And if everyone is saying "planes" you become wary at saying "sometimes it was a plane, other times (when the illusion faltered) a missile.
Marian Illusions have been photographed as well, and if you consider someone like Ted Serios who could project with only his mind, images of real objects and landscapes onto the film in a camera, you can see that such illusive illusions as those made in someone's mind, can also be photographed. Similarly there are genuine photos of ghosts.
Also the high speed and drastic maneuvers (which planes cannot do) point to it being a missile. As well it explains how the 'plane' at the Pentagon fit into the hole. Bill Brockbrader, a navy SEAL who guided Tomahawk missiles on their final approach to targets in the Middle East in the 90s (before the uplink was fast enough to be done remotely) has said that the way the 'plane' banked and came at the Pentagon, was exactly how he guided the Tomahawks. If you are creating just a holographic illusion of planes hitting buildings, then why not have all aspects -- speed, maneuvers etc. match what an actual plane would do ? An illusion of just a plane could follow a preset and direct approach path, but if you are firing a missile you couldn't plan the exact path beforehand and some real time corrections would always be needed as it zeroed in to the target. Also if it was a real missile you couldn't predict exactly where on the building it would hit, so any illusion to do with the 'Wily Coyote' holes needed to be flexible in terms of the exact location, as well.
If we are talking about illusions over solid objects, why then not also include how the top of the (i believe) South Tower rotated to keep from coming down off to the side, and consider that the nature of this illusion was the same as the one of planes cloaking actual missiles ? So in all 5 cases (N & S Tower collapse, 'planes' cloaking missiles that hit N & S Towers and Pentagon), we have solid objects cloaked with illusions, and in each case the illusion needs to do some real time tweaking -- the "plane' illusion to the specific approach its missile made and (at least with the South Tower) -- of the building falling illusion to the specific physical disintegration characteristic of its building. However it's not quite that simple, since unlike the hole in the Pentagon which matched a missile hit, the holes in the Towers matched that of the illusion (a plane). So there's a lot of tweaking of illusions to solid matter going on, but it is a comprehensive approach to all effects observed.
But how did the actual solid buildings come down ? An alternative source says it was through scalar pulses directed underground. i remember there was this maintenance manager who kept trying to get anyone to hear his story that about 15 mins. before any plane hit, he was in a sub-basement of one of the Towers and one of his workers came to him with all of his skin peeling off. This would be from the scalar pulses (which apparently travel slowly underground) arriving and collecting their energies in the Bathtub before doing their deed on the buildings. Similarly it would explain why the jumpers jumped later, after the effects reached the tops of the Towers.
Remember all buildings in the Bathtub were heavily damaged. Building 7 was not in the Bathtub, and was a conventional demolition (which left a conventional rubble pile) and it was done to create inconsistent data to how the Towers actually came down. They even announced on TV that they were "pulling" it, expecting that those who questioned the official narrative, would settle on a controlled demo explanation, avoiding at all cost any esoteric explanations. (Holographic Insert Technology is supposed to be illegal in the galaxy.) Scalar pulses coming from underground explains how cars burned at a distance from the WTC. Also it can be seen being used this way in the weird fires, like Lahaina and Paradise, where cars some distance from the main fires, had engine blocks and glass melted, while rubber and paper remained intact.
Why would you even need an illusion over a crumbling building ? It could be that the effect of the building crumbling from the scalar pulses, could not be made to look like a plane could possibly have caused it (it might have started crumbling at the bottom, or like with the South Tower having the top just tumble off). So there was a dynamic illusion created over an actual crumbling building until the rubble came to rest and the illusion coincided enough with the remains. Meanwhile stuff went on inside the crumpling buildings (people survived) which didn't match what observers saw happening in the illusion.
i appreciate the years of research you, 9/11 Revisionist, and a number of others have done on understanding what really went on on 9/11. i wasn't aware of all of your work, until Meryl Nass inadvertently pointed me to it. i've just had a tangential interest in 9/11 over the years.
But as i see it now, there are certain 'camps' around the different basic premises of how it was done, i.e. planes that were illusions, missiles cloaked as planes, thermite was planted, etc. Personally, i'm not interested in coming up with the ultimate 'smoking gun' that will convince the world that it was all a planned inside job. Also my understanding requires a paradigm shift out of the conventional (scientific) nature of reality and an inherent involvement of ourselves as conscious creators/perceivers of our reality, and unless people are willing to at least entertain this perspective, my theory will be discounted and even ridiculed. But i agree wholeheartedly with your and other's essential criteria -- that all of the evidence must be adequately explained in one's theory. Personally i feel that if the subjective observations of the on-scene witnesses (some say "missile", some stick with "planes", some say they honestly didn't know what they saw) are to be explained as well, then where i'm going with it, is the only way.
Thank you so much for your theories and for maintaining such a fine a record of all the evidence. It will take me some time to get up to speed on what you have published on Substack and elsewhere.
Great comment, but I need to correct you on Building 7, as it was NOT a conventional controlled demolition and did not have rubble pile in line with a conventional CD.
Building 7 didn't go down due to fires or controlled demolition.
Truth seekers have been bamboozled by the "trusted experts" for nearly 2 decades.
That's quite a detailed explanation of God knows what, it's not worth the mental gymnastics needed to break this down; the simple fact, imho, is that Dr. Judy Wood hit the nail on the head with her explanation of DEW causing the structures to "dustify" before most debris could hit the ground. All this detailed analyzation and the endless speculation of planes, no planes, missiles, and who saw what, is pointless as all one has to do is read "Where Did the Towers Go?" by Dr. Wood.
To some degree, I agree, however the technology involved in producing the plane illusions is just as important, as with the DEW technology, it is my contention that they plan on using the illusion technology on a bigger scale in the future, which will make 9/11 look like a walk in the park. So I feel it is important to expose the anomalies involving the planes telemetry data, and also optical projection technology. As people have been conditioned to believe their eyes, rather than see through the illusion magic trick.
While I appreciate the work of authentic 9/11 investigators, I find much of the discussion surrounding the event, similar to the JFK assassination, falls in the "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" category. What truly matters is that we know they did it, they're still doing it and they are going to continue doing it until their goals are achieved.
If Kathy is shooting ASA 500 (fast) film outside in sunlight, then her shutter speed must be high too. (Also she said she was shooting into the sun.) This would be a good opportunity to test out the theory that the image of the plane is being 'drawn' over a short span of time, since with a short shutter opening some part of what is being 'drawn' might be missed when the shutter closed before it finished the 'drawing' -- as you have suggested before. Of course with a reflex film camera, there would be a curtain that moves quickly across the film and at very short exposures, it would be more like a slit that moves across (but the effect of missing some part being being 'drawn' would be the same).
So it seems we have glitches in photos/videos that are CONSISTENT in 2 (or more ?) shots at exactly the same time, and then glitches that appear DIFFERENT in different shots at the same time (i.e. the lighting effects).
My own belief is that these are not done using conventional, yet very advanced technology, but that it is in effect alien technology (like was used to create illusions of the Virgin Mary in Fatima and with other Marian Apparitions (The Portuguese researchers who did extensive research on Fatima concluded it was a UFO event. one of their books: HEAVENLY LIGHTS: The Apparitions of Fátima and the UFO Phenomenon) Also they discovered after going to the reports of the original witnesses, that what different witnesses said they saw varied widely -- but it was more like the total illusion always remained the same, except that some saw its totality, some only some part of it, while others nothing at all.
So if you consider with regard to the 9/11 planes that it was actually a physical missile which was cloaked in an illusion this would be consistent with the Marian Apparition effect, where that guy in this post saw only the missile (w/o being cloaked the plane illusion) while most others saw the full illusion over the missile. And some seem to have vacillated between seeing a plane, then something else -- unknown or unremembered to them. And if everyone is saying "planes" you become wary at saying "sometimes it was a plane, other times (when the illusion faltered) a missile.
Marian Illusions have been photographed as well, and if you consider someone like Ted Serios who could project with only his mind, images of real objects and landscapes onto the film in a camera, you can see that such illusive illusions as those made in someone's mind, can also be photographed. Similarly there are genuine photos of ghosts.
Also the high speed and drastic maneuvers (which planes cannot do) point to it being a missile. As well it explains how the 'plane' at the Pentagon fit into the hole. Bill Brockbrader, a navy SEAL who guided Tomahawk missiles on their final approach to targets in the Middle East in the 90s (before the uplink was fast enough to be done remotely) has said that the way the 'plane' banked and came at the Pentagon, was exactly how he guided the Tomahawks. If you are creating just a holographic illusion of planes hitting buildings, then why not have all aspects -- speed, maneuvers etc. match what an actual plane would do ? An illusion of just a plane could follow a preset and direct approach path, but if you are firing a missile you couldn't plan the exact path beforehand and some real time corrections would always be needed as it zeroed in to the target. Also if it was a real missile you couldn't predict exactly where on the building it would hit, so any illusion to do with the 'Wily Coyote' holes needed to be flexible in terms of the exact location, as well.
If we are talking about illusions over solid objects, why then not also include how the top of the (i believe) South Tower rotated to keep from coming down off to the side, and consider that the nature of this illusion was the same as the one of planes cloaking actual missiles ? So in all 5 cases (N & S Tower collapse, 'planes' cloaking missiles that hit N & S Towers and Pentagon), we have solid objects cloaked with illusions, and in each case the illusion needs to do some real time tweaking -- the "plane' illusion to the specific approach its missile made and (at least with the South Tower) -- of the building falling illusion to the specific physical disintegration characteristic of its building. However it's not quite that simple, since unlike the hole in the Pentagon which matched a missile hit, the holes in the Towers matched that of the illusion (a plane). So there's a lot of tweaking of illusions to solid matter going on, but it is a comprehensive approach to all effects observed.
But how did the actual solid buildings come down ? An alternative source says it was through scalar pulses directed underground. i remember there was this maintenance manager who kept trying to get anyone to hear his story that about 15 mins. before any plane hit, he was in a sub-basement of one of the Towers and one of his workers came to him with all of his skin peeling off. This would be from the scalar pulses (which apparently travel slowly underground) arriving and collecting their energies in the Bathtub before doing their deed on the buildings. Similarly it would explain why the jumpers jumped later, after the effects reached the tops of the Towers.
Remember all buildings in the Bathtub were heavily damaged. Building 7 was not in the Bathtub, and was a conventional demolition (which left a conventional rubble pile) and it was done to create inconsistent data to how the Towers actually came down. They even announced on TV that they were "pulling" it, expecting that those who questioned the official narrative, would settle on a controlled demo explanation, avoiding at all cost any esoteric explanations. (Holographic Insert Technology is supposed to be illegal in the galaxy.) Scalar pulses coming from underground explains how cars burned at a distance from the WTC. Also it can be seen being used this way in the weird fires, like Lahaina and Paradise, where cars some distance from the main fires, had engine blocks and glass melted, while rubber and paper remained intact.
Why would you even need an illusion over a crumbling building ? It could be that the effect of the building crumbling from the scalar pulses, could not be made to look like a plane could possibly have caused it (it might have started crumbling at the bottom, or like with the South Tower having the top just tumble off). So there was a dynamic illusion created over an actual crumbling building until the rubble came to rest and the illusion coincided enough with the remains. Meanwhile stuff went on inside the crumpling buildings (people survived) which didn't match what observers saw happening in the illusion.
Petra,
Many thanks for taking the time to write your lengthy indepth detailed explanations. I most certainly find it very helpful. 🙏
i appreciate the years of research you, 9/11 Revisionist, and a number of others have done on understanding what really went on on 9/11. i wasn't aware of all of your work, until Meryl Nass inadvertently pointed me to it. i've just had a tangential interest in 9/11 over the years.
But as i see it now, there are certain 'camps' around the different basic premises of how it was done, i.e. planes that were illusions, missiles cloaked as planes, thermite was planted, etc. Personally, i'm not interested in coming up with the ultimate 'smoking gun' that will convince the world that it was all a planned inside job. Also my understanding requires a paradigm shift out of the conventional (scientific) nature of reality and an inherent involvement of ourselves as conscious creators/perceivers of our reality, and unless people are willing to at least entertain this perspective, my theory will be discounted and even ridiculed. But i agree wholeheartedly with your and other's essential criteria -- that all of the evidence must be adequately explained in one's theory. Personally i feel that if the subjective observations of the on-scene witnesses (some say "missile", some stick with "planes", some say they honestly didn't know what they saw) are to be explained as well, then where i'm going with it, is the only way.
Thank you so much for your theories and for maintaining such a fine a record of all the evidence. It will take me some time to get up to speed on what you have published on Substack and elsewhere.
Great comment, but I need to correct you on Building 7, as it was NOT a conventional controlled demolition and did not have rubble pile in line with a conventional CD.
Building 7 didn't go down due to fires or controlled demolition.
Truth seekers have been bamboozled by the "trusted experts" for nearly 2 decades.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-operation-reason-building-7-didnt
The mostly EMPTY basements of the Twin Towers.
Most people have been led to believe the lie that the basements were full of rubble.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-mostly-empty-basements-of-the
The "tipping top" of the South Tower on 9/11
Looking at angular momentum and the laws of physics.
Video clip: https://x.com/i/status/1826625057763758108
The PentaCON on 9/11
When a missile AND a plane did not hit a target
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-pentacon-on-911
That's quite a detailed explanation of God knows what, it's not worth the mental gymnastics needed to break this down; the simple fact, imho, is that Dr. Judy Wood hit the nail on the head with her explanation of DEW causing the structures to "dustify" before most debris could hit the ground. All this detailed analyzation and the endless speculation of planes, no planes, missiles, and who saw what, is pointless as all one has to do is read "Where Did the Towers Go?" by Dr. Wood.
Hi Bernard,
To some degree, I agree, however the technology involved in producing the plane illusions is just as important, as with the DEW technology, it is my contention that they plan on using the illusion technology on a bigger scale in the future, which will make 9/11 look like a walk in the park. So I feel it is important to expose the anomalies involving the planes telemetry data, and also optical projection technology. As people have been conditioned to believe their eyes, rather than see through the illusion magic trick.
While I appreciate the work of authentic 9/11 investigators, I find much of the discussion surrounding the event, similar to the JFK assassination, falls in the "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" category. What truly matters is that we know they did it, they're still doing it and they are going to continue doing it until their goals are achieved.