I am going to continue in the same vein today, and keep it short. First, my thanks to Steve W, who pointed out an apparent CGI scam even in the midst of discussions about CGI scams. That will be part two.
Part one: Since, as expected, those who believe the official story cannot, will not visit the accumulated evidence from the last eleven years, I’ll bring a small part of it to them. The following are photographs from 9/11. The one below is a parking lot a couple of blocks from the Twin Towers. Our boys have to explain how a pancake collapse toasted them. (The gas tanks were intact and unexploded.)
Here’s another, this time of a police car burning up, but only in part, the rest undamaged, and no gasoline explosion. However, paper underneath the car and near the tires is not burning. This was common throughout ground zero – fires that burned but were not hot. Notice also that the fire stops exactly at the door gasket. Also very common. Nothing hit this car – it spontaneously combusted. Firefighters trying to find their way out were aided by cars that combusted. Pancake collapse does not explain this phenomenon.
Now, reader can question the validity of the photos, look for CGI, and come up with explanations that do not call into question the official government story about the 19 hijackers and a laptop in a cave (apparently an amazing one). That’s what skeptics do. And when you have an explanation, contact Dr. Judy Wood, as she wants to know. She collects evidence, but if she cannot explain it, she says so. She speculates, and so labels her thoughts as just that.
The second part is the Pumpkin Video. Briefly, I have had many head-slapping moments in this long exercise when some other person explains or exposes something, and I think “Ay carumba! Why did I not see that!” I am not a “researcher,” only a skeptic. My only original thought, from maybe 2002 and which led me down this path, was incredulity at the idea that people were making cell phone calls from airliners. The official story later changed about that – they do have that power to alter the “truth” as it moves about.
So I watched this video, and it never occurred to me that I was not looking at a pumpkin. That’s all they talked about throughout in the comments, so that my susceptibility to suggestion was triggered. Steve W said “Is that a pumpkin?” and I thought he was being sarcastic, but he wasn’t. Another head-slapping moment. Just as when it was pointed out to me that airliners cannot cut through steel like butter, I instantly realized, due to someone else’s sharp perceptions, that I’d been had.
It wasn’t hard, once the initial illusion was pierced, to see a telltale black outline around the van, and realize that it has been superimposed via CGI.
Something hit something. That’s all we know.
I’ll embed the pumpkin video properly later when I am at my desk.