The Occult Matrix
Recently Updated as of 2017 - This Website is Completely AD FREE - Please Support Me Via Paypal, Promoted Products and Bitcoin or Etherium

Welcome Page About Me Announcements Personal Writings Knowledge Base News Articles
Video Links Digital Downloads Shop Store Suggested Reading Links Page Contact Me

911 Revisited


911 Revisited - CNN Video Fakery / Cartoon CGI Airplanes

Approx. 6 years have passed since 911 happened in 2001. Currently it's January 2008. In the wake of the event, it was difficult, if not completely impossible to see the bigger picture of what really happened. Now that time has passed and people have had a chance to do more research, and put it all together, new pictures are beginning to emerge.

     The most important new discovery concerning 911 is the fact and PROOF that NO PLANE crashed into the Pentagon, and it's likely that NO PLANES hit the World Trade Center, either. At the very least, the Videos we saw on Television and the videos appearing later on the internet were faked. The question then becomes, if real planes were actually flown into the towers, then why use all kinds of fake videos? Were the hijackers faked as well? Likely possibility.

     It has been known for a long time, ever since the event occured, that bombs were planted in the Trade Center building. Bombs were also likely planted at the Pentagon. Some kind of directed energy beam was likely used to disintegrate or vaporize the steel, and the whole show we saw on television was a series of prewritten scripts, and animated videos, faked by someone or some group working at the highest levels within the Pentagon. I say the steel was vaporized because I have to wonder ..... where did all that steel disappear to? Thousands of tons of steel would surely not just collapse into dust. Steel does not vaporize by itself, even with tremendous heat and under fire. Steel does not evaporate, plain and simple. But Magnetohydrodymanic bombs, like the ones invented by Michael Riconosciuto, are capable of doing huge volumes of destruction. . The same bomb was supposed to be used for Oklahoma as well. I don't know if this is what happened, but it appears likely to me. Steel does not collapse into dust and physically dissappear. That's a hell of a lot of steel, to be reduced into a pile the height of a liquor store. That's crazy by any standards. but these issues are not addressed here, only the apparant fakery of the videos presented to us.

     I know, I know it sounds crazy, so I went and looked it up and I found a page that references these facts.
From the link :
     "Samuel Cohen, the inventor of the neutron bomb, said of Riconosciuto: "I've spoken to Michael Riconosciuto (the inventor of the a-neutronic bomb) and he's an extraordinarily bright guy. I also have a hunch, which I can't prove, that they both (Riconosciuto and Lavos, his partner) indirectly work for the CIA."      "Riconosciuto's bomb made suitcase nukes obsolete, because it achieved near-atomic explosive yields, but could be more easily minaturized. You could have a suitcase a-neutronic bomb, or a briefcase a-neutronic bomb, or simply a lady's purse a-neutronic bomb. Or just pull out your wallet for identification and —. The Meridian Arms Corporation, as well as the Universities of California and Chicago owned a piece of the technology."

     I'm going to address a few discrepancies here, and i'll share some research of others as well. Many people have contributed to these discoveries. Many of those people do not desire to be named. The majority of researchers in these so-called 911 "truth movement", are clearly misguided or intentional "gatekeepers". This is the case with Alex Jones, and Prison Planet, and it's the case with organizations and individuals like the people behind Loose Change. I would not say these people are doing this intentionally, but they are clearly misguided, at the least.

     Also, aluminum, does not penetrate steel. No matter what anyone says to mislead you. It's a lie. Steel would deflect aluminum upon impact no matter how fast the plane is traveling. If a bug squashes on your windshield at 50 miles an hour, is it any more likely to go through your windshield if your going 500 miles an hour? The answer is "No", it's not going through your windshield at 5000 miles an hour either. A bird is heavy enough to penetrate an airplane side or nose while a plane is in motion and flying. A little bird can destroy an aluminum airplane. Aluminum is used because planes need to be light and not heavy. They are lightly constructed. Aluminum will not and cannot penetrate steel like it was shown to on the videos, and the government and 911 truthers claim. The law of the universe cannot be bent to suite this one occasion in history.

     One of the first issues i'll attempt to address is the issues with the planes and the "butter knife" effect. This is really media "sleight of hand" . Watch what this hand is doing, so we can do something your not watching, with the right hand. There are several examples of this. In each of these pictures the non existent airplanes appear to mysteriously "melt" into the building like "butter". This is of course, impossible, since any object that crashes into another object will cause an effect that happens.... the effect being an explosion....this event would happen as time unfolds. In these series of photos as time unfolds, it appears the explosion has decided to wait until after the plane enters the building.

   Folks, if an object crashes into another object, at almost any speed, but especially at the speed of an airplane, there will be an explosion UPON IMPACT. That means airplane parts will go into the building, and airplane parts will be left to fall outside the building. It is likely a wing, or the tail, or SOME PART, JUST ONE OR TWO EVEN, would be left outside the building face. But if you look at the series of pictures, you can see the planes in each picture set, do not "crash" at all, but appear to "blend in" or "melt" into the bulding with no apparent effect until AFTERWARD.

     Well unless we are in the twilight zone folks, this does make sense within the context of our friend "time". Time would dictate that the crash and explosion happens SIMULTANEOUSLY as the plane enters the building, not afterwards. There is no way on Earth, it's physically possible for the plane to "dissappear" into a building without any effect. This cannot happen. Anyone who believs that this is possibel needs to have their head examined and maybe committed for lunacy. ANYONE CAN CLEARLY SEE THE PROOF HERE.

Fake2 Fake1

     Aonther thing I want to point your attention to is the fact that these are two different pieces of footage even though they purport to be from the same source. There are actually TWO DIFFERENT AIRPLANES if you look closely. The one on the left has a slightly longer length between the tail and the right wing. This may seem minute, but I can see a difference in length here, and these are supposed to be the same video. Each caption was taken only a millisecond apart, and the angle should be the same, but either the angle is changed and it's a different video or BOTH VIDEOS ARE FAKED. Which do you think is more likely?
     By the way, did anyone see where the left wing to this aircraft went? It appears to have mysteriously "dissappeared". Can anyone explain this?

     In the next series of pics, you can clearly see the same thing happening from a different angle and close up.

Fake6 Fake5
Fake4 Fake3

Just like Butter on my breakfast toast.

And More......

Fake7 Fake8
Fake9 Fake10

     Now, I am going to show two shots from the first supposed plane strike. Can you see the building ledge appearing right through where the plane should be. It appears to be a problem with the layering in the animation. (There are screw up like this everywhere if you look around) The Freemasons are not as bright as they like to believe they are.

Trans_plane2 trans_plane1

     Do you see the BLACK RIDGE OF THE ROOF COMING THROUGH THE PLANE? Some might argue this is the tail of the plane, but if you watch the video closely, you can't see the plane appear until it's about to strike the building. It appears to come out from nowhere. Does anyone find it strange, even remotely, that a guy was "just coincidentally filming a manhole job in the streets" when the plane crashed? Talk about being in the right place at the right time. That is HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS to me.

     Next we will look at the trajectory of the flight path of the planes. The trajectory in all of these photos shows the plane coming into the building at an angle. You can clearly see the wings are turned upward, as if the plane was coming in to crash diagonally. Since that is what is shown in many of the videos, how does one explain the videos where the plane comes in at a straight path trajectory. This defies all logic as well. And shows that anyone who believes these videos are real, and not animated, needs to have their head examined.

Trajectory1 Tragectory2
Tragectory3 Tragectory4

    Each of those stills are taken from a video so you can always double check for yourself. I placed the "Arrow" there to point out the flight path. Clearly, it is NOT DIAGONAL AT ALL. It appears to be totally straight to me. What do you see?

   Here we are again. Different video, different angle, same flight path and trajectory.

Tragectory5 Tragectory7
Tragectory8 Tragectory9

   And once again, another video still collection showingthe same thing, however, this one is the most obvious fake of all. Still these are the officially taken videos that exist. None are "created" for U-Tube or anything like that. If anyone knows otherwise, fill me in. I'm all ears on this.

Trajectory10 Trajectory11
Tragectory12 Tragectory13

And here is another that cannot be explained by logic. The plane in this picture, (Not video) was not coming in at this angle at all. It was the opposite. From this angle the plane's wings should be turned, not in the position they are in. The left wing should be higher, and the right wing should be lower. It doesn't make any sense.


So, if you think this is something...take a look at the video of the Bridge in the background, that Floats by, without any panning change from the video director.

Next we have the Spanish audience video. This one reeks of pecularity. First of all, we have the straight flight path trajectory in this comparison. Next, we also have a strange phenomena here. The building is facing us at an angle. Carefully view that angle for a moment. Next, notice how the plane approaches from the side, not coming towards us, correct? The Plane then crashes into the building without a slight explosion and completely dissappears in to the building. This can be explained, even though it appears to "melt" into the building, the fact that the building is facing us at an angle means we are obstructed from the view to a large degree, but not completely. The Magic airplane enters the building, and then makes a VERY STRANGE impact on the side that is facing us, the audience. The building side that is facing us is impacted, even though we could not see the plane entering the building. THINK ABOUT THIS. If this was correct, then the plane would have had to enter the building APPROACHING US SLIGHTLY, or we would have seen it impact the side of the building as it flew into it, but instead it was completely obscured until the building exploded in flames, and then after it exploded in flames, the fires are raging from our side. That means, again, that the plane would have hads to enter at an angle that was approaching us, not going directly across in front of our eyes. If this does make sense, read it again, and view the approach of the plane as I outlined it in the pics with small arrows. Imagine how this could be possible and explain it somehow. It's a physical impossibility, but only to a really serious detective who looks carefully at the pics one by one.
Video appear at link :

Spanish Trajectory 1 Spanish Trajectory 2
Spanish Trajectory 3 Spanish Trajectory 4
Spanish Trajectory 5 Spanish Trajectory 6
Spanish Trajectory 7 Spanish Trajectory 8

     Why is the left wing so much higher than the right one, if the plane is flying straight across as the flight path shows? Very very suspicious indeed. Another proven fake bits the dust.

In the following video, you can hear the news announcer say, "I didn't see a plane hit the building". Listen to this one.
News announcer #1 : "There is more and more fire and smoke enveloping the top of the building, and as fire crews are descending on this area, it does not appear that there is any kind of....(2nd plane hits tower on video)....oh my god....
News announcer #2 : "That looks like a second plane...has just hit...(interrupted)
News Announcer #1 : "I did not see a plane go in...that just exploded"
News Announcer #2 : "I just saw another plane"
Here is the link -

In the next video, you will see the plane penetrate the building, and enetr the other side, even before you see any explosion on the face the plane entered. Truly world class bullshit! The moment the plane crashes, the video goes black then comes in, and you can see it was spliced, because the location of the news moniker on the right, and proximity to the building.
This is the link (Same as before but further into the video) :

Nose Blow1 Nose Blow 2
Nose Blow 3 Nose Blow 4
Nose Blow 5 Nose Blow 6

Boy, it's amazing what you can find by slowing the videos down, and watching it frame by frame. They selectively edited this one, without a doubt, besides it being fake to begin with. So, in other words, I'm supposed to believe the airplane made of aluminum, plowed through a steel building and went ALL THE WAY THROUGH before emerging out the other side and before any explosion occured? Yeah, that's the ultimate fairy tale for children who can;t read, write or think for themselves.

Next video, same footage as before, new film angle and footage from same clip.

    Look up in the upper right corner of the screen and you can see a very morphed out object approaching the trade center. Follow my arrows for the guidance of the fake plane and fake video. It's really hard to see because it doesn;t exist in reality, only in the movies and on T.V.

Morph Angle 1 Morph Angle 2
Morph Angle 3 Morph Angle 4
Morph Angle 5 Morph Angle 7

Now that is one odd flight path that directly contradicts all the others. Here, the plane is flying in from across the bay, instead of across the rooftops of buildings like in the previous videos. How many of these did the pentagon make for CNN and the stations? That was not very intelligent of them to leave these clues lying all around. How many fake videos do they need? Enough to trip on their own trap.

More from the same clip, but showing the same video as before from a closer angle and likely a different fake video CGI from the previous one. Clearly, there is a flight angle in the path, and it's descending. Why are all the other videos showing a straight flight path? At least some of these have got to be fake. Or maybe they all are.

Descending Path 1 Descending Path 2
Descending Path 3 Descending Path 4

Watch the plane trajectory...again a staright path, supposedly "Live" on television and the plane wing is tilted so you see the right wing much higher than the left. Let me ask you, have you ever seen a plane fly sraight across, but also at an angle at the same time? More apparent fakery here.
Video can be viewed at :

No Plane Announcer 1 No Plane Announcer 2

Here, a witness ON THE SCENE claims there was no plane...he INSISTS there was NO PLANE, it was a bomb. It's short. take a listen and watch.

In this next video, supposedly an anateur can hear the guy say "whoa shit.....
Girl says "oh my god",
Guy says "what the fuck is that?"
girl says "I don't know"
guy says " they're fuckin bombing it, holy fuck!...oh my god...did you fuckin see that?
girl says "yeah"...
guy says "I fuckin caught that too...holy shit....they sending out the air force...that was fucked"
girl says" is that what that means"
guy says "yeah, that was a fucking attack!....cause they headed straight for it"
girl says"but that wasn't a plane"
guy says "it looked like a rocket or something"
girl says" it was?"
guy says "yeah, that was fucking didn;t go all the way in that one, it zinged it"

Very interesting video. It may be one of the few REAL ones, if there are any.

Here is the link :

Now that is enough of that area of the evidence.

     Take a look at 19 Rector Street. Take a look at the 911 TV Fakery. There is so much fakery it is overwhelming. The 911 Gatekeeers had better change their act, or they will exposed in very short time. UFOs in the videos of 911 are another "Red Herring" and a distraction. If you want to see what kinds of so called "UFOs" have been added by the animators to keep us off track from the truth, Click Here!! to check out the "UFOs and the World Trade Center" page.

These are very short.

Here is footage of 19 Rector Street before 911.

Video comparison of the missing building in the Fake CNN footage with Fox Fake Footage including the building. Apparently, they forgot to include the building on 19 Rector street in the fake CNN video. That is pathetic!

No Building Comparison

Here is the video that changed my entire perception of 911 and proved to me there was something wrong with the videos. This is what got me started down the rabbit hole of REAL 911 Truth.
Have you been hypnotized? CNN Video Fraud Exposed

Here is the whole shebang about 19 Rector Street and the missing building.

This is interesting. Backwards police cars and backwards helicopters.

Some of these guys are anti-Alex Jones, but some are not. I'm not promoting them for this reason.
Webfairy never talks bad about anyone as far as I've heard, and she started all this with the TV fakery.
Look into webfairy on youtube and google.

Here is the Jim Fetzer interview where he comes out with being a "911 fakery" believer. This is real good, and very logical. - May 22, 2007

Morgan Reynolds on Fox News -

There is a formidable amount of evidence for people to investigate this for themselves. Do your own investigation and don't believe anyone who insists "this is what happened, and there are no alternative views that are acceptable".

Onto the next Major CGI movie blunder,....."THE BRIDGE THAT FLOATS BY".
This fakery involves the bridge being rendered incorrectly . Rendering is simple. An object is created that follows a path. the path is set by the creator but there is a path. The background is on another path. The sky may have clouds floating by, and the trees are remaining in place on the ground. The birds are flying by kinda fast. The clouds, the birds, and the background each have their own speed that is chosen to display the animation, as well as their own individual path. Each is different. The path of the background may be panned in or out or across, by the viewer, according to the creator. That is usually only done in 3-D advanced animation though. These are all aspects of rendering in animation. Animators have to do it over and over, usually to get it "perfect". This is a very sloppy CGI animation rendering job, in this example. Watch the bridge as it "floats magicallly" across the water. Watch as the background moves across, and the foreground pans backward, but not changing direction with the bridge movement. This is OBVIOUS TV FAKERY at it's WORST!
Here is the link for this one :

Moving Bridge 1 Moving Bridge 2
Moving Bridge 4 Moving Bridge 5
Moving bridge 6 Moving Bridge 7

Now that is clearly fake video. Ask any animator who has done rendering. I don't know animation very well, but I have done rendering on 3 different programs. Mojo is the easiest to learn with, I think. It's a very simple concept, but all animators must do it with digital animation these days. I recognized it immediately.
What do you think?

If all the videos are faked, then that means the media corporations are in on it, at the highest levels, and that means criminal complicity, at the very least. Remember, folks, all news footage airs through the Pentagon first, before it goes live. But, we can clearly add the media to the list when they show us videos like floating bridge and backwards traveling police cars and helicopters. Come on now, people, get real. Wake Up!