Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths
by CB_Brooklyn
From the moment people thought that planes crashed in the World Trade Center, the brainwashing had begun.
The “official” account of Boeing 767s striking the North and South Towers, at 400+MPH and 500+MPH respectively, became glued in peoples’ minds as “fact” because of the “tee-vee”. Good ol’ tee-vee. We all trust the media.
Even in 1938, when Orson Welles directed a special Halloween radio broadcast of the novel “War of the Worlds”, millions of Americans believed Martians were invading earth. Everyone trusts the media! (As a side note, I’d like to advertise a new article by Andrew Johnson: “Mars Anomalies”)
It should come to no surprise how the media affects peoples’ minds and our culture, and the media’s reporting of 9/11 is no exception.
The 9/11 coverup perpetrators had their deceptive propaganda well planned. With their total control over the media they successfully conditioned most into believing their “19 boxcutter-wielding Muslims” story. People were overwhelmed; their brains saturated with the propaganda.
November 10, 2001 - George W Bush brainwashes the world into thinking the idea of “inside job” is crazy: ”Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20011110-3.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5M0xtxQVQ
But the propaganda didn’t stop there. The coverup perps, the experts they are, knew some people would see through their “boxcutter” deception, so they crafted an alternate propaganda… specifically targeting those already suspicious of the “official” story.
Lenin, the first Communist dictator after the takeover of Russia in 1917, is widely credited with the following quotation, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."
http://www.realnews247.com/fascism_disguis...t_democracy.htm
This alternate propaganda is promoted by government plants within the “truth movement”, along with its fabricated evidence (such as molten metal). Of course, the media carefully publicize this “evidence” as a “wacky conspiracy theory”…
November 14, 2005 - Tucker Carlson brainwashes the world into thinking the idea of an “inside job” theory is offensive. Steven Jones promotes the “alternate propaganda”:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053445
Yet, the coverup perpetrators use ridicule to keep the “REAL” version hidden…
December 6, 2006 - Steven E Jones brainwashes the 9/11 “truth movement” into thinking the idea of directed energy weapons and no planes is “crazy disinfo”: “Of late, [Jim Fetzer] refers often to his association now with Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds. These two are noted for their no-planes-hit-the-Towers theories and for promoting the notion of ray-beams from space knocking down the Towers.”
http://judicial-inc.biz/Steven_Jones_quits_911.htm
Jones is one of many in and around the “truth movement” associated with Los Alamos where Directed Energy Weapons are researched. See here to learn how the 9/11 attacks, the 9/11 cover up, and the 9/11 "truth movement" were orchestrated by people associated with directed energy weapons and the media. Jones also suppressed free energy research in ways that mirror his 9/11 coverup:
9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline
By CB_Brooklyn
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/inde...1&Itemid=60
Timeline of Events Involving Steve Jones, Crockett Grabbe and Steve Koonin
By Russ Gerst
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/inde...2&Itemid=60
If no-planes/TV-Fakery were “crazy disinfo”, why didn’t the media use it to discredit the “truth movement”? Here’s a video of Dr Morgan Reynolds on FOX News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reQZT9Hzvt8
Certainly if no-planes/TV-Fakery were “crazy disinfo”, the media would have invited Dr Reynolds back. Why didn’t they?
On top of that, why didn’t the media report Reynolds’ or Wood’s court cases, represented by Attorney Jerry Leaphart?
Dr Morgan Reynolds, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that the Media broadcasted cartoons of an airplane hitting the South Tower.
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&...e1=federal_case
Docket No. 1:07-cv-04612-GBD
Title: Dr. Morgan Reynolds ex rel. USA vs. Science Applications International Corp. et al.
Venue: United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Judge: George B. Daniels
Dr Judy Wood, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that Directed Energy Weapons were a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center.
http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html
Docket No. 1:07-cv-03314-GBD
Title: Dr. Judy Wood ex rel. USA vs. Applied Research Associates, Inc. et al.
Venue: United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Judge: George B. Daniels
=================================================
UPDATE!!! While composing this article the author became aware of the following:
New York Times
“For Engineer, a Cloud of Litigation After 9/11”
By Jim Dwyer
February 23, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/nyregion/23about.htm
The relevant quote is as follows (emphasis added):
”… one man has sued on behalf of the United States, claiming that Mr. Gilsanz is part of a vast conspiracy to cover up the truth about 9/11, including the “so-called building failures.” The lawsuit maintains that exotic weaponry actually destroyed the buildings, and that the airplanes were mass psychological trickery.”
Wood and Reynolds have filed two separate lawsuits.
No mention of Wood/Reynolds/Leaphart’s names in the Times article.
=================================================
Let us review…
The media (i.e. MSNBC):
promote the “official” version as “the truth”
ridicule the “alternate” version as the “offensive wacky conspiracy theory”
shun the “REAL” version and court cases
Plants in the ”truth movement” (i.e. Steven Jones):
promote the “alternate” version as “the truth”
ridicule the “REAL” version as “offensive wacky conspiracy theory”
We can now understand why many “truthers” shy away from no-planes/TV-Fakery. Seems the 9/11 coverup perps tricked the “truth movement” with a well orchestrated plan of deception! Will these theories really “damage” the “truth movement”, or has the movement merely been tricked into thinking so?
Many “truthers” often wonder why the mainstream media hasn’t broken the “inside job” story yet. The reason is simple: The 9/11 perps have not been exposed. (Check the “Suppression Timeline” linked above.)
Only after the real 9/11 perpetrators are widely exposed with the media break!
Will “truthers” finally start promoting no-planes/TV-Fakery? If the “truth movement” can’t admit their mistakes, why should the average person? People will simply continue believing what they feel most comfortable with: the “boxcutter” story. They don’t care about the evidence. Why should they? After all, the “truth movement” doesn’t. Or do they???
How many “truthers” have looked at the no-planes/TV-Fakery evidence lately… evidence that anyone can understand?
Below you will find a ton of evidence. Look it through… you maybe surprised!
======================================================
======================================================
======================================================
Article is continued here:
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/inde...3&Itemid=60
Full Version: Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-NoPlaneTheory* Myths
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > News, Media & World Events > Conspiracies & Secret Societies
Ah, maybe you'd know. It's just something I've been mildly wondering, and which no one seems yet to be willing to give me an answer as regards.
It's this: Four planes took off from various airports in the eastern US on the morning of 9/11/01. These planes were known to exist, as people saw them, heard them, and may even have put fuel in them. But if they never did what the Bush Administration™ claims that they did; i.e. either flew into the World Trade Center, or the Pentagon, or into a field in Pennsylvania ...
what did happen to them?
Just something I idly wonder about from time to time.
It's this: Four planes took off from various airports in the eastern US on the morning of 9/11/01. These planes were known to exist, as people saw them, heard them, and may even have put fuel in them. But if they never did what the Bush Administration™ claims that they did; i.e. either flew into the World Trade Center, or the Pentagon, or into a field in Pennsylvania ...
what did happen to them?
Just something I idly wonder about from time to time.
QUOTE
Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths
by CB_Brooklyn
From the moment people thought that planes crashed in the World Trade Center, the brainwashing had begun.
The “official” account of Boeing 767s striking the North and South Towers, at 400+MPH and 500+MPH respectively, became glued in peoples’ minds as “fact” because of the “tee-vee”. Good ol’ tee-vee. We all trust the media.
Even in 1938, when Orson Welles directed a special Halloween radio broadcast of the novel “War of the Worlds”, millions of Americans believed Martians were invading earth. Everyone trusts the media! (As a side note, I’d like to advertise a new article by Andrew Johnson: “Mars Anomalies”)
It should come to no surprise how the media affects peoples’ minds and our culture, and the media’s reporting of 9/11 is no exception.
The 9/11 coverup perpetrators had their deceptive propaganda well planned. With their total control over the media they successfully conditioned most into believing their “19 boxcutter-wielding Muslims” story. People were overwhelmed; their brains saturated with the propaganda.
November 10, 2001 - George W Bush brainwashes the world into thinking the idea of “inside job” is crazy: ”Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20011110-3.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5M0xtxQVQ
But the propaganda didn’t stop there. The coverup perps, the experts they are, knew some people would see through their “boxcutter” deception, so they crafted an alternate propaganda… specifically targeting those already suspicious of the “official” story.
Lenin, the first Communist dictator after the takeover of Russia in 1917, is widely credited with the following quotation, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."
http://www.realnews247.com/fascism_disguis...t_democracy.htm
This alternate propaganda is promoted by government plants within the “truth movement”, along with its fabricated evidence (such as molten metal). Of course, the media carefully publicize this “evidence” as a “wacky conspiracy theory”…
November 14, 2005 - Tucker Carlson brainwashes the world into thinking the idea of an “inside job” theory is offensive. Steven Jones promotes the “alternate propaganda”:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053445
Yet, the coverup perpetrators use ridicule to keep the “REAL” version hidden…
December 6, 2006 - Steven E Jones brainwashes the 9/11 “truth movement” into thinking the idea of directed energy weapons and no planes is “crazy disinfo”: “Of late, [Jim Fetzer] refers often to his association now with Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds. These two are noted for their no-planes-hit-the-Towers theories and for promoting the notion of ray-beams from space knocking down the Towers.”
http://judicial-inc.biz/Steven_Jones_quits_911.htm
Jones is one of many in and around the “truth movement” associated with Los Alamos where Directed Energy Weapons are researched. See here to learn how the 9/11 attacks, the 9/11 cover up, and the 9/11 "truth movement" were orchestrated by people associated with directed energy weapons and the media. Jones also suppressed free energy research in ways that mirror his 9/11 coverup:
9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline
By CB_Brooklyn
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/inde...1&Itemid=60
Timeline of Events Involving Steve Jones, Crockett Grabbe and Steve Koonin
By Russ Gerst
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/inde...2&Itemid=60
If no-planes/TV-Fakery were “crazy disinfo”, why didn’t the media use it to discredit the “truth movement”? Here’s a video of Dr Morgan Reynolds on FOX News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reQZT9Hzvt8
Certainly if no-planes/TV-Fakery were “crazy disinfo”, the media would have invited Dr Reynolds back. Why didn’t they?
On top of that, why didn’t the media report Reynolds’ or Wood’s court cases, represented by Attorney Jerry Leaphart?
Dr Morgan Reynolds, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that the Media broadcasted cartoons of an airplane hitting the South Tower.
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&...e1=federal_case
Docket No. 1:07-cv-04612-GBD
Title: Dr. Morgan Reynolds ex rel. USA vs. Science Applications International Corp. et al.
Venue: United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Judge: George B. Daniels
Dr Judy Wood, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that Directed Energy Weapons were a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center.
http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html
Docket No. 1:07-cv-03314-GBD
Title: Dr. Judy Wood ex rel. USA vs. Applied Research Associates, Inc. et al.
Venue: United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Judge: George B. Daniels
=================================================
UPDATE!!! While composing this article the author became aware of the following:
New York Times
“For Engineer, a Cloud of Litigation After 9/11”
By Jim Dwyer
February 23, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/nyregion/23about.htm
The relevant quote is as follows (emphasis added):
”… one man has sued on behalf of the United States, claiming that Mr. Gilsanz is part of a vast conspiracy to cover up the truth about 9/11, including the “so-called building failures.” The lawsuit maintains that exotic weaponry actually destroyed the buildings, and that the airplanes were mass psychological trickery.”
Wood and Reynolds have filed two separate lawsuits.
No mention of Wood/Reynolds/Leaphart’s names in the Times article.
=================================================
Let us review…
The media (i.e. MSNBC):
promote the “official” version as “the truth”
ridicule the “alternate” version as the “offensive wacky conspiracy theory”
shun the “REAL” version and court cases
Plants in the ”truth movement” (i.e. Steven Jones):
promote the “alternate” version as “the truth”
ridicule the “REAL” version as “offensive wacky conspiracy theory”
We can now understand why many “truthers” shy away from no-planes/TV-Fakery. Seems the 9/11 coverup perps tricked the “truth movement” with a well orchestrated plan of deception! Will these theories really “damage” the “truth movement”, or has the movement merely been tricked into thinking so?
Many “truthers” often wonder why the mainstream media hasn’t broken the “inside job” story yet. The reason is simple: The 9/11 perps have not been exposed. (Check the “Suppression Timeline” linked above.)
Only after the real 9/11 perpetrators are widely exposed with the media break!
Will “truthers” finally start promoting no-planes/TV-Fakery? If the “truth movement” can’t admit their mistakes, why should the average person? People will simply continue believing what they feel most comfortable with: the “boxcutter” story. They don’t care about the evidence. Why should they? After all, the “truth movement” doesn’t. Or do they???
How many “truthers” have looked at the no-planes/TV-Fakery evidence lately… evidence that anyone can understand?
Below you will find a ton of evidence. Look it through… you maybe surprised!
======================================================
======================================================
======================================================
Article is continued here:
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/inde...3&Itemid=60
by CB_Brooklyn
From the moment people thought that planes crashed in the World Trade Center, the brainwashing had begun.
The “official” account of Boeing 767s striking the North and South Towers, at 400+MPH and 500+MPH respectively, became glued in peoples’ minds as “fact” because of the “tee-vee”. Good ol’ tee-vee. We all trust the media.
Even in 1938, when Orson Welles directed a special Halloween radio broadcast of the novel “War of the Worlds”, millions of Americans believed Martians were invading earth. Everyone trusts the media! (As a side note, I’d like to advertise a new article by Andrew Johnson: “Mars Anomalies”)
It should come to no surprise how the media affects peoples’ minds and our culture, and the media’s reporting of 9/11 is no exception.
The 9/11 coverup perpetrators had their deceptive propaganda well planned. With their total control over the media they successfully conditioned most into believing their “19 boxcutter-wielding Muslims” story. People were overwhelmed; their brains saturated with the propaganda.
November 10, 2001 - George W Bush brainwashes the world into thinking the idea of “inside job” is crazy: ”Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20011110-3.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5M0xtxQVQ
But the propaganda didn’t stop there. The coverup perps, the experts they are, knew some people would see through their “boxcutter” deception, so they crafted an alternate propaganda… specifically targeting those already suspicious of the “official” story.
Lenin, the first Communist dictator after the takeover of Russia in 1917, is widely credited with the following quotation, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."
http://www.realnews247.com/fascism_disguis...t_democracy.htm
This alternate propaganda is promoted by government plants within the “truth movement”, along with its fabricated evidence (such as molten metal). Of course, the media carefully publicize this “evidence” as a “wacky conspiracy theory”…
November 14, 2005 - Tucker Carlson brainwashes the world into thinking the idea of an “inside job” theory is offensive. Steven Jones promotes the “alternate propaganda”:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053445
Yet, the coverup perpetrators use ridicule to keep the “REAL” version hidden…
December 6, 2006 - Steven E Jones brainwashes the 9/11 “truth movement” into thinking the idea of directed energy weapons and no planes is “crazy disinfo”: “Of late, [Jim Fetzer] refers often to his association now with Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds. These two are noted for their no-planes-hit-the-Towers theories and for promoting the notion of ray-beams from space knocking down the Towers.”
http://judicial-inc.biz/Steven_Jones_quits_911.htm
Jones is one of many in and around the “truth movement” associated with Los Alamos where Directed Energy Weapons are researched. See here to learn how the 9/11 attacks, the 9/11 cover up, and the 9/11 "truth movement" were orchestrated by people associated with directed energy weapons and the media. Jones also suppressed free energy research in ways that mirror his 9/11 coverup:
9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline
By CB_Brooklyn
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/inde...1&Itemid=60
Timeline of Events Involving Steve Jones, Crockett Grabbe and Steve Koonin
By Russ Gerst
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/inde...2&Itemid=60
If no-planes/TV-Fakery were “crazy disinfo”, why didn’t the media use it to discredit the “truth movement”? Here’s a video of Dr Morgan Reynolds on FOX News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reQZT9Hzvt8
Certainly if no-planes/TV-Fakery were “crazy disinfo”, the media would have invited Dr Reynolds back. Why didn’t they?
On top of that, why didn’t the media report Reynolds’ or Wood’s court cases, represented by Attorney Jerry Leaphart?
Dr Morgan Reynolds, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that the Media broadcasted cartoons of an airplane hitting the South Tower.
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&...e1=federal_case
Docket No. 1:07-cv-04612-GBD
Title: Dr. Morgan Reynolds ex rel. USA vs. Science Applications International Corp. et al.
Venue: United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Judge: George B. Daniels
Dr Judy Wood, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that Directed Energy Weapons were a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center.
http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html
Docket No. 1:07-cv-03314-GBD
Title: Dr. Judy Wood ex rel. USA vs. Applied Research Associates, Inc. et al.
Venue: United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Judge: George B. Daniels
=================================================
UPDATE!!! While composing this article the author became aware of the following:
New York Times
“For Engineer, a Cloud of Litigation After 9/11”
By Jim Dwyer
February 23, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/nyregion/23about.htm
The relevant quote is as follows (emphasis added):
”… one man has sued on behalf of the United States, claiming that Mr. Gilsanz is part of a vast conspiracy to cover up the truth about 9/11, including the “so-called building failures.” The lawsuit maintains that exotic weaponry actually destroyed the buildings, and that the airplanes were mass psychological trickery.”
Wood and Reynolds have filed two separate lawsuits.
No mention of Wood/Reynolds/Leaphart’s names in the Times article.
=================================================
Let us review…
The media (i.e. MSNBC):
promote the “official” version as “the truth”
ridicule the “alternate” version as the “offensive wacky conspiracy theory”
shun the “REAL” version and court cases
Plants in the ”truth movement” (i.e. Steven Jones):
promote the “alternate” version as “the truth”
ridicule the “REAL” version as “offensive wacky conspiracy theory”
We can now understand why many “truthers” shy away from no-planes/TV-Fakery. Seems the 9/11 coverup perps tricked the “truth movement” with a well orchestrated plan of deception! Will these theories really “damage” the “truth movement”, or has the movement merely been tricked into thinking so?
Many “truthers” often wonder why the mainstream media hasn’t broken the “inside job” story yet. The reason is simple: The 9/11 perps have not been exposed. (Check the “Suppression Timeline” linked above.)
Only after the real 9/11 perpetrators are widely exposed with the media break!
Will “truthers” finally start promoting no-planes/TV-Fakery? If the “truth movement” can’t admit their mistakes, why should the average person? People will simply continue believing what they feel most comfortable with: the “boxcutter” story. They don’t care about the evidence. Why should they? After all, the “truth movement” doesn’t. Or do they???
How many “truthers” have looked at the no-planes/TV-Fakery evidence lately… evidence that anyone can understand?
Below you will find a ton of evidence. Look it through… you maybe surprised!
======================================================
======================================================
======================================================
Article is continued here:
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/inde...3&Itemid=60
I'm sorry but I couldn't be bothered to read all of that. I just wanted to say that the 'no-plane' theory has to be the most outrageous thing that I've ever heard. There are several reasons I can think of but to be quite frank I am too lazy/tired to type them (besides, they're pretty obvious). I don't believe in a lot of things that people claim to have happened that day (i.e. certain conspiracies), but there are some that I am for and truly believe. For what I do believe, I hope the truth does get out there. Had to ramble a little.
"The world is as deep as the eyes are wide"
Claim: Just the idea that planes were projected in the air is loony tune crazy!
FACT: This technology was reported in the media before 9/11 pertaining to military psychological operations (PSYOPS).
Washington Post
“When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing”
By William M. Arkin
February 1, 1999
http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=2970
A few notable quotes (emphasis added):
According to a military physicist given the task of looking into the hologram idea, the feasibility had been established of projecting large, three-dimensional objects that appeared to float in the air.
…
…washingtonpost.com has learned that a super secret program was established in 1994 to pursue the very technology for PSYOPS application. The "Holographic Projector" is described in a classified Air Force document as a system to "project information power from space ... for special operations deception missions."
…
Voice-morphing? Fake video? Holographic projection? They sound more like Mission Impossible and Star Trek gimmicks than weapons. Yet for each, there are corresponding and growing research efforts as the technologies improve and offensive information warfare expands.
*EYEWITNESS REPORTS*
Claim: Thousands upon thousands of New Yorkers witnessed commercial airliners hit the towers.
FACT: Few people reported hearing and seeing planes. Most testimonies of those who did are inconsistent with that of a wide-body commercial airliner hitting a building at 800 feet altitude, full throttle.
A jet plane takeoff at 300 feet altitude is 10 times louder than a rock concert:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99405.htm
Wide body commercial airliners are LOUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vJliayH6co
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldIEzBMI6qA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ph-66g5L1g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1YHn9c3AAY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7vhL0Mm9bw
A very small percentage of the approximately 500 First Responders at the WTC reported seeing commercial airliners. An even smaller number reported hearing them. However, they had no trouble hearing the fighter jets later on. See this analysis of the WTC Task Force Interviews for full information:
Going in Search of Planes in NYC - by Andrew Johnson
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/inde...4&Itemid=60
And so much more...
TV Fakery math/ still CGI
Take a good look, for those who have worked with video game/CGI or animation this is the smoking gun.
More smoking guns original footage
Even more smoking guns
IRREFUTABLE PROOF
Utter strangeness
Mass media gets PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE SHOT
NOSED OUT original CNN footage
Think faked moon landing, do you really think people who made it into space would leave the flag so close to the LEM on liftoff it would knock it over, therefore a cover if anyone actually looked and didn't find a flag?
Claim: Just the idea that planes were projected in the air is loony tune crazy!
FACT: This technology was reported in the media before 9/11 pertaining to military psychological operations (PSYOPS).
Washington Post
“When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing”
By William M. Arkin
February 1, 1999
http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=2970
A few notable quotes (emphasis added):
According to a military physicist given the task of looking into the hologram idea, the feasibility had been established of projecting large, three-dimensional objects that appeared to float in the air.
…
…washingtonpost.com has learned that a super secret program was established in 1994 to pursue the very technology for PSYOPS application. The "Holographic Projector" is described in a classified Air Force document as a system to "project information power from space ... for special operations deception missions."
…
Voice-morphing? Fake video? Holographic projection? They sound more like Mission Impossible and Star Trek gimmicks than weapons. Yet for each, there are corresponding and growing research efforts as the technologies improve and offensive information warfare expands.
*EYEWITNESS REPORTS*
Claim: Thousands upon thousands of New Yorkers witnessed commercial airliners hit the towers.
FACT: Few people reported hearing and seeing planes. Most testimonies of those who did are inconsistent with that of a wide-body commercial airliner hitting a building at 800 feet altitude, full throttle.
A jet plane takeoff at 300 feet altitude is 10 times louder than a rock concert:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99405.htm
Wide body commercial airliners are LOUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vJliayH6co
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldIEzBMI6qA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ph-66g5L1g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1YHn9c3AAY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7vhL0Mm9bw
A very small percentage of the approximately 500 First Responders at the WTC reported seeing commercial airliners. An even smaller number reported hearing them. However, they had no trouble hearing the fighter jets later on. See this analysis of the WTC Task Force Interviews for full information:
Going in Search of Planes in NYC - by Andrew Johnson
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/inde...4&Itemid=60
And so much more...
TV Fakery math/ still CGI
Take a good look, for those who have worked with video game/CGI or animation this is the smoking gun.
More smoking guns original footage
Even more smoking guns
IRREFUTABLE PROOF
Utter strangeness
Mass media gets PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE SHOT
NOSED OUT original CNN footage
Think faked moon landing, do you really think people who made it into space would leave the flag so close to the LEM on liftoff it would knock it over, therefore a cover if anyone actually looked and didn't find a flag?
QUOTE (Zaus @ Mar 6 2008, 03:31 AM) 
"The world is as deep as the eyes are wide"
Claim: Just the idea that planes were projected in the air is loony tune crazy!
FACT: This technology was reported in the media before 9/11 pertaining to military psychological operations (PSYOPS).
Washington Post
“When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing”
By William M. Arkin
February 1, 1999
http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=2970
A few notable quotes (emphasis added):
According to a military physicist given the task of looking into the hologram idea, the feasibility had been established of projecting large, three-dimensional objects that appeared to float in the air.
…
…washingtonpost.com has learned that a super secret program was established in 1994 to pursue the very technology for PSYOPS application. The "Holographic Projector" is described in a classified Air Force document as a system to "project information power from space ... for special operations deception missions."
…
Voice-morphing? Fake video? Holographic projection? They sound more like Mission Impossible and Star Trek gimmicks than weapons. Yet for each, there are corresponding and growing research efforts as the technologies improve and offensive information warfare expands.
*EYEWITNESS REPORTS*
Claim: Thousands upon thousands of New Yorkers witnessed commercial airliners hit the towers.
FACT: Few people reported hearing and seeing planes. Most testimonies of those who did are inconsistent with that of a wide-body commercial airliner hitting a building at 800 feet altitude, full throttle.
A jet plane takeoff at 300 feet altitude is 10 times louder than a rock concert:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99405.htm
Wide body commercial airliners are LOUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vJliayH6co
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldIEzBMI6qA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ph-66g5L1g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1YHn9c3AAY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7vhL0Mm9bw
A very small percentage of the approximately 500 First Responders at the WTC reported seeing commercial airliners. An even smaller number reported hearing them. However, they had no trouble hearing the fighter jets later on. See this analysis of the WTC Task Force Interviews for full information:
Going in Search of Planes in NYC - by Andrew Johnson
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/inde...4&Itemid=60
And so much more...
TV Fakery math/ still CGI
Claim: Just the idea that planes were projected in the air is loony tune crazy!
FACT: This technology was reported in the media before 9/11 pertaining to military psychological operations (PSYOPS).
Washington Post
“When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing”
By William M. Arkin
February 1, 1999
http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=2970
A few notable quotes (emphasis added):
According to a military physicist given the task of looking into the hologram idea, the feasibility had been established of projecting large, three-dimensional objects that appeared to float in the air.
…
…washingtonpost.com has learned that a super secret program was established in 1994 to pursue the very technology for PSYOPS application. The "Holographic Projector" is described in a classified Air Force document as a system to "project information power from space ... for special operations deception missions."
…
Voice-morphing? Fake video? Holographic projection? They sound more like Mission Impossible and Star Trek gimmicks than weapons. Yet for each, there are corresponding and growing research efforts as the technologies improve and offensive information warfare expands.
*EYEWITNESS REPORTS*
Claim: Thousands upon thousands of New Yorkers witnessed commercial airliners hit the towers.
FACT: Few people reported hearing and seeing planes. Most testimonies of those who did are inconsistent with that of a wide-body commercial airliner hitting a building at 800 feet altitude, full throttle.
A jet plane takeoff at 300 feet altitude is 10 times louder than a rock concert:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99405.htm
Wide body commercial airliners are LOUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vJliayH6co
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldIEzBMI6qA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ph-66g5L1g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1YHn9c3AAY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7vhL0Mm9bw
A very small percentage of the approximately 500 First Responders at the WTC reported seeing commercial airliners. An even smaller number reported hearing them. However, they had no trouble hearing the fighter jets later on. See this analysis of the WTC Task Force Interviews for full information:
Going in Search of Planes in NYC - by Andrew Johnson
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/inde...4&Itemid=60
And so much more...
TV Fakery math/ still CGI
As stated above, something like this that was seen my MANY people could not have been faked. Maybe the Bush Administration had a super secret device that ****ed with all of the New Yorkers (people from NJ, and wherever else) minds and eyes projecting holographic images of an airplane into their vision! Yeah, I think that's it! Solved.
I'm not all that knowledgeable about the events on 11/9 so if no planes hit the world trade centre, what caused the world trade centre to collapse?
Did the world trade centre ever exist? I had not heard of it before 11/9, was that a holographic projection too?
Did the world trade centre ever exist? I had not heard of it before 11/9, was that a holographic projection too?
QUOTE (LoveSuxLoveIsWar @ Mar 6 2008, 04:48 AM)
As stated above, something like this that was seen my MANY people could not have been faked. Maybe the Bush Administration had a super secret device that ****ed with all of the New Yorkers (people from NJ, and wherever else) minds and eyes projecting holographic images of an airplane into their vision! Yeah, I think that's it! Solved.
You ASSUME it was a plane because the mass media told you it was a plane... simple as that. It projected IMAGES into YOUR VISION. and your memory forever...
Many eyewitness accounts have claimed they DID NOT SEE a plane and DID NOT HEAR A PLANE when the WTC was "attacked".
No amateur video to date has a plane crashing into the WTC, only the later released FOX fakes do. Which is funny because the flight paths or angles DONT MATCH the "live" version...
take a look if you dare challenge the authenticity of MASS MEDIA PROPAGANDA!
WB CNN 2nd tower
As for what REALLY happened to the WTC?
Thermite
Controlled Demolition
Buildings this tall, made from these materials, do NOT suddenly collapse!!!!!
Moreover, PLANES DONT CUT THROUGH STEEL LIKE ITS BUTTER AND LEAVE INCREDIBLY CLEAN BURNS!!!
Sorry to drop this meaningless bombshell, but I was looking on the coast to coast website and they felt the need to publish an article proving a plane can purely vaporize on impact with a heavy concrete structure.
DAY OF INFAMY 2001
Sept. 11 redux: Video shows jet vaporizing
Test offers evidence to skeptics who cite lack of debris after Pentagon crash
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 29, 2008
5:58 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
A video clip widely circulated on the Internet shows a test that pulverized an F-4 fighter on impact with a hardened target, providing evidence to answer 9/11 skeptics who question why so little identifiable airplane debris remained after the hijacked American Airlines Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.
The test, conducted in 1988 at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, N.M., was designed to demonstrate whether a proposed Japanese nuclear power plant could withstand the impact of a heavy airliner.
A rocket-propelled, 27-ton F-4 Phantom jet, attached to a sled, aimed to hit a 3.7 meter thick slab of concrete at a speed of about 475 miles per hour.
The mass of jet fuel was simulated by water, as the effects of fire following such a collision were not a part of the test.
The test established that the major impact force was from the engines.
F-4 fighter jet engines are considerably lighter than a commercial jet.
According to the Sandia test report, about 96 percent of the aircraft's kinetic energy went into the airplane's destruction and some minimal penetration of the concrete, while the remaining 4 percent was dissipated in accelerating the 700-ton slab.
The concrete slab was not fixed to the ground but actually was floating on an air cushion.
The test showed the major portion of the impact energy went into the movement of the target and not in producing structural damage to the target.
Except for some slight indentation, the concrete slab was largely undamaged by the impact.
Real-world nuclear power plant containments are, of course, anchored to the ground.
The video shows the F-4 jet pulverizing on impact. The only parts of the airplane that remain intact and recognizable are the very tips of the wings, which exceeded the concrete slab in width and were not involved in the direct impact.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=...mp;pageId=57680 the link if you want to see the video.
That seems like a pretty pathetic debunk if you ask me. On an interesting sidenote though, is there not a nuclear reactor underneath the pentagon?
DAY OF INFAMY 2001
Sept. 11 redux: Video shows jet vaporizing
Test offers evidence to skeptics who cite lack of debris after Pentagon crash
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 29, 2008
5:58 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
A video clip widely circulated on the Internet shows a test that pulverized an F-4 fighter on impact with a hardened target, providing evidence to answer 9/11 skeptics who question why so little identifiable airplane debris remained after the hijacked American Airlines Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.
The test, conducted in 1988 at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, N.M., was designed to demonstrate whether a proposed Japanese nuclear power plant could withstand the impact of a heavy airliner.
A rocket-propelled, 27-ton F-4 Phantom jet, attached to a sled, aimed to hit a 3.7 meter thick slab of concrete at a speed of about 475 miles per hour.
The mass of jet fuel was simulated by water, as the effects of fire following such a collision were not a part of the test.
The test established that the major impact force was from the engines.
F-4 fighter jet engines are considerably lighter than a commercial jet.
According to the Sandia test report, about 96 percent of the aircraft's kinetic energy went into the airplane's destruction and some minimal penetration of the concrete, while the remaining 4 percent was dissipated in accelerating the 700-ton slab.
The concrete slab was not fixed to the ground but actually was floating on an air cushion.
The test showed the major portion of the impact energy went into the movement of the target and not in producing structural damage to the target.
Except for some slight indentation, the concrete slab was largely undamaged by the impact.
Real-world nuclear power plant containments are, of course, anchored to the ground.
The video shows the F-4 jet pulverizing on impact. The only parts of the airplane that remain intact and recognizable are the very tips of the wings, which exceeded the concrete slab in width and were not involved in the direct impact.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=...mp;pageId=57680 the link if you want to see the video.
That seems like a pretty pathetic debunk if you ask me. On an interesting sidenote though, is there not a nuclear reactor underneath the pentagon?
QUOTE (snooze @ Mar 7 2008, 02:57 PM)
Sorry to drop this meaningless bombshell, but I was looking on the coast to coast website and they felt the need to publish an article proving a plane can purely vaporize on impact with a heavy concrete structure.
DAY OF INFAMY 2001
Sept. 11 redux: Video shows jet vaporizing
Test offers evidence to skeptics who cite lack of debris after Pentagon crash
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 29, 2008
5:58 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
A rocket-propelled, 27-ton F-4 Phantom jet, attached to a sled, aimed to hit a 3.7 meter thick slab of concrete at a speed of about 475 miles per hour.
The mass of jet fuel was simulated by water, as the effects of fire following such a collision were not a part of the test.
The test established that the major impact force was from the engines.
F-4 fighter jet engines are considerably lighter than a commercial jet.
According to the Sandia test report, about 96 percent of the aircraft's kinetic energy went into the airplane's destruction and some minimal penetration of the concrete, while the remaining 4 percent was dissipated in accelerating the 700-ton slab.
The concrete slab was not fixed to the ground but actually was floating on an air cushion.
The test showed the major portion of the impact energy went into the movement of the target and not in producing structural damage to the target.
Except for some slight indentation, the concrete slab was largely undamaged by the impact.
The video shows the F-4 jet pulverizing on impact. The only parts of the airplane that remain intact and recognizable are the very tips of the wings, which exceeded the concrete slab in width and were not involved in the direct impact.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=...mp;pageId=57680 the link if you want to see the video.
That seems like a pretty pathetic debunk if you ask me. On an interesting sidenote though, is there not a nuclear reactor underneath the pentagon?
DAY OF INFAMY 2001
Sept. 11 redux: Video shows jet vaporizing
Test offers evidence to skeptics who cite lack of debris after Pentagon crash
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 29, 2008
5:58 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
A rocket-propelled, 27-ton F-4 Phantom jet, attached to a sled, aimed to hit a 3.7 meter thick slab of concrete at a speed of about 475 miles per hour.
The mass of jet fuel was simulated by water, as the effects of fire following such a collision were not a part of the test.
The test established that the major impact force was from the engines.
F-4 fighter jet engines are considerably lighter than a commercial jet.
According to the Sandia test report, about 96 percent of the aircraft's kinetic energy went into the airplane's destruction and some minimal penetration of the concrete, while the remaining 4 percent was dissipated in accelerating the 700-ton slab.
The concrete slab was not fixed to the ground but actually was floating on an air cushion.
The test showed the major portion of the impact energy went into the movement of the target and not in producing structural damage to the target.
Except for some slight indentation, the concrete slab was largely undamaged by the impact.
The video shows the F-4 jet pulverizing on impact. The only parts of the airplane that remain intact and recognizable are the very tips of the wings, which exceeded the concrete slab in width and were not involved in the direct impact.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=...mp;pageId=57680 the link if you want to see the video.
That seems like a pretty pathetic debunk if you ask me. On an interesting sidenote though, is there not a nuclear reactor underneath the pentagon?
Pathetic debunk is right. Two VERY dissimilar events. 3,7 metre thick concrete , 700 tons,"floating on an air cushion"?, a plane with just a quarter the mass, tiny engines, this supports nothing!!
QUOTE (keithisco @ Mar 7 2008, 09:07 AM)
Pathetic debunk is right. Two VERY dissimilar events. 3,7 metre thick concrete , 700 tons,"floating on an air cushion"?, a plane with just a quarter the mass, tiny engines, this supports nothing!!
Tell me, how does this picture prove a plane crashed in shanksville???
Looks like a big hole eh? Thats cause the people are standing WAY AWAY FROM THE HOLE.
This is a 20 by 5 foot hole...
For those with difficulty understanding TV-Fakery via Newton’s Laws, note these:
The Incredible Moving Bridge (Naudet Brothers DVD):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EiYUGzUUg64
The Spinning WTC (WCBS Footage):
http://www.livevideo.com/video/killtown/3C...inning-wtc.aspx
*DEBUNKED?*
Claim: TV-Fakery has been debunked time and time again.
FACT:The violation of Newton’s Laws of Motion has never been explained.
Several “papers” claiming to debunk TV-Fakery have surfaced. However, not one of them approaches the obvious violation of Newton’s Laws regarding an aluminum airplane with a plastic nosecone gliding through a steel/concrete building. Instead, these strawman papers attempt to discredit TV-Fakery by “explaining away” a few points. Neither Steven Jones nor anyone in his team has ever addressed Newton’s Laws as it applies to TV-Fakery. (I wonder why…)
Is this... real?
Nope...
They trust the media over their own eyes... Here is the obvious proof.
2 separate flight paths, i mean cmon?? what more do you need!!
Sorry, folks, maybe I'm missing something here... is this for real???
You 911 conspiracy morons are so stupid it's insulting. Here's a fact, my best friend was going to school in NY when 9/11 happened. He saw the second plane hit the tower as did thousands of other people, many of whom independently video-taped it. Seriously, how desperate and wacky can you people get? Projections? My god that's stupidest thing I ever heard.
QUOTE (imp1960 @ Mar 7 2008, 02:30 PM)
Sorry, folks, maybe I'm missing something here... is this for real???
Im not kidding.
World Trade 7 building
EDIT: ahhh the overwhelming power of mass media eh? turning reality into fiction and vica versa?
QUOTE (capeo @ Mar 7 2008, 02:32 PM)
You 911 conspiracy morons are so stupid it's insulting. Here's a fact, my best friend was going to school in NY when 9/11 happened. He saw the second plane hit the tower as did thousands of other people, many of whom independently video-taped it. Seriously, how desperate and wacky can you people get? Projections? My god that's stupidest thing I ever heard.
I never said anything about projections, however think about this,
This is an impossible angle to get the shot of the plane hitting the tower...
BUILDINGS IN THE NEW YORK SKYLINE ARE ABSENT, and the scenery would block the shot anyway...
..."Satan's face?"
Tell me, did it ever look real???
Where is 19 rector street in the CNN shot?!!?!?!?!!!
Why would CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and every other "corporate owned" network have coverage while all the other public channels were blocked out?
HOW IS THE ABOVE SHOT POSSIBLE, and how can a plane DEFY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS and "disappear" into the building taking NO BRUNT OF IMPACT.
Plane's and buildings made of HIGH GRADE STEEL do not react to this and even the NIST report
admits this is impossible WITH ITS OWN INFORMATION.
the only 3 steel high risers in existence to this day to "collapse due to fire?"
WTC 1, 2, and 7.
EDIT: never assume what you see on television is the "truth", it is NOT. The media is a propaganda tool, and it is INCREDIBLY EFFICIENT. You are your BEST proof!!!
This 'No Planes' theory can be put alongside the Directed Energy Weapons theory as something that 99% of the 9/11 truth movement disagrees with.
Scholars for 9/11 Truth has its own page Perception & Propaganda: Misinformation which covers dubious claims and theories.
There is also refutation of both these theories in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
Just thought I would make it clear these theories are not widely held beliefs of those opposing the official story.
Scholars for 9/11 Truth has its own page Perception & Propaganda: Misinformation which covers dubious claims and theories.
There is also refutation of both these theories in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
Just thought I would make it clear these theories are not widely held beliefs of those opposing the official story.
Be sure to continue reading article at the last link I posted.
Learn of the 1999 Washington Post article that details the military's hologram project.
Learn of the NYPD official who said the South Tower strike "looked like an evil magician's trick".
Learn that very few people reported seeing airplanes, and even fewer reported hearing them.
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/inde...3&Itemid=60
Learn of the 1999 Washington Post article that details the military's hologram project.
Learn of the NYPD official who said the South Tower strike "looked like an evil magician's trick".
Learn that very few people reported seeing airplanes, and even fewer reported hearing them.
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/inde...3&Itemid=60
QUOTE (Q24 @ Mar 7 2008, 04:43 PM)
This 'No Planes' theory can be put alongside the Directed Energy Weapons theory as something that 99% of the 9/11 truth movement disagrees with.
Scholars for 9/11 Truth has its own page Perception & Propaganda: Misinformation which covers dubious claims and theories.
There is also refutation of both these theories in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
Just thought I would make it clear these theories are not widely held beliefs of those opposing the official story.
Scholars for 9/11 Truth has its own page Perception & Propaganda: Misinformation which covers dubious claims and theories.
There is also refutation of both these theories in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
Just thought I would make it clear these theories are not widely held beliefs of those opposing the official story.
Something to note, neither of the "refutations" apply newtons third law... so how are they refuted?
Steven jones = plant, hence why the "truth movement" is grinding to a halt...
If people had cared enough and not assumed television to be their reality, we would not be in this mess
WITH HOLES THE SIZE OF VALCANOS in the 911 story.
QUOTE (Zaus @ Mar 7 2008, 11:48 PM)
Something to note, neither of the "refutations" apply newtons third law... so how are they refuted?
Can you explain what you mean?
QUOTE (Zaus @ Mar 7 2008, 11:48 PM)
Steven jones = plant, hence why the "truth movement" is grinding to a halt...
After all the research and good work Jones has done, you gotta be kidding. What leads you to believe Jones = plant?
QUOTE (Zaus @ Mar 7 2008, 11:48 PM)
If people had cared enough and not assumed television to be their reality, we would not be in this mess
Sometimes (and I do mean sometimes) television can be correct. This 'no planes' thing, can you answer some questions to help me out with it...
- How did TV networks fake live images?
- How did they ensure this matched with all the amateur footage of the second impact?
- If there were 'no planes', isn't there a massive risk in the case of the the second impact that amateur footage would give this away?
- How did explosives cut 'plane shapes' in the Towers?
- What were civilian air traffic control following on radar if 'no planes'?
- Are all the witnesses, who were actually at the scene and saw the planes, lying?
- Ah, I've always wanted to ask this one - what happened to the passengers if there were 'no-planes'?
QUOTE (Q24 @ Mar 8 2008, 12:10 AM)
Can you explain what you mean?
That, i fear, is asking a bit much. :-/
Are these people serious? Are they seriously trying to tell me that I, and some 20 of my colleagues at work, didn't watch, live on TV, an aircraft (the second one) fly into one of the towers of the world trade centre? They're gonna have to go some to persuade me!
Edited for typos...
Edited for typos...
QUOTE (Q24 @ Mar 7 2008, 05:10 PM)
Can you explain what you mean?
Noone explained how a plane crashed into the WTC without even taking... impact.
We are talking about steel, and newtons third law states
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs."
The plane did NOT react AT ALL... this is obviously impossible!!!
QUOTE (Q24 @ Mar 7 2008, 05:10 PM)
After all the research and good work Jones has done, you gotta be kidding. What leads you to believe Jones = plant?
The truth...
But really, im guessing judy wood and DR. Reynolds are plants too, put there to forward the debate on "directed energy weapons" and the "no plane theory"
However, i believe it was a cruise missile that hit the WTC towers, then it was blown to pieces in a controlled demolition.
QUOTE (Q24 @ Mar 7 2008, 05:10 PM)
Sometimes (and I do mean sometimes) television can be correct. This 'no planes' thing, can you answer some questions to help me out with it...
- How did TV networks fake live images?
- How did they ensure this matched with all the amateur footage of the second impact?
- If there were 'no planes', isn't there a massive risk in the case of the the second impact that amateur footage would give this away?
- How did explosives cut 'plane shapes' in the Towers?
- What were civilian air traffic control following on radar if 'no planes'?
- Are all the witnesses, who were actually at the scene and saw the planes, lying?
- Ah, I've always wanted to ask this one - what happened to the passengers if there were 'no-planes'?
You seem like an open minded individual, you should look into the TV fakery theory, it makes the most sense!!!
I would love to continue this later, and i have to get me some money
1 You must read here...
2 They made the amateur footage... with (FAKE)witness reactions!
i have only seen 2 vids that i would call genuine authentic. The "plane" looks like a cruise missile.
3 In fact there is! the problem however is that 800 million people saw it on TV, the brainwashing tool of the government.
If 1000 people DIDNT SEE A PLANE
they would be arguing with (atleast)800 million who did...
4 How did the cut shapes appear so clean??? Did you know the fuel tanks for jumbo jetliners are kept in their wings? They would have exploded on contact.
5 To my knowledge they "cut the transponder's" and they could not be tracked by air traffic control. This of course makes no sense but i do remember they were doing military exercises dealing with plane hijackings and alot of people were confused. not knowing whether it was real or exercise, this is a fact and the audio clip can be found.
6 The actors are.
7 My guess is as good as yours
I'm not about to say planes didn't hit the WTC towers, but I would like to know how the BBC ends up reporting the collapse of WTC7 while the building is still standing behind the person giving the report.
If possible, I would like someone that believes the "official" version of events to answer that question.
I simply don't understand how such an error could come about.
Also, I don't see why people that question the "official" version of events get called nut jobs and what not. Are some of them nutty, yea, I'm sure they are. There is nothing wrong with questioning the government and the world around you however.
Anyone that thinks the government hasn't gone forth and committed horrendous crimes and covered things up is only fooling themselves. 9/11 aside, there's plenty that has happened that should make you question what in the world they are doing sometimes. I mean honestly, how can you trust an institution that went forth with mind control experiments of their own citizens (MK-Ultra). Feeding them LSD among other things as if we are nothing more than rats.
Heck, there seems to be plenty that indicates a lot of underhandedness regarding the JFK assasination as well. Then of course there is what they did to cover-up their involvement in the Franklin Case regarding crimes dealing with pedophilia.
Knowing those things, please don't tell me I'm a wacko simply because I'm unwilling to eat up without any question the governments version of what happened on 9/11. There's too many things out there that I would think leave people scratching their heads and asking how and why would this be regarding the events of that day.
If possible, I would like someone that believes the "official" version of events to answer that question.
I simply don't understand how such an error could come about.
Also, I don't see why people that question the "official" version of events get called nut jobs and what not. Are some of them nutty, yea, I'm sure they are. There is nothing wrong with questioning the government and the world around you however.
Anyone that thinks the government hasn't gone forth and committed horrendous crimes and covered things up is only fooling themselves. 9/11 aside, there's plenty that has happened that should make you question what in the world they are doing sometimes. I mean honestly, how can you trust an institution that went forth with mind control experiments of their own citizens (MK-Ultra). Feeding them LSD among other things as if we are nothing more than rats.
Heck, there seems to be plenty that indicates a lot of underhandedness regarding the JFK assasination as well. Then of course there is what they did to cover-up their involvement in the Franklin Case regarding crimes dealing with pedophilia.
Knowing those things, please don't tell me I'm a wacko simply because I'm unwilling to eat up without any question the governments version of what happened on 9/11. There's too many things out there that I would think leave people scratching their heads and asking how and why would this be regarding the events of that day.
have heard of these 'holograms' long ago.. were being touted as potential mid-east psyops (project image of allah exhorting troops to surrender etc) ..they exist
i like to get kooky.. but find this one hard to swallow..?
what is the workings of the hologram? i 'heard' the 2nd strike as i 'watched' it on the TV..
the only method is.. if the supposed hologram machine had ability to produce accompanying aural data also.. come to think of it.. this *may* be possible because the info i read about the mid-east psyop suggested the vision of allah would be 'speaking' to the troops... hmm..
anyway.. the WTC event is fishy as is.. adding holograms to the mix just disturbs me..
something that also is fishy..
watch the firefighters documentary of the WTC event.. where they are talking about explosions.. an elevator disgorges a load of passengers during the talk and all these passengers seem to alight and keep eyes on ground, as if avoiding those in the lobby.. no screams, no panic, no nothing.. they are like a group of businessmen finishing work for the day.. i wonder what kind of 'business' they were up to when they were UP in the tower...?
i like to get kooky.. but find this one hard to swallow..?
what is the workings of the hologram? i 'heard' the 2nd strike as i 'watched' it on the TV..
the only method is.. if the supposed hologram machine had ability to produce accompanying aural data also.. come to think of it.. this *may* be possible because the info i read about the mid-east psyop suggested the vision of allah would be 'speaking' to the troops... hmm..
anyway.. the WTC event is fishy as is.. adding holograms to the mix just disturbs me..
something that also is fishy..
watch the firefighters documentary of the WTC event.. where they are talking about explosions.. an elevator disgorges a load of passengers during the talk and all these passengers seem to alight and keep eyes on ground, as if avoiding those in the lobby.. no screams, no panic, no nothing.. they are like a group of businessmen finishing work for the day.. i wonder what kind of 'business' they were up to when they were UP in the tower...?
QUOTE (Left Field @ Mar 9 2008, 04:30 AM)
I'm not about to say planes didn't hit the WTC towers, but I would like to know how the BBC ends up reporting the collapse of WTC7 while the building is still standing behind the person giving the report.
If possible, I would like someone that believes the "official" version of events to answer that question.
I simply don't understand how such an error could come about.
If possible, I would like someone that believes the "official" version of events to answer that question.
I simply don't understand how such an error could come about.
Do you have a clip of that, or is that one of those things that "everyone knows" happened?
QUOTE (747400 @ Mar 9 2008, 04:24 AM)
Do you have a clip of that, or is that one of those things that "everyone knows" happened?
Here it is.
BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell
Watch the video and you can clearly see the building is still standing right behind her.
This clip has a little bit more to it:
BBC Reported Collapse of WTC Building 7 Early-- TWICE
It starts with the same report as the first link I gave you, but shows a little more of that report. The feed to the news lady cuts out and according to the message in the video, 5 minutes later WTC7 collapsed. Had they stayed with that report you would have seen the building collapse behind her after she had already been reporting its collapse.
Around the 8 minute mark of the video it then shows another BBC report in which they are announcing WTC7 collapsed roughly 25 minutes before the actual collapse of the building. So that's two seperate reports from the BBC about the collapse of WTC7 before it even fell.
I don't see how that can possibly happen.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wNNTcHq5Tzk
I am not sure if it has been discussed or not, but between 11:40-12:30 they said something about "military plane".
Military plane shot a missile to the building or what?
I am not sure if it has been discussed or not, but between 11:40-12:30 they said something about "military plane".
Military plane shot a missile to the building or what?
Some simple facts about structural engineering and 9/11.
Extra Explosions unaccounted for
Rare flight 93 footage, no plane...
FBI stolen tape, what the person who had the camera said?
Same mass media... DIFFERENT PLANE.
Does this sound like a person who just watched a plane fly into a building? or bad audio and CERTAINLY bad CGI, the plane skips across the screen...
Just bad actors maybe?
Extra Explosions unaccounted for
Rare flight 93 footage, no plane...
FBI stolen tape, what the person who had the camera said?
Same mass media... DIFFERENT PLANE.
Does this sound like a person who just watched a plane fly into a building? or bad audio and CERTAINLY bad CGI, the plane skips across the screen...
Just bad actors maybe?
I'm undecided about it. It's entirely possible that a black project such as hologram technology had become advanced enough by 9/11 to fool everybody with an illusion or masking something. Who knows?
But the main point is that we'll likely never know, and we'd never be able to prove it.
I'm sticking with the physical evidence of Jones and the STJ911 group. It destroys the official story.
But the main point is that we'll likely never know, and we'd never be able to prove it.
I'm sticking with the physical evidence of Jones and the STJ911 group. It destroys the official story.
QUOTE (turbonium @ Mar 9 2008, 05:57 AM)
I'm undecided about it. It's entirely possible that a black project such as hologram technology had become advanced enough by 9/11 to fool everybody with an illusion or masking something. Who knows?
But the main point is that we'll likely never know, and we'd never be able to prove it.
I'm sticking with the physical evidence of Jones and the STJ911 group. It destroys the official story.
But the main point is that we'll likely never know, and we'd never be able to prove it.
I'm sticking with the physical evidence of Jones and the STJ911 group. It destroys the official story.
UNDECIDED... HMMMMM...
You might want to take a good look at some of the vids they passed off as real my friend, its painfully obvious this stuff is bad animation.
impossible moving bridge, SPINNING WTC, bad CGI.
Jet, plane, wtf?
Random thing in the sky(among many random things in the sky).
Some things to think about
And for all those that think the "no-plane" theory is insane...
Do you see a plane?
i didnt...
QUOTE (Left Field @ Mar 9 2008, 08:38 AM)
I don't see how that can possibly happen.
Are you saying the mainstream media are infallible?
QUOTE (flyingswan @ Mar 9 2008, 03:45 PM)
Are you saying the mainstream media are infallible?
Not at all.
I'm saying where did they get the information from. Who in the world fed them the information that brought about the reporting WTC7 has collpased when it clearly did not, and then coincindentally it crashes to the ground about 20-25 minutes after they started reporting it.
You don't find that odd and peculiar at all?
That, along with Larry Silverstein's comments that they decided to "pull" the building makes one wonder. Not to mention the way in which the building collapsed.
To me, it's only human nature to question what went on in regards to that building. Others however seem to feel it is too unpatriotic or what not to even think about questioning what the government says happened and that is a bunch of nonsense.
It doesn't make me a bad person or a moron simply because I don't accept the "official" version of events. Certain things about what happened more than deserve to be questioned.
QUOTE (747400 @ Mar 9 2008, 12:24 AM)
Do you have a clip of that, or is that one of those things that "everyone knows" happened?
Trust me, there's alot of things i wish "everyone knew", that would make this quite easy...
YES the bbc DID report the collapse of wtc 7 as it still stood in the background... There is a ton of evidence for prior knowledge to 9/11 it is literally overwhelming. I do not understand why people don't see this.
The world is there, it does not consist of what you see on television. Television is there to convince you that you know something, when in reality those who follow the mass media "political show" are so misinformed its unimaginable. The smarter people watch comedy central, and there they can watch and be amazed at what the "rest of the populace" deem true, in the face of such BS.
The smartest people threw their TV away a long time ago. It is a propaganda machine, that it what it is used for, that is what it is good at. It works so well its convinced the majority of the populace that they are not even being manipulated by it.
They call themselves "rational" for thinking this... what a joke. Television was created for the sole purpose of control of the populace, even if you dont think you "fall into it", you can obviously see the rest of the population being "TOLD" that unnaturally skinny girls = good. Breat implants = good. Cosmetics = good.
Now... just think what these things have in common. They emphasize the superficial. What is on the surface is what is important, not what is underneath.
What does the mass media do? i mean really? is there a better way to define in than this?
Call me paranoid, because it only makes me feel superior, its basic psychology. We have an EGO, fine. We cannot turn this ego off. It is always protecting your mind from feeling threatened by invading idea's. The trick is on you though, you think you are somehow "intelligent" for sticking to the "rational" explanation, when really it is just your ego getting in the way of truth, because your boundaries for reality are set in stone, and wont budge until you actually open your mind to an idea.
Think one world government, and look at the catholic church throughout history, see a resemblance??
When have you ever thought the Church was anything other than brainwashing, and what is the difference between that and the "status quo" world view that completely irradicates spirituality as even an operating concept?
Spirituality is being destroyed by religion, not enforced by it.
What kind of "divine" God would have an institution in his honor??? especially one that wanted MONEY ALL THE TIME. Catholic people are encouraged to "pay for their sins" with real money...
Then they are supposed to "buy indulgence's" for future sinning... This same "divine" institution has ADMITTED to PAYING families to stay quiet about man-boy relations.
If you didnt know this is HIGH UP in the catholic church, meaning to get there someone had to corrupt that guy into giving in to perversion! This is all over the place in the catholic church. But, there is one thing better than having money, and that is having power over people, which they have PLENTY of.
Who else has power over people... hmmm... who else keeps people in line, or too distracted, to notice what is really going on? Why, the Roman empire!
You should read up on the roman emperor's and the senate... there were plenty of violations of what we would call today "civil rights", not to mention the suppression of knowledge, the "Games", and the all out military aggression for world domination.
What does this mean? It means we are living in roman times, and convinced that roman times are "ancient" and don't apply. Times have changed, quite a bit. People though have obviously not changed much.
The mass media is lying to you, they "fabricated" 911 to fool you(and the rest of the world) into thinking "terrorist's" hijacked planes and flew them into buildings. Buildings that were MADE TO WITHSTAND MULTIPLE 707 crashes. Even jumbo-jetliner's are not much bigger than a 707, and they CAN NOT knock down steel framed buildings of that magnitude!!!
Steel framing is like a mesh, and never in history has a steel framed building HAS EVER BEEN BROUGHT DOWN BY FIRE. 9/11 THREE happen to "be brought down by fire" within 2 hours of eachother????
It is ridiculous what you "rationalist's" think is real and what is not, and it is about time you fess up to it.
waiting... waiting... waiting... whats that? Another snide and arrogant 2 line comment that has nothing to do with the above content, and only helps to reinforce the already over-sized ego?
QUOTE (Zaus @ Mar 8 2008, 11:54 PM)
You seem like an open minded individual, you should look into the TV fakery theory, it makes the most sense!!!
I would love to continue this later, and i have to get me some money
I would love to continue this later, and i have to get me some money
I am very open-minded and give all theories a fair hearing. I have looked into the television fakery theory and it raises the questions I asked.
Don’t get me wrong I agree with the whole ‘too much TV is bad for you’ thing. The majority of Western mainstream media is nothing more than a political tool, owned by a handful of individuals, making news easily manipulated to sway the masses to a certain persuasion. An example of this is Rupert Murdoch who controls 175(!) newspapers plus TV news channels in each of the US, UK and also Asia. Now that can’t be healthy for freedom of information.
Still, if you cannot answer what are some basic questions on the ‘no planes’ theory, perhaps you should reconsider its value.
this is pathetic have you nothing better to do with your time?
QUOTE (Q24 @ Mar 10 2008, 01:13 AM)
I am very open-minded and give all theories a fair hearing. I have looked into the television fakery theory and it raises the questions I asked.
Don’t get me wrong I agree with the whole ‘too much TV is bad for you’ thing. The majority of Western mainstream media is nothing more than a political tool, owned by a handful of individuals, making news easily manipulated to sway the masses to a certain persuasion. An example of this is Rupert Murdoch who controls 175(!) newspapers plus TV news channels in each of the US, UK and also Asia. Now that can’t be healthy for freedom of information.
Still, if you cannot answer what are some basic questions on the ‘no planes’ theory, perhaps you should reconsider its value.
Don’t get me wrong I agree with the whole ‘too much TV is bad for you’ thing. The majority of Western mainstream media is nothing more than a political tool, owned by a handful of individuals, making news easily manipulated to sway the masses to a certain persuasion. An example of this is Rupert Murdoch who controls 175(!) newspapers plus TV news channels in each of the US, UK and also Asia. Now that can’t be healthy for freedom of information.
Still, if you cannot answer what are some basic questions on the ‘no planes’ theory, perhaps you should reconsider its value.
I admire your persistence in trying, believe me.
QUOTE (Zaus)
waiting... waiting... waiting... whats that? Another snide and arrogant 2 line comment that has nothing to do with the above content, and only helps to reinforce the already over-sized ego?
QUOTE (747400 @ Mar 9 2008, 12:24 AM)
Do you have a clip of that, or is that one of those things that "everyone knows" happened?
... will you still ignore the evidence when i present it?
QUOTE (Left Field @ Mar 9 2008, 07:57 PM)
Not at all.
I'm saying where did they get the information from. Who in the world fed them the information that brought about the reporting WTC7 has collpased when it clearly did not, and then coincindentally it crashes to the ground about 20-25 minutes after they started reporting it.
You don't find that odd and peculiar at all?
I'm saying where did they get the information from. Who in the world fed them the information that brought about the reporting WTC7 has collpased when it clearly did not, and then coincindentally it crashes to the ground about 20-25 minutes after they started reporting it.
You don't find that odd and peculiar at all?
The media make mistakes all the time, particularly when trying to cover breaking news. There is a natural tendancy to publish first and check after. I find it entirely believable that a report that WTC7 was in danger of collapsing was garbled into a report that it had collapsed.
QUOTE (flyingswan @ Mar 10 2008, 11:27 AM)
The media make mistakes all the time, particularly when trying to cover breaking news. There is a natural tendancy to publish first and check after. I find it entirely believable that a report that WTC7 was in danger of collapsing was garbled into a report that it had collapsed.
Especially when reported by people that probably had no idea which building WTC 7 was.
QUOTE (flyingswan @ Mar 10 2008, 11:27 AM)
The media make mistakes all the time, particularly when trying to cover breaking news. There is a natural tendancy to publish first and check after. I find it entirely believable that a report that WTC7 was in danger of collapsing was garbled into a report that it had collapsed.
I find it more shocking that people could watch such a report and not even raise and eyebrow about it. There is that report, there is Larry Silverstein's comment that they made the decision to "have it pulled", and then there is the way in which the building collapsed - it comes down in exactly the same manner a controlled demolition would make that building collapse.
If none of that makes you question it in the least, then you have already convinced yourself of what happened based simply on what the government tells you.
When my mind tells me something doesn't seem quite right, I tend to listen to it rather than block it out just so I can sleep easier at night for lack of a better description at the moment.
How does that entire building collapse to the ground in a manner of seconds from a few fires inside of it? If fires can cause buildings to collapse like that then I think there would be a lot more examples of it happening. You can clearly see something gives way in the middle (from that top piece dropping) and then the whole thing just caves in. It doesn't make sense. Much like this war were fighting at the moment - it doesn't make sense anymore. And it makes even less sense that Bush is so determined to keep it going and is also concerned about a new President coming into office and stopping it.
If Bush had his way, he'd be President for 20+ years and would keep the "war on terror" going all throughout his time in office.
QUOTE (capeo @ Mar 7 2008, 10:32 PM)
You 911 conspiracy morons are so stupid it's insulting. Here's a fact, my best friend was going to school in NY when 9/11 happened. He saw the second plane hit the tower as did thousands of other people, many of whom independently video-taped it. Seriously, how desperate and wacky can you people get? Projections? My god that's stupidest thing I ever heard.
There are those who believe we never went to the moon and Elvis is still alive.
How do you think National Enquirer magazine stays in business?
QUOTE (CB_Brooklyn @ Mar 6 2008, 10:49 AM)
Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths
by CB_Brooklyn
From the moment people thought that planes crashed in the World Trade Center, the brainwashing had begun.
The “official” account of Boeing 767s striking the North and South Towers, at 400+MPH and 500+MPH respectively, became glued in peoples’ minds as “fact” because of the “tee-vee”. Good ol’ tee-vee. We all trust the media.
by CB_Brooklyn
From the moment people thought that planes crashed in the World Trade Center, the brainwashing had begun.
The “official” account of Boeing 767s striking the North and South Towers, at 400+MPH and 500+MPH respectively, became glued in peoples’ minds as “fact” because of the “tee-vee”. Good ol’ tee-vee. We all trust the media.
What did United Airlines gain then from playing along, it's their plane.
Well???
This topic is a lot like Milli Vanilli' tape when it jammed in concert...it's been said/heard over and over.
QUOTE (capeo @ Mar 7 2008, 04:32 PM)
You 911 conspiracy morons are so stupid it's insulting. Here's a fact, my best friend was going to school in NY when 9/11 happened. He saw the second plane hit the tower as did thousands of other people, many of whom independently video-taped it. Seriously, how desperate and wacky can you people get? Projections? My god that's stupidest thing I ever heard.
Thank you!
What I saw on TV that day is what I saw. And anothing else. My family saw two planes hit & destory these lovely towers. And nothing else will make me believe otherwise.
QUOTE (AROCES Posted Today @ 02:09 PM)
What did United Airlines gain then from playing along, it's their plane.
Well???
Well???
Seriously.
Some of these guys believe those monsters are still alive.
QUOTE (LoveSuxLoveIsWar @ Mar 10 2008, 08:08 PM)
This topic is a lot like Milli Vanilli' tape when it jammed in concert...it's been said/heard over and over.
Yes.....it's anti-American propaganda....at it's most ridiculous.....(or desperate)
QUOTE (Zaus @ Mar 9 2008, 09:47 PM)
Steel framing is like a mesh, and never in history has a steel framed building HAS EVER BEEN BROUGHT DOWN BY FIRE. 9/11 THREE happen to "be brought down by fire" within 2 hours of eachother????
I seem to recall tha the Crystal Palace was an iron and steel framed building - but that burned down....
QUOTE (bee @ Mar 10 2008, 08:24 PM)
Yes.....it's anti-American propaganda....at it's most ridiculous.....(or desperate)
Kind of makes you die a little inside when you know that most of the time, it's coming from Americans.
QUOTE
Steel framing is like a mesh, and never in history has a steel framed building HAS EVER BEEN BROUGHT DOWN BY FIRE. 9/11 THREE happen to "be brought down by fire" within 2 hours of eachother????
so are you trying to tell me that building are invincible to uncontrolled fires? Do you even take into account that boeing aircraft fully loaded with fuel for its transcontinental flight (395,000 lb) slammed into the side of the WTC going 400+ mph?
and for my second question; Do you even listen to yourself when you talk?
QUOTE (Cr33p @ Mar 10 2008, 09:33 PM)
Kind of makes you die a little inside when you know that most of the time, it's coming from Americans.
Or people pretending to be Americans......on the internet, anyway.....anyone can pretend to be from
anywhere........but I take your point.....
QUOTE (bee @ Mar 10 2008, 04:55 PM)
Or people pretending to be Americans......on the internet, anyway.....anyone can pretend to be from
anywhere........but I take your point.....
anywhere........but I take your point.....
So are you saying it's anti-American to question anything the government does and/or says?
(and for the record, I don't question that planes flew into WTC1 & 2, but there are other things about 9/11 I wonder about)
Everybody is free to have their own opinion, but my gah people! Do you realize what you're claiming by saying there were no planes?!? Seriously. Wow. If anyones been brainwashed or whatnot, it has got to be you. You say TV has messed with our heads or whatever, but the Internet must have really ****ed with yours.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.