IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths, New Article

CB_Brooklyn
post Mar 6 2008, 04:37 AM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 81
Joined: 26-February 07
Member No.: 690



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CB_Brooklyn
post Mar 7 2008, 07:13 PM
Post #2





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 81
Joined: 26-February 07
Member No.: 690



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chek
post Mar 7 2008, 07:33 PM
Post #3





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 187
Joined: 24-October 06
Member No.: 157



QUOTE (CB_Brooklyn @ Mar 7 2008, 11:13 PM) *
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



Of course.

Bye now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
slimpickins
post Mar 8 2008, 10:57 AM
Post #4





Group: Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: 7-March 08
Member No.: 2,860



QUOTE
How many “truthers” have looked at the no-planes/TV-Fakery evidence lately… evidence that anyone can understand?


I have looked at it very recently and there fundamental things about it I don't understand about NPT.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chek
post Mar 8 2008, 01:47 PM
Post #5





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 187
Joined: 24-October 06
Member No.: 157



QUOTE (slimpickins @ Mar 8 2008, 02:57 PM) *
I have looked at it very recently and there fundamental things about it I don't understand about NPT.


You'll find that CB_Spammer doesn't 'do' replies - although you may get spammed with more
CB_Wood links.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Mar 8 2008, 02:57 PM
Post #6


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (chek @ Mar 8 2008, 09:47 AM) *
You'll find that CB_Spammer doesn't 'do' replies - although you may get spammed with more
CB_Wood links.


What do you think? Should "drive by" threads get locked? Moved to the trash? What?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
slimpickins
post Mar 8 2008, 03:02 PM
Post #7





Group: Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: 7-March 08
Member No.: 2,860



QUOTE (painter @ Mar 8 2008, 06:57 PM) *
What do you think? Should "drive by" threads get locked? Moved to the trash? What?



I not sure I've been here long enough to comment but it would depend if there were a lot of them coming from the same posters (albeit using different usernames) or on the same subject.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Mar 8 2008, 03:16 PM
Post #8


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (slimpickins @ Mar 8 2008, 11:02 AM) *
I not sure I've been here long enough to comment but it would depend if there were a lot of them coming from the same posters (albeit using different usernames) or on the same subject.


Your comment is welcome, slim, regardless of your join date. Thanks -- and welcome to the forum. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chek
post Mar 8 2008, 09:41 PM
Post #9





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 187
Joined: 24-October 06
Member No.: 157



QUOTE (painter @ Mar 8 2008, 06:57 PM) *
What do you think? Should "drive by" threads get locked? Moved to the trash? What?



Nice idea Painter, but I'd rather not give that faction the excuse of claiming martyrdom by way of suppressing their "research".
It's up to the members of the board to decide whether they're interested or not, and I'm OK with that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
beatles64
post Mar 9 2008, 03:43 AM
Post #10





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 233
Joined: 20-January 08
Member No.: 2,660



I am not quite sure I understand exactly what you are talking about (drive-by? as in he is just using this thread for this post and has no other interest here?)


anyways, I like this post because I have to admit I am skeptical about parts of the 9/11 story that happened chronologically before the destruction of the Twin Towers, including the airplane impacts.

I don't know if we have a thread for this, but this has always interested me:

Fast moving object during impact time

This was also mentioned on Glen Becks website and is available in his archives and though I can not find it at the time, I did come across something that I think could be VERY INTERESTING....check this out!

Glenn Beck: September 11th
this has a ton of links at the bottom I did not check too many out but I hope they all still work

Anyways, I have a hard time coming to terms with whether or not I believe some of these theories about 9.11, but I guess what it comes down to is that I will not say I specifically believe that "this or that" did or did not happen until it is conclusively proven
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
slimpickins
post Mar 9 2008, 05:46 AM
Post #11





Group: Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: 7-March 08
Member No.: 2,860



QUOTE (painter @ Mar 8 2008, 07:16 PM) *
Your comment is welcome, slim, regardless of your join date. Thanks -- and welcome to the forum. wink.gif



Thanks for the welcome!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 9 2008, 09:56 AM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



We know many unofficial reasons why 911 happened.

We know that the official conspiracy is more unbelievable,
both literally and figuratively than the Wizard of Oz.

And we have long lists of who probably put it together,

and we have long lists to characters in the media,
who are trying desperately to keep the truth from getting out.

What more do we need?

imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Mar 9 2008, 02:33 PM
Post #13


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (beatles64 @ Mar 8 2008, 11:43 PM) *
I am not quite sure I understand exactly what you are talking about (drive-by? as in he is just using this thread for this post and has no other interest here?)


Correct. A "drive by" is someone starting a thread on a forum they only frequent occasionally and then more or less abandoning it. IOW, using a forum to 'broadcast' a particular point of view.

QUOTE
anyways, I like this post because I have to admit I am skeptical about parts of the 9/11 story that happened chronologically before the destruction of the Twin Towers, including the airplane impacts.

I don't know if we have a thread for this, but this has always interested me:

Fast moving object during impact time

This was also mentioned on Glen Becks website and is available in his archives and though I can not find it at the time, I did come across something that I think could be VERY INTERESTING....check this out!

Glenn Beck: September 11th
this has a ton of links at the bottom I did not check too many out but I hope they all still work

Anyways, I have a hard time coming to terms with whether or not I believe some of these theories about 9.11, but I guess what it comes down to is that I will not say I specifically believe that "this or that" did or did not happen until it is conclusively proven


Well, all of us here have questions about 9/11. Your closing statement is a good one -- we all need to keep an open mind about what happened "until it is conclusively proven." The problem with that is, what constitutes "conclusively proven"? In a court of law both sides of a legal battle are given the opportunity to present evidence which, after instructions by a judge, is evaluated by a jury to arrive at a verdict. Baring an appeal, once that verdict is reached, the case is concluded. One need no longer preface a description with "alleged," for example.

In this instance we have a situation where a crime was committed -- on that point everyone agrees -- and then we were told by authorities in both government and media who the perpetrators were, with the crime itself and the perception of the events of that crime being the only 'evidence' and 'proof' offered to condemn the accused in the public mind. We were told years ago that a "White Paper" would be forthcoming -- it never came. Those of us who were skeptical of the emergent cover story from day one have asked questions and investigated -- but absent a genuine investigation with the power to subpoena, grant clemency in exchange for testimony and protect witnesses -- and an investigation that doesn't begin with the assumption that we already know who, what, when and how -- how can anything "conclusive" ever be reached?

As a observer and participant on forums since 9/11 I've seen how weak and inconclusive evidence (grainy and pixilated photographs, for example) have been used to confuse and divide the burgeoning movement. It isn't that we all have to agree on what did or didn't happen or who did or didn't do it. Like you, I'm quite willing to keep an open mind -- and think I have. I have many more questions than I have answers. Even so, some of the evidence that has been accumulated is fairly conclusive. We know, for example, that the building "collapse" theory is not credible. We have solid, scientific evidence of super-heated metals in the WTC dust. We know that the NTSB provided Flight 77 FDR data contradicts the physical damage at the Pentagon which means that one or both of those sets of data are false -- solid take it to the judge evidence of a cover-up. And that is just a small portion of what has, so far, been conclusively proven (IMO). And it is enough -- more than enough -- to indicate that what we've been told about 9/11 by both government and media is false, even if we don't know all the facts and details of the case.

The implications of what we DO know, conclusively, are profound and we can add to this the observation that what has been established is not being reported by the corporate owned media (and has been way under reported even by so-called alternative media). So what we have is conclusive evidence of a cover-up to the point where, I think, we can demonstrate conclusively to anyone willing to listen that there IS a conspiracy to sustain a false perception of the events of 9/11 in the public mind. This alone should be sufficient to generate a public out-cry and demand for a new, and genuine investigation. Since the "fifth estate" has abdicated any claim to "factual reporting" and responsibility to the people, it has fallen upon the shoulders of citizens such as ourselves to both spread the word to our fellow citizens and challenge the authority of both government and corporate media -- absent all the pieces of the puzzle. We can not say conclusively that we know precisely what happened -- but that is (or ought to be, IMO) precisely the point. We know enough to know there is a cover-up. We know enough to know that evidence is being hidden. We know enough to ask, why is that? What are they hiding and why are they hiding it?

I have stated repeatedly and for years that this should be the point around which everyone asking questions should unify. However, what I and many others have observed is that some investigators aren't satisfied with that. They want to bring into the equation less than credible or conclusive evidence and build upon that "theories" that are at best "weak" and under substantiated. Worse, proponents of one "theory" will cast aspersions upon advocates of another creating animosities, suspicions, and divisions which prevent the focused thrust of generating public support for the kind of legitimized investigation we all want. Knowing what little I know about counter-intelligence operations, it doesn't take a genius to grasp what is going on. But, here again, we run into problems because some people explicitly or implicitly put forward the proposition that 'if you don't accept my evidence and draw from it the same conclusions I have, then you must be a counterintelligence operative.' In any given instance that may or may not be true. Short of a confession, how would I know?

For this reason I've taken the position that any person or group that advocates a "theory" not supported by unambiguous and verifiable evidence over and above the unity of the movement itself needs to be regarded with considerable skepticism. I don't take the position that such people are, necessarily, "agents." They may simply be honestly mistaken in their perceptions and priorities. However, I've been around long enough to know that, whether intentionally devised or as a consequence of ignorance and hubris, anything that distracts from our unity and focus works in the favor of those who ARE actively working to sustain the 9/11 "terrorist attack" myth.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Mar 9 2008, 05:19 PM
Post #14


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



All hologram no plane sh*t should be banned and posters admonished.

This no plane sh*t was designed to offset what happened at the Pentagon and Shanksville.

They are trying to call us researchers "no planers". Even though we know planes were involved.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Mar 9 2008, 06:06 PM
Post #15


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Mar 9 2008, 01:19 PM) *
All hologram no plane sh*t should be banned and posters admonished.

This no plane sh*t was designed to offset what happened at the Pentagon and Shanksville.

They are trying to call us researchers "no planers". Even though we know planes were involved.


I certainly understand your position Aldo and would hardly argue with it. I've felt this way since Web Fairy first promulgated this line of questioning MANY YEARS ago.

We've discussed banning NPT (no planes or 'big boeings' at the WTC/Pentagon), VF (video fakery broadcaast by the corporate media on 9/11 and afterward), DE (directed energy weaponry being responsible for the WTC catastrophe), etc. numerous times. As you know, the way we've dealt with it is to limit discussion of these and other 'alternative' theories to this 'alt theories' forum. It is a compromise.

My problem with banning these subjects outright, besides giving the advocates of these theories the 'we're being persecuted' meme, is where do we draw the line? If it isn't acceptable to discuss NPT, VF, DE etc., are we going to also ban discussion of equally controversial issues that may not be related to 9/11 directly -- such as NWO, Masons, politics in general, UFOs, chem trails, religion, esotericism and so on? Do we as a community take the position that only what can be proven scientifically be discussed? Anyone who wants to discount 9/11 Truth issues can (and will) latch onto any POV that subjectively 'snaps' of 'idiocy' or 'irrationality' and hold it up as an excuse to not look at the evidence. Our detractors can't kill the message so they shoot the messenger. That's all they have. It is both a counter-intelligence strategy and a natural tendency for anyone in denial. Each of us may have our own opinion on these and many other subjects and likely most of us won't agree. Yet, we are a community of people who at the very least agree that 9/11 is something quite other than what we've been told.

I'm open to hearing what people think about this question -- which is why I asked above. Still, when it comes right down to it, for better and worse, the decision falls to those of us who are Admins. We certainly care what you and others think and feel about this issue and will take it into consideration but the responsibility ultimately rests with us. We are hardly infallible and none of us get paid to be here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 9 2008, 10:48 PM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



"and none of us get paid to be here"

There is something beautiful in that statement.

imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CB_Brooklyn
post Mar 10 2008, 05:21 AM
Post #17





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 81
Joined: 26-February 07
Member No.: 690



QUOTE (slimpickins @ Mar 6 2008, 01:57 PM) *
I have looked at it very recently and there fundamental things about it I don't understand about NPT.



LMK which ones you have difficultly with and I will try to explain.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
slimpickins
post Mar 10 2008, 07:54 AM
Post #18





Group: Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: 7-March 08
Member No.: 2,860



QUOTE (CB_Brooklyn @ Mar 10 2008, 09:21 AM) *
LMK which ones you have difficultly with and I will try to explain.


It is isn't so much that there weren't any planes, I might not agree with it but I can see the logic of arriving at that conclusion, it's the evidence presented of TV fakery (TVF) in the the September Clues genre of videos that I question. Virtually every sequence in them is questionable on some level (apart from the Devin Clark critique, I think a genuine fraud may have been exposed there) but it's something more fundamental that bothers me.

When I look at video that is said to be genuine footage and doctored, what exactly has been added? Is it just the plane or have other things been added too?

In the footage said to be created in some sort of virtual New York, what has been added from reality? For instance, is the smoke, explosions, tower collapse real or fake?

Several of the shots claimed to be faked are of things that occurred well after the second impact, why was it necessary to fake anything after it, after all, there were real towers billowing smoke and eventually collapsing?

I've discussed this elsewhere and it can be very time consuming, so I'm not really interested in a general discussion, if you don't know the answers just say so - no one knows everything.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CB_Brooklyn
post Mar 10 2008, 09:50 PM
Post #19





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 81
Joined: 26-February 07
Member No.: 690



QUOTE (slimpickins @ Mar 8 2008, 10:54 AM) *
It is isn't so much that there weren't any planes, I might not agree with it but I can see the logic of arriving at that conclusion, it's the evidence presented of TV fakery (TVF) in the the September Clues genre of videos that I question. Virtually every sequence in them is questionable on some level (apart from the Devin Clark critique, I think a genuine fraud may have been exposed there) but it's something more fundamental that bothers me.

When I look at video that is said to be genuine footage and doctored, what exactly has been added? Is it just the plane or have other things been added too?

In the footage said to be created in some sort of virtual New York, what has been added from reality? For instance, is the smoke, explosions, tower collapse real or fake?

Several of the shots claimed to be faked are of things that occurred well after the second impact, why was it necessary to fake anything after it, after all, there were real towers billowing smoke and eventually collapsing?

I've discussed this elsewhere and it can be very time consuming, so I'm not really interested in a general discussion, if you don't know the answers just say so - no one knows everything.





I've heard that Sept Clues has numerous errors. It's not surprising, since it would be difficult to make a video series like that with 100% accuracy, especially if it's done by just one person.

Sept Clues can be difficult to follow I agree, since it's not that descriptive in what the "fake" parts are, as you said.


These days I stick with the hard core evidence:

Aluminum planes cannot cut steel beams as seen in the pictures.

Aluminum planes cannot glide through steel building as seen in the videos.

Government refuses to release proof via serial numbers of plane parts.

Very few witness reports of seeing and hearing a wide-body commercial airliners.



Icing on the cake:

The 1999 Washington Post article mentioning the military's hologram project.

The 2000 WorldNetDaily article about army PSYOPS at CNN.

The 1999 Washington Post, the 2000 The Independent, and the 2000 Technology Review articles on the military and TV Networks inserting fake footage in the news to alter world politics.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ace Baker
post Mar 10 2008, 11:12 PM
Post #20





Group: Banned
Posts: 1
Joined: 10-March 08
Member No.: 2,903



September Clues is riddled with mistakes, to the point where I think it is deliberate disinfo.

The 9/11 videos are 100% authentic, except they have had airplanes composited into them. It is quite simple to do.

The no. 1 proof of no planes is Chopper 5, that is the WNYW FOX 5 video.

1. There is no plane in the wide shot.
2. The plane enters within one video frame of a dramatic zoom in.
3. The motion of the plane becomes more unstable after you stabilize the video.
4. The nose of the airplane appears to pop out from behind the building.
5. There is a quick fade to black right after the nose out.
6. Chopper 5 was never replayed, despite being dramatic footage of history's defining moment.
7. Chopper 5 was cleansed from the official archives, and replaced with completely different footage.

If there was a real plane,

1 is impossible, 2 is extremely unlikely, 3 is impossible, 4 is impossible, 5 is extremely unlikely, 6 is extremely suspicious, and 7 is extremely suspicious.

No planes proves demolition.

No planes solves 9/11.

I , Alexander "Ace" Baker of Sherman Oaks, hereby accuse the executives at WNYW of treason, fraud, and conspiracy to commit mass murder.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 11th December 2019 - 04:39 AM