Fetzer was on Springer This morning.

EDIT: If anyone has the Fetzer segment, send it in. Show's over. Plenty of comments below.

Air America Radio

Springer has a

Hell if setting off

Hell if setting off fireworks qualifies you as an expert, my cousin Bubba must have his PhD. I've seen him blow the legs clean off a frog!!!

Fetzer on Springer- Oh!

Fetzer on Springer- Oh! My!

"I wanted to change the world. But I have found that the only thing one can be sure of changing is oneself." -- Aldous Huxley

http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/matters2.html

Under Point 5 Gerard Holmgren wrote:
"This means an entire world gripped by mass delusion. An entire world
where even the most intelligent analysts and compassionate activists are
effectively insane."

If 9/11 has done anything positive, it has taught me that much of what is televised is BS. I have stopped my TV addiction and feel much better about myself and the world as a whole.

Funny thing about No Planers: I'm attacked on the Internet today over the No Planes Theory just like I was 5 years ago for just proposing that the 9/11 story was just that, a story, or script if you like.

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/script/index.html

http://erroneousbusczh.homestead.com/9-11Plot.html

The living deserve respect, the dead deserve the truth.

funny thing about the no

funny thing about the no planers, they seem to think this is the most important piece of evidence to promote the theory that 9/11 was an inside job, despite much more reliable evidence that would be more likely to sway the average american, and still the no planers lead with CGI and scream it from the rooftops, rarely talking about any of the other evidence that proves inside job.funny.

WTC7 is all we need. Go no

WTC7 is all we need. Go no farther.

Springer is a tool.

Springer is a tool.

Did anyone snag a recording

Did anyone snag a recording of this?

oh my - Springer is lost in

oh my - Springer is lost in the weeds.

Lost in the disinformation.

Tell me how three steel framed buildings collapsed and how two large aircraft evaporated and then I will listen to the conjecture.

This might lead to good

This might lead to good exposure. I remember reading somewhere (?) that Springer had expressed an interest in 9/11 Truth, but wanted more evidence. I believe he said that if he was shown enough evidence, he would be happy to talk about it.

Please read: "Confessions of

Please read:

"Confessions of an Economic Hit-Man"

And . . . Keith Obermann presented his fake terror alert timeline last night.

Call in and correct these

Call in and correct these people who don't know what they're takling about!! 1-877-34-jerry!

Springer's not a bad guy,

Springer's not a bad guy, he's just lost in the various conflicting public mythology.

Caller #3 Charles supports

Caller #3 Charles supports 9/11 Truth.

Doesn't like how Jerry talked to Fetzer.

Yes!!!

His web says it all...

His web says it all...

Jerry is getting bombarded by callers desperate for 9/11 Truth.

Jerry still thinks we're crazy though.

Yeah, Jerry... you're the sane one.

Someone articulate please

Someone articulate please call in!

Springer is a very dim

Springer is a very dim bulb.

Anyone I've known with any sense whatsoever who watches WTC 7 COLLAPSE IN 6.5 SECONDS KNOWS that something is seriously rotten.
Hell, even friends who are skeptical of alternative theories about 9/11 concede that there is indeed a MAJOR problem with BUILDING 7.

WOW. Still listening to Springer argue that the wings of the plane wouldn't have penetrated the Pentagon walls . . . so WHERE IS THE WRECKAGE, JERRY! Charles: ask him where is the WRECKAGE?

Springer is a fool.

Since when did Air America

Since when did Air America start taking so many breaks!?!?

They've had like five in the last forty minutes. Everyone knows they don't have that many commericals.

jerry should go back to

jerry should go back to doing the hick transsexual fights on the morning talk show

Springer can't fathom that

Springer can't fathom that elements in our government could do this intentionally. He is stuck on that point.

Jerry sounds like he's

Jerry sounds like he's desperate to hold on to some small piece of the official 'Merican Good Guy mythology.

Attacking him is counter productive.

I'm trying to call in. Line's busy.

He keeps saying he can't buy

He keeps saying he can't buy GW signd off on this. Tarpley says GW more less had no idea about the plot. Doesn't that explain it (assuming Tarpley's correct)?

Bush is a puppet. Doesn't Springer know that?

Springer can't fathom that

Springer can't fathom that elements in our government could do this intentionally. He is stuck on that point.
SJ | 08.15.06 - 10:48 am | #

Should someone suggest LIHIP to Jerry. It always leads one into MIHOP, anyway.

God bless you Joy!!!

God bless you Joy!!!

Why is the focus on BUSH? He

Why is the focus on BUSH? He doesn't do anything! People just can't believe that there are people behind him... read your history!

"This is the weiredest show

"This is the weiredest show ever....it looks like I'm defending Bush..."
-Springer

People need to understand the Bush crime family's past: funding Hitler.

It seems all of the callers

It seems all of the callers thus far believe in the so-called "conspiracy theory".

What does that tell you Jerry?

And . . . Keith Obermann

And . . . Keith Obermann presented his fake terror alert timeline last night.
bozo | Homepage | 08.15.06 - 10:38 am | #

I thought Olberman's timeline last night was ok considering it was on the msm.

Jerry says that there is not

Jerry says that there is not a reporter in America that would ever sit on the 9/11 Truth story.

Caller says, "that's not true, cause they're sitting on it now!"

Way to go Todd!!!

Beautiful!! I wish someone would plug 911blogger.com.

Another freakin commercial break!!!

So far, every caller is

So far, every caller is challenging Jerry. Wake up, Jerry.

Todd is making some good

Todd is making some good points, and Springer is ADAMANT that he will not believe.
Fact is: HE WILL NOT EVEN CONSIDER the available evidence.

Lemme see if I can get the drop on AmandaReconwith:
Yes, Springer *is* the son of Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany.
Make of that what you will.

Post on Springer's blog re:

Post on Springer's blog re: 9/11 truth!
http://www.airamerica.com/springer/node/8339#comment

Why is the focus on BUSH? He

Why is the focus on BUSH? He doesn't do anything! People just can't believe that there are people behind him... read your history!
mr man | 08.15.06 - 10:53 am | #
exactly. im so sick of these MSM talking heads resorting to "but Bush isnt smart enough" as if that matters at all.

Another break????? He's

Another break?????

He's doing another hour with callers.

Jerry's only caller that

Jerry's only caller that agreed with him is an "expert".

He set's off fireworks for a living.

CR: LMFAO

CR: LMFAO

If anyone is truly

If anyone is truly interested in the power structure of the past century and the present one... you need to FOLLOW THE MONEY. Learn about the Rothschilds, Morgans, Rockefellers. You need to understand that these cabals of international financiers/industrialists are some of the most powerful men ever to live. They financed both sides of conflicts... admitted that their nationalities were irrelevant, so long as they were paid. Part of the reason the U.S govt and the UK got together to allow the Lusitania to sink and bring the US into WW1, was because JP. Morgan (jr) at the time would have lost billions in defaulted loans to the British and French!

Financiers got together to pass the Federal Reserve Act (or whatever is was called) in 1913, by fooling the public and Congress... vehemently opposing their very own bill!!! Learn about the consolidation of media outlets and control of the popular press... its all in the money!

In more recent times, I believe these bankers/industrialists have been replaced by elements of the military-industrial complex who are in bed with the media and government, by their shareholder and boardroom arrangements. You begin to wonder if General Electric owns 80% of NBC Universal simply because its a "Good investment"....

Other GE elements:

GE Aircraft Engines
GE Commercial Finance
GE Consumer Products
GE Industrial Systems
GE Insurance
GE Medical Systems
GE Plastics
GE Power Systems
GE Specialty Materials
GE Transportation Systems

Qui bono?

This is but ONE example.
Wake up people!

Jerry's not an expert. He's

Jerry's not an expert. He's a guy who made his mark by hosting a human freak show on TV. He admits this.

When he comes around to the truth, he will be a good pit bull for the cause.

Springer was once a

Springer was once a Democratic mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio.

If the conversation is

If the conversation is focusing on Bush, that's too simple-minded. Why can't people see that Bush played his compartmentalized role. The bigger murder plan of 3,000 Americans was WAY bigger than Bush. Anyone can see that those 3 WTC towers were exploded to bits. Anyone who CAN'T see that doesn't want to know the truth and its implications.

I watched that Keith

I watched that Keith Obermann spot and I caught a mention that an FBI informant was roomates with two of the hijackers?

Did I hear that correctly? I wasn't aware of that.

"The Informant Who Lived

"The Informant Who Lived With the Hijackers"

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.13A.newk.infrmt.htm

Springer, the embodiment of

Springer, the embodiment of Irony.

Spent years dumbing down america by pandering to silliness..... when americans "vote" for the silliest president in all the world's history, he claims it impossible for a silly president to nod his head to silly plans.

Yes, MediaPuppet, I also had

Yes, MediaPuppet, I also had heard they were roommates awhile back.

You hit the nail on the head

You hit the nail on the head mr man. It is all about the love of money. Money talks, BS walks. As much as I hate to admit it, Mike Ruppert was right when he said nothing will change until the monetary system changes. As far as Springer goes he is a joke. He is another one who is all about $$$. If he could figure a way to make a buck out of 9/11 truth he would clime aboard.

glad to see I'm not the only

glad to see I'm not the only one who think this way... except the only way to dismantle the monetary system seems like near armageddon...

WTF? This dude from Austin

WTF? This dude from Austin calls in and claims that ALUMINUM BURNS?

Well then: what ignited the Aluminum?
Dr. Jones does a demonstration of holding a propane torch to thermite and it DOES NOT IGNITE. He has to use a MAGNESIUM strip to make it ignite.

Another guy just came on who says he was *there* on 9/11, and that he heard POPS and saw dust & steel being horizontally ejected. Many of these calls are really good! Wish I could get through!

maddog, In CROSSING THE

maddog,

In CROSSING THE RUBICON, does Mike Ruppert talk about the monetary system and its necessary change for there to be possible broader change?

That is one of the 9/11-related books I have not read. It's on my list.

-TS

It's a beautiful day here in

It's a beautiful day here in 1984.
truthsearching2006 | 08.15.06 - 8:43 am | #

hey bud, you must read "finding george orwell in burma by emme larkin". it is so good!!!! you should read burmese days first but if you like owrell its a must read....

burma is living in 1984 right now!!!! very very sad...

i think we should all

i think we should all pressure Keith Olbermann to cover 9/11. if there is ANYONE on cable news that would be willing to broach the subject of 9/11, it would be the only "liberal" on cable news, Keith Olbermann. we should keep the pressure up on him. his show last night was inspiring.

Springer is an idiot.

Springer is an idiot.

inside, I'll add those

inside,

I'll add those titles to my list. Thanks for the suggestions!

-TS

TS, i highly suggest you get

TS, i highly suggest you get around to reading Rupperts book. he talks a little bit about the monetary system, among many other things. i think the best part of it(besides his amazing war-game research) is his research on echelon and PROMIS.his was the first book i read on 9/11.

Springer is supporting he

Springer is supporting he government's story 100%. Clueless or willingly ignorant.

Jerry just took a call from

Jerry just took a call from a guy who's ex-wife stole his cuff links by hiding them in her holiest of holy's.

Classic Jerry.

cool ts, you wont be sorry..

cool ts, you wont be sorry.. im going to start Homage to Catalonia today and then i only have coming up for air left to read by orwell... :(

Send Jerry an e-mail

Send Jerry an e-mail at:

Jerry@springerontheradio.com

Let's bombard the bastard!!

Actually, no, let's thank him for having Jim and encourage him to have:

Kevin
Dylan
Alex
Robert
Stephen
Webster
Michael
David
Sibel
and Charlie (as in Sheen)

Yes Virginia... the worm is indeed turning!

that last caller touched on

that last caller touched on a lot of good points. best caller of the day, and Jerry couldnt refute anything he said.

"We ought to have a fuller

"We ought to have a fuller investigation... I have no problem with that."
-Jerry Sringer

No problem with that huh Jerry? How gracious of you.

With "progressives" like Jerry Springer (and Ed Schultz, and Al Franken, and Amy Goodmen, etc. etc. etc.), who needs Neo-Cons?

Great post from "Ramirez"

Great post from "Ramirez" over at informationclearinghouse.info

"Are terrorists now perfecting the dreadful power of spontaneous combustion, even willing others to spontaneously combust through fiendish techniques of mind control directed over normal and benign micro waves, even once harmless telephone frequencies? Is your cell phone snug in your pocket a potential death device waiting the call of Al Q'aeda or Hezbollah and international terror organisations in general ready to fry you to a crisp, burn you to a cinder simply because these monsters hate our freedoms? Could the uncontrolled, unregulated terror spagetti of the internet now be used to cause amerikans on line to spontaneously combust, frying their brains and boiling and vaporising their blood streams as they innocently go about their day to day business? The FBI and NSA say definitely YES! These agencies together with Homeland Security and numerous domestic surveillance organisations are working day and night to combat this dastardly threat to the amerikan way of life. Be vigilant, be informed and report all suspicions to your nearest law enforcement agency."

LMAO

Springer is a TOOL.

Springer is a TOOL.

Please read: "Confessions of

Please read: "Confessions of an Economic Hit-Man" -- But do check your library before you buy it. Then read http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/010705_economic_hitmen.shtml

In CROSSING THE RUBICON, does Mike Ruppert talk about the monetary system and its necessary change for there to be possible broader change?

You didn't ask me but I'll answer anyway. One of his refrains is "Until you change the way money works, you've changed nothing." He covers the subject extensively in CTR.

That is one of the 9/11-related books I have not read. It's on my list.

Here's a boiled down version of the case for 9/11 complicity he makes in the book: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml

Be warned, there is A LOT of other material in the book besides 9/11. Some of it I think hurts his credibility. When he starts talking about PROMIS software and other computer related things he loses me. I remember one part where he talked about little devices that could be plugged into the back of your computer while you're gone and then they record everything that goes on and can even transmit their findings while the computer is turned off, using the residual power in the computer's circuits.

Thankfully, that's just a small part of it and the rest is pretty good. He brags about its "1000 footnotes", which are actually endnotes and in a lot of cases difficult to follow up on because of the narrow columns with URLs wrapping across several lines.

Didn't mean for this to turn into a book review, just some thoughts from someone who read it just before finally firmly going from LIHOP to MIHOP. A big reason for that was the piece of the puzzle I hadn't yet seen: peak oil. If you're looking for other things to check out, I'd recommend Powerdown by Richard Heinberg and the movie The End of Suburbia.

Yeah, you'd think that

Yeah, you'd think that Democrats could get some good political capital by just supporting a new investigation. It would soothe lihops, mihops and "incompetence" people. That's probably 70% of the country or more.

Chris | Homepage | 08.15.06

Chris | Homepage | 08.15.06 - 11:38 am | #

Yeah I saw Olberman last night too, pretty good stuff. Him and Dobbs seem like the most 'out there' TV newsmen. I've e-mailed Dobbs a couple times, I'll hit Olberman next I haven't yet though. Olberman is at least leading people in the right direction. Dobbs still thinks illegals and border security are our biggest problems though.

You can comment on the

You can comment on the program at the springer website:
http://www.airamerica.com/springer

Anonymous, Thanks for the

Anonymous,

Thanks for the info on RUBICON and the suggestion of other book and film titles.

-TS

Does anybody have Keith

Does anybody have Keith Olbermann's email address?

( I can't get it from his site --connected with Microsoft Outlook, which I despise--)

PROMIS software was the

PROMIS software was the topic of a 1980's 60 minutes episode. I think Mike gives the software more power than it has but the main point is that there are back doors into computer systems all over the world that can be accessed by US intelligence/empire.

9/11 Synthetic Terror,Made

9/11 Synthetic Terror,Made in USA and the new David Griffin, both really must reads for all 9/11 truth seekers. I'm going to ground zero for the 5th, anybody here going? Chris

9 out of 10 comments on

9 out of 10 comments on Springers site about todays show are from 9-11 truthers. Maybe he'll realize that these are the people who pay his bills.

I have Crossing the Rubicon

I have Crossing the Rubicon in PDF. I'll put it up later.

The reason they're sitting

The reason they're sitting on the story though is because you're talking about a sitting president...that's a very difficult bridge to cross.

What must be understood though is that this is why it is of the utmost importance to get it out NOW. Bush is in control wholly and completely of the US's future and needs to be impeached and tried for 9/11. They don't want to deal with this very serious issue because of the perceived danger it represents, but M. Reynolds is right. A Governmental Crisis is needed NOW before it's too late and we must hold the MSM accountable.

nothwind, Did you complete

nothwind,

Did you complete Tarpley's book and Griffin's new 9/11 book?

I just got them and am reading them now.

-TS

Thanks for the info on

Thanks for the info on RUBICON and the suggestion of other book and film titles.

-TS
truthsearching2006 | 08.15.06 - 12:16 pm | #

You're welcome. And thanks for your many posts. Several times I have seen "truthsearching2006" at the bottom of comments I was glad to have read.

Front page of

Front page of CNN.com
Bergen: Bin Laden, CIA links hogwash

NEW YORK (CNN) -- CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen says the notion that Osama bin Laden once worked for the CIA is "simply a folk myth" and that there's no shred of evidence to support such theories.

Q: If it's true that bin Laden once worked for the CIA, what makes you so sure that he isn't still?
Anne Busigin, Toronto, Canada

BERGEN: This is one of those things where you cannot put it out of its misery.

The story about bin Laden and the CIA -- that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden -- is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently.

The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/15/bergen.answers/

CNN is lying.

#1 About Bin Laden/CIA connections.
#2 The idea that if there were more boots on the ground in Afghanistan, we would have gotten him in Tora Bora.

I have Crossing the Rubicon

I have Crossing the Rubicon in PDF. I'll put it up later.
DHS | Homepage | 08.15.06 - 12:28 pm | #

I'll be your new best friend if you have the endnotes from Rubicon in electronic form so the URLs can be clicked and/or copied to a browser.

Or is this PDF just a bunch of scans?

Thanks

i'll have to check when I

i'll have to check when I get home. it's been a while since i've opened it.

The Real Truth for your

The Real Truth
for your consideration...

*not an endorsement, just something I received in my inbox that I am passing along*

oops, forgot the

Oh man that is some blatant

Oh man that is some blatant disinfo in that CNN article. But I've never seen a CNN 'terrorism analyst' tell the truth so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

DHS, I thought you didn't

DHS, I thought you didn't like the opposing digits guy.

jon: i don't necessary

jon:

i don't necessary "like" or "dislike" the guy, but i like to throw all the sides out there and let people decide for themselves.

One theory is that we must

One theory is that we must relentlessly chip away at Bush Co.'s 9/11 lies. The NeoCons must be marginalized as much as possible, so that that can be swiftly, safely, and legally removed from office.

truthsearching2006........As

truthsearching2006........As a previous poster stated Ruppert does talk about it in his RUBICON book and he is right. I am anything but a financial expert, my wife takes care of the money, but I am sure there are experts in the truth movement. I have listened to Tarpley and his ideas about the economy make sence to me. I am sure there are others. I personally would like to get rid of the price system completely but I doubt if I will see that happen in my lifetime. We would need huge advancements in nanotechnology and nuclear fussion and a completely different mind set.

Jon: I wonder what Aaron

Jon:

I wonder what Aaron Russo would say about this, though:
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2013

Don't know if this has been

Don't know if this has been posted before, but Russell Pickering was on Michael Collins Piper's show last night.....

http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Piper06.html

I haven't listened to it yet.

There are some important

There are some important comments about ground zero near the bottom of the thread before this one.

Truthers needed in that

Stop talking about the

Stop talking about the passengers and the Pentagon hole on-air.

Next time one of you gets a chance, ask the talking heads about WTC7 occupants and the money trail. Ask them about the CIA, Secret Service (which hot link to Bush's detail at 8:46am), SEC and Standard Charter Bank.

Ask them about Kroll and Marsh & McLennan. Kroll was WTC security. Marsh was bulls-eye WTC1.

Convar began to read the hard-drives. What did they find? Ask the FBI.

www.rediff.com/money/2001/dec/17wtc.htm
archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/industry/12/20/wtc.harddrives.idg/

Convar was eaten by Kroll. Kroll was eaten by Marsh. Silence.

When you start asking these questions on the msm, things will happen.

reprehensor, I just sent you

reprehensor,

I just sent you the 8/15/06 Jerry Springer show on Air America without commercials. I have not listened to it yet so it includes the entire show - not just the Fetzer segment.

Hope this helps.

-TS

PDF copy of Michael C.

PDF copy of Michael C. Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon"
http://www.filefactory.com/file/699414/

Bandar Bush said on Larry

Bandar Bush said on Larry King Bin Laden thanked him for introducing him to the Americans to fight off the Soviets.

Truthers needed in that

Truthers needed in that poll:

http://www.haloscan.com/comments...4274854/ #190937
TNF | 08.15.06 - 1:00 pm |

TNF,

That "poll" is utterly preposterous!

Guys, Get on that poll big

Guys, Get on that poll big time as WorldNet daily is a huge gatekeeper of the right and the people that go on that website for the most part would jump offa bridge for Bush. Lets try to make the percentages close.

Convar was eaten by Kroll.

Convar was eaten by Kroll. Kroll was eaten by Marsh. Silence.

When you start asking these questions on the msm, things will happen.
Michael Fury | 08.15.06 - 1:04 pm | #
good point. follow the money basically.

Springer had expressed an

Springer had expressed an interest in 9/11 Truth, but wanted more evidence. I believe he said that if he was shown enough evidence, he would be happy to talk about it.

right. david corn said the exact same thing 2 years ago but he didn't mean it either.
---

that poll has way too many

that poll has way too many choices. thats a shameless way to tilt it towards the official story.

i dont like throwing around

i dont like throwing around the "hes an agent, hes on a payroll" accusation too much, but seriously, David Corn.......

Peter Bergen is the CHIEF

Peter Bergen is the CHIEF Bin Laden propaganda master. whenever CNN or anyone else needs the best "expert" on Bin Laden, they go to this guy. i detest this man.

and still the no planers

and still the no planers lead with CGI and scream it from the rooftops, rarely talking about any of the other evidence that proves inside job.funny.
Chris | Homepage | 08.15.06 - 10:23 am |

more words of wisdom from your vast 23 year old experience? funny. you should assemble a list of approved talking points that no-planers can submit for your wise approval.
---

ouch. attacking my age like

ouch. attacking my age like other notable shills. is that all you got? did i hurt your feelings? way to miss the point dumbass. point being:more reliable evidence that would be more likely to sway the average american, and still the no planers lead with CGI and scream it from the rooftops, rarely talking about any of the other evidence that proves inside job.funny.

Yeah, of all the topics to

Yeah, of all the topics to lead-off with, why the f*ck do you choose cartoon planes @ the WTC! Disinfo artist.

how old are you james? since

how old are you james? since that seems to be of importance to you.

Not only does Nico Haupt

Not only does Nico Haupt lead-off with + only talk about the cartoon planes, he also bashes other truthers like the Scholars! It's like Nico wants to become the front-runner in the movement and hijack the whole thing into a cartoon-plane bullshit group of fools.

Springer is freakin' idiot.

Springer is freakin' idiot. Did you guys see how he, out of nowhere, attacked Jon Stewart and Colbert recently? The guys have been havin' fun with it for the past week. Funny (yet sad) stuff.

You should've called into

You should've called into Springer & told him the 2nd plane was a cartoon & see how far that would get you. You making us look like jerks.

We have more than enough

We have more than enough trouble convincing the masses with our plausible evidence. You want to tell everyone the 2nd plane was a cartoon? Oh sure, that'll help.

no Stephen, why did Springer

no Stephen, why did Springer attack them? what did he say?

i just cant believe that

i just cant believe that anyone in their right mind would think that all videos of the plane hitting the building are doctored. Are you claiming that even the privately filmed 2nd impact are fakes too? Wouldnt somebody who filmed them come forward and say "Wait a sec thats not what i filmed" or are you implying all camera men, video editors, and CGI artists are working for the conspiracy?

Sometimes I think Nico & ha

Sometimes I think Nico & ha are the same person.

oh shit, i didnt mean to

oh shit, i didnt mean to start a no-plane, planes debate. its sad we even have to debate this in the first place though.........

Plus a few thousand

Plus a few thousand EYEWITNESSES, robbie! How could they see cgi/cartoons?

tarpley's book is

tarpley's book is incredable, i'm half way thru the new Griffin, it's very well written and condenced.

I know Chris, but I've seen

I know Chris, but I've seen load's of Nico's posts on many European site as well. It seems Haupt (and his pals) spread this crap 24/7.

Yah, das 2nd plane wurst

Yah, das 2nd plane wurst cartoon, der holen werst too smallen! Dude isn't even in the U.S. legally for all we know.

yeah, they do for sure. i'll

yeah, they do for sure. i'll end up on threads and sites ive never heard of, and run across Ewing2001 spreading his usual "stuff". its ashame a guy that resourceful has such a one track mind. its all CGI all the time with the no planers. you believe no planes were used? fine, but is it possible for you to talk about anything else when trying to reach new people?

No, because that's the best

No, because that's the best way to turn-off new people.

And Haupt acted like a total

And Haupt acted like a total nut-job for that key New York Magazine article!

point being:more reliable

point being:more reliable evidence that would be more likely to sway the average american

right. and my point was that you still have not informed me what reliable evidence i should be discussing. i've handed out 102 assorted dvds so far. not one of them even considers the fact that out of 4 alleged boeings there are only images of 1 of them and those images are fake.
---
Are you claiming that even the privately filmed 2nd impact are fakes too?

only 4 different shots of an aluminum plane with a plastic nosecone hitting a massive steel tower and disappearing without a trace into a too-small hole without any of the plane including the wing-tips breaking off. are you claiming that this phenomenon is not ridiculous?
_______

run across Ewing2001

run across Ewing2001 spreading his usual "stuff". its ashame a guy that resourceful has such a one track mind. its all CGI all the time with the no planers.

man, do you think that nico doesn't know exactly what he is talking about? he has been doing this since day 11 - he founded team8 for pete's sake. maybe it's YOUR job to discuss whatever it is that you consider reliable evidence. just what exactly IS your reliable evidence anyway?
---

and you anon - der holen

and you anon -
der holen werst too smallen!

do you claim that the hole is not smaller than the 767? or do you claim that it doesn't matter?
---

Bravo james ha! Keep

Bravo james ha! Keep kickin' ass...

-slaqqer

Peter Bergen. A card

Peter Bergen.

A card carrying member of the CFR.

It says so in his glorious biography!

great article which gets

great article which gets into the pros and cons of using real planes vs. remote control planes vs. no planes..
Why They Didn't Use Planes
and if that doesn't make your movement hurt, here's another article..
Why It Matters That There Were No Plane Crashes on Sept 11

thanx slaq, but i'm merely

thanx slaq, but i'm merely standing up for what seems obvious to me - and i keep seeing stick to reliable evidence without being told which alleged reliable evidence i should stick to.

That's right, Chris: when we

That's right, Chris: when we step into a pile of shit accidentally we quickly step *out of it* and clean the shit off our feet; then, and only then continue.

Thanks for the link

Thanks for the link Revolution Corporation!

mcmedia renews campaign to

@Chris- its ashame a guy

@Chris-
its ashame a guy that resourceful has such a one track mind. its all CGI all the time with the no planers

perhaps thats because he's realized how many problems can be explained away by no-planes? i am not claiming speak for Nico, but i can ascribe such a label as no-planer upon myself... that said, i've realized how many problems 'no-planes' conviently solve. these are outlined in detail in the article by Holmgren i linked to above.

for instance...
why did NORAD stand down? no planes to shoot down
why did the 767 slide into WTC2 without breaking apart? no plane slid into the building

and the beat goes on...
but we have thousands of eyewitness' and we ALL saw it on TV?! and we have plane parts? if anyone has credible evidence on these points, by all means, share

but don't worry, the first thing i bring up to newbies is WTC7.. for the sake of the movement. why don't you doubters play devils advocate with yourself and see how many troubling holes in your 9/11 truth story can be filled up by no-planes.

9/11plot --

these doubting anonymouses

these doubting anonymouses are just embarrassed to be associated with a pod that only manifests itself at the last possible moment - better to ignore that little anomaly altogether.
---

ha! just like so many are

ha!
just like so many are willing to talk at length about the physics of a freefall collapse, specifically with regard to WTC7, but unwilling to examine the physics of a plane vs. building impact and specifically the holes left behind at WTC1/2

anyone care to talk about the physics of a plane vs. building impact? oh, right.. those building were mostly made out of glass, i forgot.

all you controlled demolition fans should have a listen to Jeff King (aka plaguepuppy) regarding plane vs. building impacts on Webster Tarpley show from 3/25/06: first hour and second hour

he founded team8 for pete's

he founded team8 for pete's sake. ---
james ha | Homepage | 08.15.06 - 2:08 pm | #

Look man making this no planes argument is a joke, even if it's true it's still damaging don't you see that? And "teamplus8", who the f*ck are they? If it's anything to do with Nico then their research is going to be corn shit. WTC7, Thermate, Stand Downs, Prior Knowledge, Insider Trading etc etc, that's wild enough for most people to consider already. DonÂ’t you see throwing in this shit gives the shills like popular mechanics ammo? ItÂ’s the same as anti-Semitic crap, alien lizard men the whole kooked out lot, anyone pushing that stuff constantly has no idea of the damaging affect their having on credibility. And if they do then their blatantly shills. So Nico, AmandaReconwith etc are probably disinfo shills, or to give them the benefit of the doubt just plain idiots.

perhaps thats because he's

perhaps thats because he's realized how many problems can be explained away by no-planes?
shep | 08.15.06 - 2:56 pm | #

^ No just think about how many problems it creates.. oh you havenÂ’t? No wonder!

I am sick of this pointless

I am sick of this pointless "planes - no planes" debate it such a waste of time.

shep, Your advocacy for the

shep,

Your advocacy for the no-planes theory is the most calm and reasoned I have seen thus far and your focus on WTC 7 with newbies tells me your head is screwed on straight. You've convinced me, not that on 9/11 there was some number of planes less than two at the WTC, but that I should give the theory its due consideration. That's how we all got to where we are now on all the other issues, right? I certainly didn't believe it the first time someone suggested "inside job." For a little while I was convinced a missile hit the Pentagon. Now I'm a Pentagon agnostic. I didn't believe the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition until I read Steven Jones' work, which seems silly now considering I thought WTC 7 was quite obviously brought down by CD for months before that. I am regularly reminded of how naive and mis/uninformed I have been in the past, sometimes frighteningly recently. The only thing I've learned is that there's always more to learn. It seems obvious and yet is so easy to forget.

So, I ask you to make the case for no-planes. I'm listening. Use your own words and evidence or link to someone else's. All I ask is that you don't flood me with links or link to shitty sites with crappy, low-res video. I will check it out.

@Dem- No just think about

@Dem-
No just think about how many problems it creates.. oh you havenÂ’t? No wonder!

So you have thought about how many problems no-plane research creates? And besides creating a problem for your movement, what other problems do no-planes create?

Specifically, where does the no-plane research goes against WTC7, Thermate, Stand Downs, Prior Knowledge, Insider Trading?

NORADar/USAF stand downs is an easy one.. i pointed this out above already..

any ideas?

am sick of this pointless

am sick of this pointless "planes - no planes" debate it such a waste of time.
Dem Bruce Lee Styles | Homepage | 08.15.06 - 3:35 pm | #

Sorry, DBLS, I'd like to hear shep out on this one. I'm not going to turn it into a debate. Hopefully nobody else will either. I just want to hear the case from someone who has already waded through the crap and sifted out some good stuff. What's the point of all this if we can't learn from each other and benefit from the work others have done?

So, I ask you to make the

So, I ask you to make the case for no-planes. I'm listening. Use your own words and evidence or link to someone else's. All I ask is that you don't flood me with links or link to shitty sites with crappy, low-res video. I will check it out.
Anonymous | 08.15.06 - 3:40 pm | #

^ LOL that's probably "shep" writing to himself, or another "no brainer".

^ LOL that's probably "shep"

^ LOL that's probably "shep" writing to himself, or another "no brainer".
Dem Bruce Lee Styles | Homepage | 08.15.06 - 3:49 pm | #

Bzzzzt. I am a completely distinct human from both you and shep and although, like I said, I am repeatedly amazed by own naivety, I'll thank you to not call me a "no brainer." That's funny, though. I just got it -- rhymes with no-planer!

So you have thought about

So you have thought about how many problems no-plane research creates? And besides creating a problem for your movement, what other problems do no-planes create?

shep | 08.15.06 - 3:42 pm | #

Learn the meaning of this word;

Credibility

n : the quality of being believable or trustworthy [syn: credibleness, believability] [ant: incredibility]

thermate? that's what i

thermate? that's what i should be pushing? that doesn't work for me.
wtc7? after telling someone about the 3rd tower that collapsed mysteriously, i direct them to this:
http://www.wtc7.net/index.html
mostly i tell people that science tells us that gravity alone couldn't supply enough energy to break the massive columns of wtc1&2 while simultaneously rendering all the concrete into powder, and i direct them to this:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
---
is there something more that i should be doing? should i dwell on minetta? should i tell people there was a stand-down? what? or does it even matter what i'm doing as long as i'm not hurting your movement with no-planes?
---
here's a question: what the devil are YOU doing?
_____----

"why did NORAD stand down?

"why did NORAD stand down? no planes to shoot down"

But the legend says a few aircraft were scrambled -- too late. Haven't you read the Vanity Fair article?

@Anonymous | 08.15.06 - 3:40

@Anonymous | 08.15.06 - 3:40 pm
i don't usually respond to anonymous anon's but i'll make an exception. FWIW, why are you anonymous? it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see i could spoof any handle on here and the moderators can tell commenters IP addy's anyway [can't they?], so ante up, join the party, and choose a handle! we're not gonna stalk you ;-)

first, let me point out my first exposure to 9/11 alternative theories was from a controlled demolition angle. i watched the videos (http://www.911eyewitness.com specifically), examined the work by prof jones, and was convinced that some kind of demolition took place on 9/11.
then, i was a no plane doubter. i would say, 'why do you need this when so many other things could be brought up' - i sounded just like the blogger brigade. i thought controlled demolition was good enough...

if you're really interested in seeing what's out there regarding no-plane research, i suggest you start here: http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/08/inconvenient-truth-about-911-hijacked.html

lately, covertoperations has done some very interesting research modeling the second plane impact. the two essays i linked to above on http://911closeup.com/ are also, IMO, great place to start reading... http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com is one of Nico's blogs and i'd be the first to admit it is sometimes difficult to read thru, but has great information nonetheless...

All I ask is that you don't flood me with links or link to shitty sites with crappy, low-res video
i hear you on the crappy, low res videos but that's just how alot of them are. i have found about 20 (+/-) videos of the second hit and many of them are crappy quality. the best source for video i have found is here: http://www.archive.org/details/911-Chronology-Source if you've got time and bandwidth, go download the 4GB source footage from there - it shows what CNN and FOX were showing from about 9AM until about 10.30AM

the no-plane evidence is out there. turning points for me included:

1) the impact holes. how did these get formed so perfectly? many people choose to forget that these planes are made from aluminum and that even a bird can damage the 767 in midflight.

2) plane trajectoies. you don't need high res videos to convince yourself that some videos show a plane flying one path while another videos shows (allegedly) the same plane flying another plane. covertoperations some great posts highlightly this aspect, but i cannot find specfic links.. dig thru the covertops archives.

3) the problems with remote controlled planes. if you're going to advocate for remote controlled planes, then you've got to come up with some story for the hijackers. if you've got remote controlled planes, then do you even need the hijackers anymore? [nope] furthermore, if remote controllers don't need the hijackers anymore, why do they need the planes? remote controlled planes is an interesting idea, but i think if one gives it much thought then one must conclude it presents just as many problems. Holmgram outlines this idea VERY nicely.

the mp3s i linked to above from Tarpley's show are basically 2 hours of Nico and Jeff King talking. This interview was my first exposure to no-plane research and i will admit that myself, after hearing this interview, was convinced Nico was full of crap... but then i researched his ideas (and the ideas of others). when you've read over and over that 'so and so is disinfo/shill/agent/whatnot' you begin to get curious as to what 'so and so' is actually saying.

to quote in goldspeak: No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth. the no-planers aren't trying to hurt anyones movement - most are just trying to share their POV regarding a topic that none of us can say we know everything about.

@Dem So you have thought

@Dem

So you have thought about how many problems no-plane research creates? And besides creating a problem for your movement, what other problems do no-planes create?

shep | 08.15.06 - 3:42 pm | #

Learn the meaning of this word;

Credibility

n : the quality of being believable or trustworthy [syn: credibleness, believability] [ant: incredibility]
Dem Bruce Lee Styles | Homepage | 08.15.06 - 3:54 pm | #

Thanks Dem, but you seem to have quietly sidestepped by question... so to restate.

And besides creating a problem for your movement, what other problems do no-planes create?

"if you're going to advocate

"if you're going to advocate for remote controlled planes, then you've got to come up with some story for the hijackers. if you've got remote controlled planes, then do you even need the hijackers anymore?"

OF COURSE the hijackers are needed. They are needed for the official story. Who would believe that the Islamic terrorists managed to remote-control passenger planes into their targets?

Another theory is that the

Another theory is that the ONYA hijackplan was real, but it got hijacked itself. It was ferreted out by intelligence, not investigated so as to allow it to occur, and then "seized" in the act and replaced with a super-imposed plan designed to fit over the hiack plan, and take control of it for different outcomes. Is this the cross-over in ops between LIHOP and MIHOP? Does this explain many of the inconsistencies and anomalies and loose ends?

no Stephen, why did Springer

no Stephen, why did Springer attack them? what did he say?

Sorry, my mistake Chris, Geraldo, not springer. My bad. Funny shit though.

http://911tvfakery.blogspot.c

http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com/

Check the video (scroll the page down a bit) "Another amateur footage shows no plane hit South Tower".

Of course the footage shows no plane, as frames are missing in the video just before the South Tower hit. The video is interrupted before the hit and continues just after the hit.

What on earth is this?!

hey you all.... this is a

hey you all....

this is a sad fact but springer is a devout "jew"--that is into the talmud

now i love the jews dont get me wrong

but it says in the talmud that the 'jews' are supposed to degrade and even kill non jews. that when they do this, they are doing gods work

springer's show has always been about bringing on gentiles and degrading them as trash

now not all jews are like this obviously---this makes me sad to say this stuff---but it's true

watch alot of "jewish" tv shows and you can watch them be dickheads to the gentiles while kissing ass to the "jewish" characters

springer will never come around

my apologies to all the good jewish people out there

they are ALL

they are ALL theories:
remote control - theory.
highjacked boeings - official theory.
no-planes - theory.
however, the one and only evidence pertaining to planes at all is the videos of ua175. and analyses of that shows that they are some kind of phony images.
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/#Gedeon

shep says that
i have found about 20 (+/-) videos of the second hit

the word hit in this case leads to a misunderstanding - while there are more than 20 views of a shadowy black plane alleged to be ua175 shown from way out in the distance and always from the wrong side of the tower and most of these with flight paths conflicting with each other, there are only 3 maybe 4 views showing the alleged plane actually hitting and entering the tower. these are the views that webfairy has been kind enough to slow down for all of us to see.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/
these are the views that one can see the ghost/vanish/butter effect - real planes don't do that when they hit a massive steel structure.

read this article of morgan reynolds with joe keith:
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=no_planer_resigns
keith explains how you can determine for yourselves using a dvd showing the actual hit and a magic marker on the screen.

the word hit in this case

the word hit in this case leads to a misunderstanding

ha, you are correct - i should have been more accurate. most of the videos of the second plane (term applied loosely) show the final path to the building, but there are only about 3 or 4 which show the actual hit. there are many videos which show the second plane, but only a few which actually show the second plane hitting or impacting WTC2 (again, terms applied loosely)

Hey James Ha, you (and many

Hey James Ha, you (and many others) write "real planes don't do that when they hit a massive steel structure" - can you provide any actual references for that assertion?

In other words, what do

In other words, what do "real" planes do when they hit a massive steel structure - and can you cite examples?

all you controlled

all you controlled demolition fans should have a listen to Jeff King (aka plaguepuppy) regarding plane vs. building impacts on Webster Tarpley show from 3/25/06: first hour and second hour
shep | 08.15.06 - 3:21 pm | #

I don't know about Jeff King. Isn't he with MIT like Chomsky?

When I showed Confroting the Evidence/In Plane Sight to some friends, they didn't find King convincing because he gave a disorganized, rambling speech, spoke far too fast for his general audiance (which it was) and his glasses kept sliding off his nose.

When real jets slam steel

When real jets slam steel framed & glass buildings @ 500 mph, they penetrate into them. Anyone with at least half a brain knows this.

Shep, thanks for the links

Shep, thanks for the links and narrative. I have a lot to digest including 4GB downloading now.

While I was waiting for your reply I read those two pages you linked to earlier in the thread. When I was first coming around to controlled demolition and searching snopes.com to see what they had on 9/11 I came across Adam Mayblum's story about his escape from the north tower. Here's a heavily edited excerpt:

My office was on the 87th floor of 1 World Trade Center ... We were standing around, joking around, eating breakfast, checking emails, and getting set for the day when the first plane hit just a few stories above us. I must stress that we did not know that it was a plane. ... Light fixtures and parts of the ceiling collapsed. The kitchen was destroyed. We were certain that it was a bomb. ... The smoke was thick and white and did not smell like I imagined smoke should smell. ... I called my nanny at home and told her to page my wife, tell her that a bomb went off ... And we all started moving to the staircase. ... In the halls there were tiny fires and sparks. ... We proceeded to the 78th floor where we had to change over to a different stairwell. ... Wires and fires all over the place. Smoke too. ... On the 33rd floor I spoke with a man who somehow new most of the details. He said 2 small planes hit the building. Now we all started talking about which terrorist group it was. Was it an internal organization or an external one? The overwhelming but uninformed opinion was Islamic Fanatics. Regardless, we now knew that it was not a bomb and there were potentially more planes coming. We understood. ... On the 3rd floor the lights went out and we heard & felt this rumbling coming towards us from above. ...that was Tower 2 collapsing next door. We did not know that. ... We emerged into an enormous room. It was light but filled with smoke. I commented to a friend that it must be under construction. Then we realized where we were. It was the second floor. The one that overlooks the lobby. We were ushered out into the courtyard, the one where the fountain used to be. My first thought was of a TV movie I saw once about nuclear winter and fallout. I could not understand where all of the debris came from. There was at least five inches of this gray pasty dusty drywall soot on the ground as well as a thickness of it in the air.

Assimilating that with the "Why they didn't use planes" page, I'm getting that sickening feeling again. Before they even got out of the building their certainty that a bomb had gone off was "corrected" by the fact that not only had two planes struck the towers but that it was also the work of terrorists, specifically Islamic fanatics.

I am still skeptical, have lots to read and need questions answered but I have to say, the no-planes theory is certainly plausible. It may be the best example of Occam's razor.

As for why I post anonymously, because I'm a dork. Sometimes I use a handle, sometimes my real name. I can't decide who I want to be these days. I started posting comments on 9/11 truth using my real name on my local newspaper's political blog. The response has been surprisingly non-personal. Sure, they call my claims nuts but so far have refrained from attacking me. So that's nice. I don't know why the hell I choose to be anonymous right here and now.

Thanks again for the info, shep.

i've never seen a real plane

i've never seen a real plane slam into anything and i don't have a link to one.
but morgan reynolds says there's something wrong there and since he's no doubt smarter than all of us put together i take his word for it:
we have some holes

Peter Bergen was the first

Peter Bergen was the first person to "divulge" the intended target of flight 93.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/17/bergen.otsc/index.html

And is a proud member of this nest of neocons
http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=Bio&contactID=278

Here's what happened when a

Here's what happened when a small plan crashed into an Italian skyscraper: http://www.guardian.co.uk/gallery/image/0,8543,-10504397014,00.html

You theory that planes bounce off buildings is disinfo!

ha, you & (ha)upt are

ha, you & (ha)upt are disinfo artists. You are going to be in prison w/Bush.

You can find the mp3 of this

You can find the mp3 of this show here:
http://www.mikenewcomb.net/audio/FETZER.mp3
(link via scholarsfor911truth.org).

I think Haupt may work for

I think Haupt may work for one of the big military contractors like Raytheon. That is why he & ha constantly push this cartoon plane disinfo.

and your theory that an

and your theory that an aluminum plane with a plastic nosecone could poke right thru these columns without any of it breaking off on the way in is disinfo.
columns

ha, when a huge jet is

ha, when a huge jet is flying 500 mph, it exerts enormous force that could easily bust through those beams. I explained this to you in the past. You are a fraud.

(ha)upt, don't you feel like

(ha)upt, don't you feel like shit defending the perpetraitors? Are you just disinfo, or are you also a perp? Either way, you're going to prison.

Whoops, i'm sorry. The link

Whoops, i'm sorry. The link i've posted was a mp3 of the show on Air America from a few days ago.

I explained this to you in

I explained this to you in the past. You are a fraud.

oh right the soft lead bullet analogy - you should explain that to morgan reynolds - here's his email address:
econrn@cox-internet.com
or maybe you can reach him at
http://st911.org/
since he's one of those guys.
---

since you want to use the

since you want to use the Scholars as ammo, tell me james, how many Scholars are in the Scholars group total? now tell me how many have signed onto tv fakery?

Reynolds is an economist.

Reynolds is an economist. You guys fooled him on the fake planes for a while. He's since backed off this junk.

scholars as ammo? not. i

scholars as ammo? not. i could care less what the scholars think and the only 2 of them that i ever link are wood and reynolds -
you guys should just try to relax - oh wait - chris you still haven't explained to me just what reliable evidence i should use when bringing the issue of 9/11 to people's awareness - lets hear it!
---

but I have to say, the

but I have to say, the no-planes theory is certainly plausible. It may be the best example of Occam's razor.

i certainly agree with you on that point - 100%

here's what happens when a jumbojet lands just a little too hard:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3998892467657667670

i don't believe too many out there postulate that a plane should have 'bounced' off the face of WTC2, but rather people object with the second hit impact, as shown on the videos.

newton says F=MA but before anyone goes off talking about the physics high speed impacts, be sure and consider the density of the objects involved in the impact. and don't forget that the laws of physics don't differentiate between which object is doing the impact and which object is stationary. whoops... i forgot i don't have a structural engineering degree. alas, my points are null and void.

I swear to God this no-plane

I swear to God this no-plane stuff is getting stirred up by the bad guys.

I'm the first to say anything's possible, but we already know the whole thing was a sham, and I don't think many of us were convinced by this TV fakery stuff. We need to worry about convincing people, not debating irrelevant details. And we can know from experience that the no plane theory isn't gonna attract people to the truth. It becomes harder and harder to believe that people care so much about this no plane theory that it overshadows the entire purpose of 9-11 truth for them.

you could care less what

you could care less what they think, yet you use Morgans membership in the group to toute his no plane stance. ok, makes sesne in no planer world i guess. what evidence? try anything in this top 40 list for starters. the no plane stuff should come AFTER all of this and more:
THE TOP 40
REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL STORY OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

personally, i think the air defense failures/wargames coupled with evidence of controlled demolition is strongest. or at least much stronger than "no planes were used".

We need to worry about

We need to worry about convincing people, not debating irrelevant details.

right! and that's why i gave out 102 copies of three different dvds regardless of whether or not the 3 of them were 100% accurate - now i don't have any more dvds so alas i am now relegated to giving out little cards with easy to remember 9/11 urls written on them.

care so much about this no plane theory that it overshadows the entire purpose of 9-11 truth for them.

think again about that - i have already said that i am merely sticking up here for what i believe - if anyone is allowing no-planes to overshadow everything it is the detractors on this blog that seem to foam at the mouth at the mere thought of the no-plane concept.
--

anything, ANYTHING on that

anything, ANYTHING on that list is better than "no planes were used". just pick one to obbsess over like you do the no planes theory.

@Chris personally, i think

@Chris
personally, i think the air defense failures/wargames coupled with evidence of controlled demolition is strongest. or at least much stronger than "no planes were used"

i agree with you on controlled demolition and i ask you to consider how air defense failures/wargames appear when examined from a no-plane perspective.

i promote the exploding

i promote the exploding demolition of the towers whenever i can and the wargames - 911truth? yes. no strangers hear about no-planes from me until after i think they would relate to it -
i don't use reynolds' status as a crutch to prop up my views, rather, i support his views and the views of others that make sense to me. it's as simple as that but you guys seem to get your tinfoil underwear in a bunch everytime the subject comes up -
maybe i should just change my name to anonymous and only worry about poor kevin barrett's dilemma.

That was an interesting

That was an interesting thread.

I am regularly reminded of

I am regularly reminded of how naive and mis/uninformed I have been in the past, sometimes frighteningly recently. The only thing I've learned is that there's always more to learn. It seems obvious and yet is so easy to forget.

thats the most intelligent comment on this thread - something that i believe applies to everyone.

thats enough for tonight.. movement ho!

The Logic of No-Planes WHY

The Logic of No-Planes
WHY IT MATTERS THAT THERE WERE NO PLANE CRASHES ON SEPT 11
from Gerard Holmgren's speech which he gave (by telephone from Sydney) to the 9/11 TV Fakery Conference in New York on August 13 2006
Tue, Aug 15 2006

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/08/logic-of-no-planes.html

"...There is an obsession within the movement with trying to use the mainstream media as the vehicle to tell the so called-truth about the event.

If it were the case that the Govt had organized the whole thing, and that the media had been simply swept along by the tide, not knowing how to deal with the situation, and fallen into line because it simply didnÂ’t have the courage or the knowledge to resist the situation, then exposure of the truth through the mainstream media might be a plausible aim.

But the knowledge that the media was a full and willing partner in organizing the entire deception, should make it obvious that disclosure of the full truth through that same media an absurd and impractical aim. If they allow limited amounts of truth to leak into the media, this is only because it is part of their plan to continue the deception and move it forward to the next chapter.

Selective truth can be as deceptive as lies.

The media might hang out the Govt , but it wont hang out itself, and this means that it will never facilitate disclosure of the full truth.

ItÂ’s like knowing that the police are running the local drug gangs and yet still going to them with information, expecting them to genuinely act on it, and then cheering because eventually they bust one of the gangs, when in actual fact, theyÂ’ve done it only to make people think that theyÂ’re doing something, and all it represents is a change in alliances within the trade, and a change in the details of how theyÂ’re going to keep running the trade.

snip

For example, demolition proves demolition, but does not prove stand down, or hijacker ID fakery. They remain as completely independent arguments.

By contrast, TV fakery solves all three questions in one hit. It proves demolition—no more arguments about jet fuel fires, no more arguments about whether there were any Arabs on the planes, and it solves the mystery of why we haven't found the stand down order and why no one in the Air Force has come forward—it’s because there wasn’t any stand down order, because there didn’t need to be, because there weren't any hijacked planes.

Every other piece of evidence, while useful in proving one specific point and in demonstrating in a general sense that we have been lied to, leaves many significant loose ends.

Let me give you an example. The demolition by itself enables the whole hijacker myth to stand. A criminal group within the business community simply knew what was going to happen and decided to take advantage of the situation by using it as a cover to demolish the buildings and then criminal elements within the govt covered up for them retrospectively.

snip

Put yourself in the position of the hijackers. What kind of idiot would plan to crash two planes into the towers, and then expect to be able to attack the pentagon 3/4 of an hour later and then expect to be able to attack the White House another 1/2 hour after that?

The hijackers were seriously so stupid that never even considered the question of likely response from the air force? They made an incredibly stupid plan which had no hope whatsoever of succeeding, but by an amazing coincidence the Govt had found out about it, and decided to let it happen?

Not very plausible really. So to get around this, you have to conclude that the hijackers actually knew that the air force was going to be stood down for them.

Which means that hijackers and the Govt were actually working together. In which case why would Islamic fanatics commit suicide to help the US govt? Which means that they werenÂ’t Islamic fanatics. They were USG agents.

In which case, is it normal for top USG operatives to do suicide missions?

So you try to solve this problem by considering remote controlled planes.

Which then creates the problem of why electronically hijack real flights with crew who might be able to ruin the plot, rather than use decoy drones? Which then leads you on to substitute drones to try to solve that problem. Etc, etc.

As long as there are planes in the story, then each layer which is peeled back creates as many new problems as it solves.

This of course, is inevitable with any story if its central core is fiction. The most efficient way to bust a fictitious story is to go straight for its fictitious core, rather than keep chasing the tangential lies which were spin offs to try to cover the main lie...

Haupt, stop trying to

Haupt, stop trying to disrupt & fragment the movement with your cartoon planes @ the WTC bullshit.

"Cartoon planes @ WTC" also

"Cartoon planes @ WTC" also makes a good ruse to try and hide that passenger planes were swapped for drones.

aren't death certificates

aren't death certificates public record?

we should get one of everybody on each plane.

not the victims in the buildings, but the passengers.

and if these "hijackers" are alive, we should try to get them on video instead of arguing about it.

id buy drones over cartoons

id buy drones over cartoons only if i can see evidence that the passengers and hijackers are not real.

and when I say "only" it

and when I say "only" it means I don't buy either at the moment, not that i currently buy "cartoons".

DHS, don't forget, they were

DHS, don't forget, they were prepared to use imposter passengers, swapped drones, & fake funerals more than 40 years ago as evidenced in Operation Northwoods.

I think you'll argee with me that much more investigation needs to be done re: the passengers & crew.

in essence, that would call

in essence, that would call me a "planehugger"...

though most of thet ime i dont even deal with the planes, or the buildings, when addressing 911 to people for the first time.

Anon: I've always said

Anon:

I've always said people should get the passenger list and anyone in the nearby area should go to the public records and find their death certificates, which are public record. that'd be a start.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1

Anonymous, i am not

Anonymous,

i am not listening to faceless cowards and fakes.
Your language reveals as usual that you're part of the Jon Albanese fanclub.

If you have something to say then tell it to me here in NYC face to face, okay?

How's your egg protest going along?
I hope your FBI handlers make sure, that the eggs are not rotten like your deceptive brain :)

PS: You should give up to post as anonymous. Your hangout nonsense and wannabee dokus are meaningless enough.

Don't know what this is all

Don't know what this is all about but, "The Man Who Predicted 9/11" is on the History Channel right now in New York! (It started 10 minutes ago.)

Anon: It's about a british

Anon:

It's about a british guy if I remember correctly...

nothing spectacular.

Thomas Kean on FOX NOW

Thomas Kean on FOX NOW

Sorry, he was announced as

Sorry, he was announced as coming right up, but they have a panel on the London threat now

Kean will likely be on at

Kean will likely be on at some point

Mr. Haupt: From what's been

Mr. Haupt:

From what's been said about you I can't see this earning me many friends around here, but I did like your logic path in WHY CGI can answer more questions than it creates..... save for this....

Multiple source and location of witnesses with cameras.

I think I might have read Jon Rappaport mentioning this (CGI possibility) within days of 911.... that man has retracted very little as far as I know. And long ago moved on in life, away from most things "911".

Your argument asks people to swallow a very large pill, that ALL of these witnesses are NOT independent.

I do conceded, that everyone who wasn't looking, will not ALL testify that they saw "something". So by default, you MAY have more people who saw "nothing", than saw something (with their own eyes).

Likewise planting dozens, even hundreds, of cameras (fixed, or to be fixed) and video feeds is NOT beyond possibility. EVEN that that probability can be calculated to pose a measurable log against all the other factors needed for hijack/stand-down/remote.

In this last part, your mathematics do raise an eyebrow.... but it is still a very large horse pill.

How can (not "do") but how 'can' you answer to the witnesses?

More on Bin Laden