No impact!

First of all thanks to the mods for lifting my ban.

 "Don't let them provoke you. Don't let them provoke you..

There was no impact, no splash of aluminium, steel and concrete. 

The area on the building between the left engine and body appears intact. How?

"So I’m going to say this

"So I’m going to say this group, more then any other that I can think of in terms of a movement, is going to be infiltrated, is infiltrated and there are going to be all kinds of efforts to subvert your work, all kinds of efforts to corrupt your work and all kinds of efforts to discredit you. Please understand that and take it in the spirit in which is being given because this is what will happen and probably is happening. So please your work is too important, your mission is too precious. Be careful in every aspect of the work make sure your allegations, your claims are well founded because if there not you will be discredited."
-- Dr. William F. Pepper, Keynote Address from the "9/11: Revealing the Truth / Reclaiming Our Future" conference, held in Chicago, June 2-4th, 2006

Go away "Brianv", nobody wants your disinfo here!

You are not the boss of me.

No I won't go away!

If you don't like what I'm blogging, then stay the f*ck out of the posts.

Hope you have you a nIce warm office at the NSA , disinfo boy!

DISINFORMANTION!!! DISINFORMATION!!!

News flash, buddy...real jetliners hit the towers...there are at least 50 videos, IN MY POSSESSION, that show a jetliner striking the South Tower. Knock off the insulting 'cartoon airplane' comments. Whether they were military or commercial planes, the bottom line is, AIRPLANES STRUCK THE TOWERS! Tell me how in the hell does a missle leave wing impressions? How does a missle create a clear outline of an airplane. You're either a disinfo agent or a straight-up retard to suggest anything but airplanes hit the World Trade Center towers. Stop wasting value blog space and stop wasting our time with your disinformation.

Gideon W. Almy, IV
Kodak, TN 37764
Email: Gideon524@yahoo.com
Cell: 865-712-6130

Hello Brianv, By now you

Hello Brianv,

By now you must realize that the only blogs permitted MUST assist the perps in some way, whether it is intentional or not. Therefore, all 9/11 blogs MUST contain at least one element of fiction in order to be posted. Missiles, pods, 737s, mini-nukes, C4-coated rebar and giant concrete cores are all acceptable, BUT ANY SERIOUS DISCUSSION OF VIDEO FAKERY IS FORBIDDEN! Of course, some of us realize that this fact itself suggests that video fakery was the essence of 9/11...

IOK

Hey IOK my old bud. How are

Hey IOK my old bud. How are you? Tell these peeps how long I have held this belief - that the planes are fake!!

(I accidentally replied

(I accidentally replied previously to the wrong comment below - please delete the other duplicate)

Brianv,

I seem to recall it was mid-2005. You pointed out to Commander Pod of Let'sRoll that all the UA175 still photos seem to have been captured from the same MSM video clips - AND YOU WERE RIGHT! And the reaction it provoked made me realize that not only were you onto the real truth, but also that the purpose of Let'sRoll is to collect information about 9/11 Truthers and keep them on the fringes with pods, missiles, mini-nukes in the basement, C4-coated rebar, giant concrete cores and other bunkum - BUT QUASH SERIOUS DISCUSSION OF VIDEO FAKERY BY ANY AND ALL MEANS. Good to see you posting again!

IOK

If the mainstream media

If the mainstream media couldn't stop the truth from spreading like the flu then I don't think no planes can either. Nice try though.

Brianv, I seem to recall it

Brianv,

I seem to recall it was mid-2005. You pointed out to Commander Pod of Let'sRoll that all the UA175 still photos seem to have been captured from the same MSM video clips - AND YOU WERE RIGHT! And the reaction it provoked made me realize that not only were you onto the real truth, but also that the purpose of Let'sRoll is to collect information about 9/11 Truthers and keep them on the fringes with pods, missiles, mini-nukes in the basement, C4-coated rebar, giant concrete cores and other bunkum - BUT QUASH SERIOUS DISCUSSION OF VIDEO FAKERY BY ANY AND ALL MEANS. Good to see you posting again!

IOK

ban him again, obviously

ban him again, obviously he/she didn't learn the first time...

Don't ban him.

Just ignore him... at least until he comes up with something worth paying attention to.

That picture above ain't it buddy. Nice try though.

As Dem says, you have to

As Dem says, you have to make sure you can prove your claims or people will try to discredit you.

That picture is worse than useless without proper verification . If you post pictures wihout links or sources, expect to be called disinfo by the local thuggery.

WHat a waste of Time......

It is not even worth the effort to talk to this person....What a waste. Here is a little list if you want to do something that is worth while.

#1 Pass out Copies of "Martial Law" on DVD
#2 Copy BYU Paper from Jones and Hand the full copies out.
#3 Oct 5th, be out in protest that day...but never mention "Wacko NO PLANE THEORY"

Otherwise.....please do not waste my time with your posts, and just sit back and enjoy Fox News.

Man witnesses 2nd plane hit

Man witnesses 2nd plane hit from helicopter: "In the distance I saw an airplane... I recall looking again and it was getting much larger... I said this plane is coming right at our window. It was the closest I'd ever seen a plane, by accident, coming to my helicopter... I remember seeing the aircraft going under our aircraft... He could have only been maybe 200 feet underneath us. And I just remember following him and just watching him and just turning my head and watching him, and watching him pull up and then just disappearing right into the South Tower... I thought it was an airbus, turns out to be a 767"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JjmVFAKe1nI

NYPD Officer Shares His Story: "You do not expect to see half of a smoking airplane engine on the ground, in front of the Burger King you eat at least once a week. I'm sorry, but nothing prepares you for that. Even worse, I did not expect to see the remains of what I believed was a little old woman, under half of an airplane engine, either. As I stared at the smear that was alive thirty seconds prior, I lifted the phone to my ear and remember wincing at the heat emanating off of the wreckage in front of me."
http://911blogger.com/node/3094

Witnesses who saw the second plane: "Holy shit... Another fucking plane flew in."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2859455565562890133&q=911+camer...

Woman who saw second plane:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1688790873499738139&q=911+camera...

Maintenance men on roof witness plane:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1104754125074399247&q=911+camera...

More witnesses to the second plane: "They headed straight for it. But that wasn't a plane? It was a rocket or somethin'. Was it? It was fucking fast."
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LLKANxa2CTs

Person reacting as 2nd plane hits South Tower:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-y0wxz0YGF4

2nd plane crashing in the south tower
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gUQP-wClN3E

Witness to the first plane: "A group of us saw a plane veer through the building... It was a larger plane, a mid-size plane and we could hear it very low..."
http://youtube.com/watch?v=d4CJQfBrqEc

Many people believe there is

Many people believe there is a pod in that video, many more believe that the plane fires a missle just before impact.

What do all of these theories have in common?  It is all interpretation of grainy video.  Interpretation will not stand up in court, unfortunately.

When it comes to proving the Truth, I will also choose hard evidence over interpretation.  Hard evidence such as:

- Who protected/trained the patsies before the attack? 

- Who fought against any investigations into the attack?

- Who destroyed the evidence?

- Who was running war games that day to confuse and prevent any defense? 

- Who profitted most from the crimes?

- The hundreds of witnesses that saw/heard/felt explosions that day

- Building 7

- Molten Metal 

- Who had Means/Motive/Opportunity? 

Why would anyone focus on interpretation of video when they have all of the above to focus on? 

Oh, thats right, because those that focus on the list above are gatekeepers.  Isn't that the typical response?

"What we have here is a failure to communicate..."

Dear DZ, John Albanese, Gideon524, Ike Ono Klast, Dem Bruce, Imgstake, Stallion4 et al: 

In addition to an examination of the eyewitness testimony, an examination of the serial numbers on the plane parts found near the WTC towers, the FAA records of the allegedly hijacked 9/11 planes, the location & competence of the alleged 9/11 hijackers, the engineering studies & solids modeling of the feasibility of Big Boeings actually doing the observed damage to the WTC towers on 9/11, etc., etc., a close examination of individual video clips and still images may provide us with additional scientific evidence about the truth or falsity of the 9/11 TV Fakery and 9/11 No Big Boeings hypotheses.  Let’s just do it! .

However, judging by what I see on this page, “What we have here is a failure to communicate…”  The above quote is from the old movie, “Cool Hand Luke,” and the Prison Warden speaks this line right before he shoots and kills the lead character, played by Paul Newman, who is essentially serving a life term in prison for burglarizing a parking meter.  Providing scientific evidence that No Big Boeings hit the WTC towers may be akin to burglarizing parking meters for the purposes of getting shot at www.911Blogger.com.  Where is the GOOD Prison Warden when we need to engage in some semi-rational, scientific discussions?

 

In the so called 9/11 Truth Movement, we also have “a failure to communicate.”  This line is usually spoken or paraphrased by the 9/11 Pro-Planers and/or the 9/11 No-Planers (proponents of the 9/11 TV Fakery & No-Big-Boeings Hypotheses) -- right before they shoot themselves in the foot (spewing the usual stream of undeleted epithets before, during & after their insufficiently-provoked foot shooting). .

911Blogger.com moderator DZ’s mission, should he choose to accept it, is to bring some scientific and quasi-legal reasonableness to the “9/11 TV Fakery” and "No Big Boeings" debate.  IMHO, neither side of this debate has succeeded in doing so.  (Hopefully, this message will not self-destruct in 5 seconds.) 

 

Even in the “Free Speech Zone” of the “No Big Boeing” blogs (e.g., here), some have personally and mercilessly attacked those who provide scientific evidence that No Big Boeings may have hit the WTC towers.  Why?  If the 9/11 TV Fakery & No Big Boeings hypotheses are “disinformation,” then the scientific & other evidence should show this to be true.  Why not let the proponents of these hypotheses talk about their evidence?  Then we can expose their “scientific” evidence for what it is?  But Nooo!  All that I see is a bunch of name-calling and “ad hominem” attacks against the No Big Boeings proponents…  Why? 

Seriously, I would suggest that DZ set up a CLOSELY moderated debate in a special forum to semi-rationally discuss the 9/11 TV Fakery and No Big Boeings hypothesis.  However, we may want to avoid the “Free Speech Zone” model that the government uses to suppress free speech. 


 

Dr. Steve Jones accepted my request to sign Nico’s petition requesting scholarly articles in his own journal on the "No Big Boeings" and TV Fakery Hypotheses.  Thus, I would suggest that we not allow others to close down debate at 911Blogger.com on these important issues before we fully examine & scientifically debate the issues. .

Steve & his Journal of 9/11 Studies are about to publish four (4) scholarly articles on these hypotheses. My statement of the hypotheses (about which Steve spoke approvingly) is as follows:  1) The 9/11 Pro-Planes Hypothesis; 2) The 9/11 No-Planes Hypothesis (No Big Boeings); 3) The 9/11 TV & Media Fakery Hypothesis; and 4) The 9/11 TV & Media Integrity Hypothesis.   

Thus, unlike the trial in “Alice in Wonderland” in which the execution comes before the verdict, let’s wait until the scholarly articles are published and we have a debate by a jury of 9/11 peer researchers before we execute The Web Fairy, Nico Haupt & Co. (then we may do like they did in "Alice in Wonderland" – LoL).

 

As for the “ad hominem” and similar attacks about which John Albanese & others are complaining, I agree with John that such attacks should stop.  When I suggested an examination under oath with cross examination of the 9/11 eyewitnesses who allegedly saw Big Boeings hitting the WTC towers (see “Scientific Evidence May Be Better than Eyewitness Testimony” at www.911blogger.com/node/3212#comment-74134), John’s response to my request was: “Sure - if you agree to take a psychological examination and be laughed at by a jury of your peers.”   Even John may now agree that such a statement by John is totally inappropriate for reasonable 9/11 debates & discussions – and a prime example of the types of attacks about which John has so vociferously complained. 

In addition, calling a hypothesis “disinformation” does not qualify as scientific debunking in my book.  Saying that there were “eyewitnesses to planes NEAR the WTC towers on 9/11” should not preclude a discussion of the scientific evidence that No Big Boeings actually hit the WTC towers (in a manner similar to how we NOW classify the eyewitnesses to a Big Boeing hitting the Pentagon on 9/11).   See “Scientific Evidence May Be Better than Eyewitness Testimony” at www.911blogger.com/node/3212#comment-74134

. 

Such eyewitnesses have NEVER been examined under oath with cross examination, and few of them say that they saw Big Boeings actually hitting the WTC towers.  My understanding is that John Albanese does not even say that he saw Big Boeings hitting the WTC towers, but he does say that he saw “both planes” NEAR the WTC towers on 9/11.  Please correct me if I am mistaken, John.  This is where scientific evidence may be better than the eyewitness testimony…  

9/11 eyewitness John Albanese has now agreed to be examined under oath with cross examination about seeing Big Boeings hit the WTC towers on 9/11.  See John’s & my exchange in & after “Scientific Evidence May Be Better than Eyewitness Testimony” at www.911blogger.com/node/3212#comment-74134.

How many other eyewitnesses will John Albanese, Stallion4 & others produce for such examinations & cross examinations under oath? 

In addition, for how much longer will we have “a failure to communicate” on these issues? 

Let me know.  Thank you.  Best regards, 

 

Thomas J Mattingly 


 

re: "What we have here is a failure to communicate..."

No, what we have here are a bunch of disinfo clowns who are trying to take down the 9/11 truth movement by spewing debunked nonsense about planes not hitting the towers.

"ALL the people who said they saw planes are lying"

"ALL the video tapes showing planes were faked."

That's the extent of the no planers argument right there. IMPOSSIBLE -period. There's no need for further debate.

"Fool's gold exists because there is real gold" -Rumi

Scientific Evidence May Be Better than Eyewitness Testimony, Etc

Hi, Stallion4:

If "what we have here are a bunch of disinfo clowns who are trying to take down the 9/11 truth movement by spewing debunked nonsense about planes not hitting the towers." then the best way to show that what you say is true is by repeating the scientific & other evidence which disproves the 9/11 TV Fakery & 9/11 No Big Boeings hypotheses. 

Neither you nor the other detractors of these hypotheses at this site provide the evidence that these hypotheses have been completely debunked.  Yet you continue to say that these hypotheses have in fact been completely debunked.  I'll believe it when I see the evidence.  Where's the beef? 

I do not know any 9/11 No Big Boeings proponents who say that "ALL the people who said they saw planes are lying."  Based on my conversations with them, what they say is that MOST IF NOT ALL of the 9/11 WTC tower event witnesses may be mistaken in what they think that they saw.

The only way to reliably determine what these 9/11 WTC tower event eyewitnesses actually saw is to examine them under oath (with cross examination).  To the best of my knowledge, this has NEVER been done before.  John Albanese, an eyewitness to "both planes" being NEAR the WTC towers has agreed to be examined under oath and to provide additional 9/11 WTC tower event eyewitnesses.  Will you help John Albanese in gathering these eyewitnesses together for such examinations?

Yes, 9/11 TV Fakery & No Big Boeing proponents DO SAY that "ALL the video tapes showing planes were faked" (or are fake). If you have not examined the still pictures and ALL of the videos (on a frame by frame basis) at The Web Fairy's, Nico's, Killtown's, and other TV Fakery & No Big Boeings sites, then you may want to do so. 

For some people, the videos are persuasive.  For some people, they are not.  Yes, there is disagreement.  That's why we're still having a discussion.  (Thank you for your rational tone.)

As I understand it, the extent of the 9/11 TV Fakery & No Big Boeings discussion also extends to the alleged impossibility of Big Boeings slicing through the outer steel columns of the WTC towers;  the failure to examine ANY WTC area plane parts with serial numbers; the nonexistence of two (2) of the flights on the FAA 9/11 take-off database; the continued existence of two (2) of the planes on the FAA database; not finding the indestructible black boxes at the WTC sites; finding live "hijackers" after 9/11; the inability of the missing "hijackers" to fly the planes; and numerous other anomalies.

Untill the "numerous" 9/11 WTC eyewitnesses are examined under oath, AND until ALL existing WTC videos are examined,  AND until the engineering & materials anomalies are tested & explained; AND until WTC plane parts with serial numbers are shown & examined, AND until the FAA database anomalies are explained, AND until we know who or what flew the planes (if any) into the WTC towers; AND until we know what happened to the black boxes (if any existed at the WTC sites); etc., etc., the 9/11 TV Fakery & No Big Boeings hypotheses are still open hypotheses in my book.

Steve Jones also agrees that these hypotheses are open.  That's why he agreed to publish scholarly articles on the 4 hypotheses in his Journal of 9/11 Studies   Steve may publish these articles soon...

Can you at least hold your breath until Steve publishes the articles in the Journal of 9/11Studies & until the WTC eyewitnesses are examined under oath?  Then you can do as they may have done in "Alice in Wonderland" ("Off with their heads!").

If we are NOW relatively sure that No Big Boeing crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11 (despite eyewitness testimony about a big plane nearby), and if we are NOW relatively sure that No Big Boeing crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11 (despite eyewitness testimony about a big plane nearby), then why are we so sure that the mainstream media are telling & showing the truth about two (2) Big Boeings hitting the WTC, that videos of two (2) Big Boeings can't be faked, and that two (2) Big Boeings crashed into the WTC towers on 9/11/01?  Where's the beef? 

In addition, while we're still allowed to ask questions in this Free Speech Zone, where are the Big Boeings?  Inquiring minds MAY want to know...

Let me know.  Thank you.  Best regards,

Thomas J Mattingly

 

I 2nd a rational debate..

I 2nd a rational debate.. The constant insults within the Truth Movement are unproductive

Excellent post Brian! How

Excellent post Brian! How can anyone possibly say the plane was real?

lol - please stop it hurts

Because the plane was seen by hundreds of people in realtime ?
Because the plane was heard by hundreds of people in realtime ?

OK, it was a hologram with ultra real surround sound.
Lets have a rational debate :)))