"911 'No-Planes' Conspirators Seek To Sabotage Truth"??? (from Rense.com)

Rense.com has now posted an article entitled "911 'No-Planes' Conspirators Seek To Sabotage Truth" by the prolific Dick Eastman.  The first paragraph of his Rense.com Op-Ed article (which you should read at http://rense.com/general74/911s.htm) is as follows:

Think about it.  While the real investigators take the evidence and link them to men in the Defense Department and in Israel --  the no-planers remain stuck on the assertion that all the 45 video recordings were faked and that all the witnesses who saw the planes are liars  and the just make the vaguest totally detached references to "the perps" or just "perps".

Without expressing my opinion on which hypotheses are true and which are false, let me ask some semi-facetious, semi-rhetorical questions:

Let's see now...  No Big Boeing crashed into the Pentagon, right?  No Big Boeing crashed in Shanksville, right?  But most people still believe that Two (2) Big Boeings crashed into the WTC towers, right?  After all, we all saw it on TV; and the mainstream TV media & others couldn't fake such a big lie; and the real 9/11 Perpetrators could not afford to do magic that is better than David Copperfield to trick all those 9/11 WTC eyewitnesses [who are certainly NOT lying], right? 

Therefore, the 9/11 Truth Movement should ban any scientific research that investigates the possibility that the Official Government Conspiracy Theory (OGCT) is wrong about Two (2) Big Boeings crashing into the WTC towers; and the 9/11 Truth Movement should personally attack, ridicule & shun any researchers and scientists who do this type of investigation, right?

Although a primary goal of the 9/11 Truth Movement is 9/11 truthseeking, there are certain possible truths that we should not investigate, right?  Only certain 9/11 truths and certain possible 9/11 truths are good for the 9/11 Truth Movement, right? Some 9/11 truths and some possible 9/11 truths can hurt the 9/11 Truth Movement, right? 

If you do investigate these possible 9/11 truths, and if you talk and write about these possible 9/11 truths, then you must be a COINTELPRO Agent, right?  Therefore, we should unquestioningly support the Official Government Conspiracy Theory on the issue of Two (2) Big Boeings crashing into the WTC towers, right?

... Or is it possible that the 9/11 Cover-Up Perps and 9/11 PsyOp Perps are using some of the oldest recipes in the PsyOp Cover-Up Cookbook to encourage some in the 9/11 Truth Movement to personally attack each other, to call each other names, to accuse each other of being a possible agent, and to bicker & squabble amongst themselves? 

Are we now eyewitnessing a Divide and Conquer Strategy that will keep certain possible 9/11 truths hidden for 43 years (just like certain possible truths in the JFK Assassination)? 

Are we eyewitnessing (or possibly participating in) The 9/11 PsyOp that Ate the 9/11 Cover-Up?
A Certain Possible 9/11 Fact versus a Certain Possible 9/11 Fiction


..... i agree with Rense.

and - the fact that there appears to be a circle of researchers who support this theory who also appear to support ABSURDIST imagery and theories and personal attacks against members of this movement FURTHER validates the claim this is organized disruption.

Whether it is Nico Haupt's vicious attacks against member of this movement - or Morgan Reynold's attacks against Jones - or Reynolds partnership with Judy Wood who in turn advocates star wars beams bring down the towers, and Keebler elves, and mini-nukes- or the repetative posts on blogger of Road Runner cartoon imagery on the side of the towers (extremely distasteful) - or the advocacy of Wing TV who support Haupt and Reynolds or magazines like "Criminal Politics" which is RABIDLY inflamatory anti-semitic garbage - or the key members of NY911Truth who were caught distributing this magazine Criminal Politics who now post here (like CB Brooklyn and Peggy) supporting the no planes theory..... you see a circle - a nexus of activists who seem to work in concert to forward divisive spurious research and attacks.....

,......rending any further debate on this subject moot. some things are just self evident - and if Thomas Mattingly is as intellectual as he poses his existence is a contradiction in terms in that he seems to appear to ignore the obvious attacks and junk science and pretends to want to debate this on some bullshit intellectual level that - yes - maybe we should CONSIDER that little green men did in fact attack the towers.

John - Why do you say things that are clearly not true?

Strictly speaking, Dr. Judy Wood is not even a proponent of the NBB & TVF hypotheses. However, based on mechanical engineering materials strength & other science, Wood does state that a Boeing 767 could not have made the hole in WTC tower that we have all seen in the 9/11 pictures & videos.  If not, then what did?  Since Wood may be mistaken about this, John, if you disagree with this science, then please let us know the nature and substance of your scientific disagreements.

Despite your failure to challenge the science, John, why do you continue to say other things that are clearly not true?

For instance (only one example), why do you continue to say that Dr. Judy Wood is a proponent of "9/11 Mini-Nukes" when you know for sure that this is not true? 

Please give us a link to one example in which Dr. Wood has ever proposed or supported a 9/11 mini-nukes hypothesis.

You are not the only person who is spreading this untruth about Dr. Wood (despite the lack of any evidence for your assertions).  If others & you all have a common list of "Talking Points" for your attempts to discredit sincere, dedicated 9/11 researchers & scientists, would you please post your common "Talking Points Memo" in your response to this comment?

The last time that I asked you why you continued to associate Judy Wood with the 9/11 mini-nukes hypothesis (even thoiugh you knew that it was not true), you said that you were entitled to your opinion about this -- even if it isn't true.

John, if you continue to say things that are not true about sincere, decidated 9/11 researchers & scientists, then this may reflect worse on you than it does on those about whom you are telling these untruths.

You also say: "if Thomas Mattingly is as intellectual as he poses[,] his existence is a contradiction in terms in that he seems to appear to ignore the obvious attacks and junk science and pretends to want to debate this on some bullshit intellectual level that - yes - maybe we should CONSIDER that little green men did in fact attack the towers."

John, as you have seen many times in my comments posted elsewhere throught 911 Blogger, I also take "the other side" to task for name-calling, personal attacks, and bickering & squabbling.  However, "your side" appears to engage in such tactics much more frequently than "the other side."

If others & you continue to engage in such tactics, then you may only be helping the 9/11 Cover-Up & PsyOp Perps.

You say: "[M]aybe we should CONSIDER that little green men did in fact attack the towers."

Tell me about it, John.  I'm listening... ;-)

John Albanese - stop lying about me; stop spreading disinfo.

John Albanese: you really need to get a handle on yourself and stop spreading disinfo about me and others.


  1. I have NO AFFILIATION with Criminal Politics magazine, and have not even heard of it before now.
  2. I am NOT a "key member" of ny911truth. In fact I haven't been to a meeting in quite a while.

You are hereby notified, John Albanese

Correct it.

2 a : a defamatory statement or representation esp. in the form of written or printed words; specifically : a false published statement that injures an individual's reputation (as in business) or otherwise exposes him or her to public contempt b : the publication of such a libel c : the crime or tort of publishing a libel —see also SINGLE PUBLICATION RULE New York Times Company v. Sullivan in the IMPORTANT CASES section —compare DEFAMATION, SLANDER
NOTE: Although libel is defined under state case law or statute, the U.S. Supreme Court has enumerated some First Amendment protections that apply to matters of public concern. In New York Times Company v. Sullivan, the Court held that in order to recover damages a public person (as a celebrity or politician) who alleges libel (as by a newspaper) has to prove that “the statement was made with ‘actual malice’ — that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not” in order to recover damages. The Court has also held that the states cannot allow a private person to recover damages for libel against a media defendant without a showing of fault (as negligence) on the defendant's part. These protections do not apply to matters that are not of public concern (as an individual's credit report) and that are not published by a member of the mass media. A libel plaintiff must generally establish that the alleged libel refers to him or her specifically, that it was published to others, and that some injury (as to reputation) occurred that gives him or her a right to recover damages (as actual, general, presumed, or special damages). The defendant may plead and establish the truth of the statements as a defense. Criminal libel may have additional elements, as in tending to provoke a breach of peace or in blackening the memory of someone who is dead, and may not have to be published to someone other than the person libeled.

Dick Eastman's Full Op-Ed -- and Some Additional Questions

Dick Eastman's full Op-Ed article from http://rense.com/general74/911s.htm is below:

There are several glaring errors and leaps of faith in Dick Eastman's Op-Ed article.  Do you know what they are?. Most of these errors and leaps of faith have nothing to do with Dick's opinions about the 9/11 No Big Boeings & 9/11 TV Fakery hypotheses.

Regardless of the scientific truth or falsity of the 9/11 No Big Boeings & 9/11 TV Fakery hypotheses, is Dick's method of dealing with these scientific & evidentiary issues really the best way?

Or do his & others' name-calling, personal attacks, and bickering & squabbling really harm the 9/11 Truth Movement more than they help 9/11 truthseeking?

911 'No-Planes' Conspirators Seek To Sabotage Truth

It's now entirely obvious -- no-planes
is false-opposition truth sabotage

By Dick Eastman

Think about it.  While the real investigators take the evidence and link them to men in the Defense Department and in Israel --  the no-planers remain stuck on the assertion that all the 45 video recordings were faked and that all the witnesses who saw the planes are liars  and the just make the vaguest totally detached references to "the perps" or just "perps".   

They have never linked all the alleged graphics work -- the cartoons we supposedly are all seeing  -- to any angency or individual  i.e., they never point fingers at anybody specific or to any organization  -- just to the magical word "perps"  -- but they know all the "truthling"  "planehuggers" -- they slander David Ray Griffith and Prof Steven Jones and Russell Pickering and Alex Jones -- in fact, everyone who doesn't agree with them on this one issue they attack by name    --   whereas we, the real investigators, will identify Dov Zakheim as being involved with equipment for totally remote controlled air combat and his fanatical Zionism and his dual citizenship -- and the fact that EgyptAir990 -- filled with high Egyptian officers returning from the US to Egypt was taken over so that the pilot and co-pilot could not control it  -- a voice is actually heard in English say "control it" after the pilot left the cabin to use the restroom (the pilot and co-pilot spoke Arabic throughout) -- at which time the plane lost control -- and went into a dive  (you can hear the co-pilot panicing and calling on Allah when this happened)  -- etc. -- all of this is ignored and pushed aside by the no-planers.   


You will note also that the no-planers never show doubt  --  45 videos against them, all the witnesses against them, the forensics of the holes made in the buildings against them -- the fact that they have no recordings and no witnesses who where looking at the wall on the south side of the South Tower suddenly explode without a plane hitting it  -- not one  --  despite this the no-planers have no doubts about their conclusions?    


I show them where they have misrepresented (slandered) the witnesses -- all the firemen who say they saw the plane crash, for example -- calling them liars.  Even a man who was targeted for death, Stanley Praimnath who saw the United Plane coming right at him from his office window in South Tower  -- they accuse him of lying  -- and do so all on totally false misquotations of what Praimnath actually said.   


No planers are propaganda agents out to discredit and sabotage those who want the truth out.   


And they make it clear that one reason they "hate" all the "truthlings" -- whom they slander as "racists" and "white supremacists" (always totally wrong -- a lie that is the exact opposite of the truth)  -- they always heap their contempt on anyone whose findings point to Zionists or Israel being involved in 9-11.     


And we find that Holmgren is closely associated with Jared Israel  -- has been since 2001 as I well remember  -- Jared Israel who dedicates his emperorsclothes site to the thesis that Israel and Jews are innocent of 9-11  -- forget the laughing Israelis, Silverstien, the 87 Israelis who were in the country illegally and who had top security clearance badges at Dulles and Reagan National airports on 9-11 and the months leading up to 9-11  (Ashcroft deported them back to Israel a few months after 9-11  - one said on Israeli radio  "we went to photograph the event"  -- plus the Israeli (Mossad) movers -- etc. etc.  the links are endless   -- and yet we must argue "no-planes" -- that all the videos and witnesses are liars  -- while Paul Wolfowitz instead of getting life in prison for mass murder and crimes against himanity -- goes on to head the International Monetary Fund  -- showing his links and trust by the Merchant Bankers who are profiteering from war finance borrowing (Iraq will cost 2 trillion when all costs are added up) and who are each Zionists and sociopaths who do not care about lives of the little people when those lives stand in the way of their gaining more power and money.   


People are afraid to agree with me (Dick Eastman) because they they know I have fingered the right people -- people fear the people I have fingered.   


And so you sit there reading all of my posts exposing the "no-planer" cointelpro  -- and yet you are too afraid to speak up and say  Yes, Eastman is done  -- lets denounce and blackball these proven disinformation agents working against us  -- let's get on with going after the people we have already proven are responsible.   


Dick Eastman


Yakima, Washington