no planes

9/11 Truth: The Fight Stage - Don't Get Hit by the Sucker Punch!

In my view the three most powerful Main Stream Media mantra's used against the 9/11 Truth Movement have been;

1. We support the Jews/Israel did it theory.

2. We support the no planes were used or were swapped theory.

3. We are paranoid conspiracy theorists who hate our country and seek to create violence in our communities.

WE MUST if we are to prevail over these presstitutes in the MSM be resistant to speaking in public for these two theories in any way shape or form. If we do speak in support of these theories we better make sure we can back up our accusations in the real world with hard evidence.

Being patriotic and absolutely peaceful in word, deed and voice will see us stronger by the day.

This is the "fight stage" and I plan to win!

Kind regards John

If destruction of evidence is a plausible indication of a crime . .

Let me start today's blog by echoing a comment from dz posted in my last thread. I am truly pleased at the healthy tone and genuine debate that has accompanied my recent entries. Thank you all. We're all involved in this to bring the truth to the general population, and on that basis alone, we deserve to extend to each other a proper debate forum and no name-calling.

After reviewing Erin S. Meyers terrific blog about the destruction of evidence indicating probable culpability and criminal activity, it brought me back to the blog I wrote yesterday about the airborne object hitting the Pentagon. I admit this is a red hot topic, and one that can quickly divide truthers.

So, what physical evidence, in the public domain, that was found at the Pentagon scene does or does not corroborate with a 757 heavy?

Positively identified items;

A landing gear strut can be proven with reasonable certainty to be that of a 757.
A seperate rim and tire assembly can also be corroborated thusly.

Disputable items:

Several pieces of aluminum fuselage. Much research has been done to discredit these pieces. I won't delve into it any further than to label them "disputed" today.

Conflicting items:

What really happens when a commercial jet liner (DC-9) hits a solid masonry object (bridge).

By manner of introduction, this topic was my original smoking gun into the 9/11 truth movement. On the day of the attacks, I was viewing network news of the events. It was announced that footage of the Pentagon crash scence was to be shown, where "a 757 had just struck the Pentagon".

I viewed this footage and said "Where?".

Many of us in the truth movement feel we have an enormous burden to bear because so many of the events in question "never happened" before. As such, we are left citing Newton's Laws of Physics about how things are supposed to behave, and/or pointing out forensic evidence in video or photographic sources.

However, a modern commercial jet liner HAS hit a solid, earth fixed, masonry structure in recent times. I cite Northwest Airlines Flight 255, Detroit to Phoenix, August, 1987. Although it was a DC-9, and not a 757, and the terminal velocities were different (757 purported at maximum speed, vs. DC-9 at maximum take-off roll), neither event would be in the realm of "vaporized metal", calulated by physicists I trust to be in the neighborhood of 15 times the speed on sound.

So, what was the result of the bridge impact in urban Detroit? Scorched Earth. Massive Debris Fields. Luggage. Corpses. Seats. LARGE Pieces of Fuselage. Just what you'd expect. I knew people on this flight. The vivid images are forever seared in my mind, and not easily dismissed by the Gov't fairy tale about the little hole and the bright green lawn at the Pentagon. Call me a "no brainer", I really don't care. I don't today, nor have I ever, seen remotely credible evidence of a widebody commercial aircraft impact at the Pentagon.

Exploding the Airliner Crash Myth (By Morgan Reynolds and Rick Rajter)

Excerpt below. Click here for full paper.
Exploding the Airliner Crash Myth
By Morgan Reynolds and Rick Rajter - October 27, 2006
I. Introduction
Newtonian laws of motion combined with physical evidence prove no Boeing airliners crashed on September 11, 2001 at any of the four designated sites. The government's story is a provable, gigantic lie although various possibilities remain open about what really happened.
From a narrow prosecutorial point of view, we already have enough evidence to prove guilt at the top. The 9/11 hoax was a stunning psychological operation (psy-op), the most audacious and murderous false-flag operation in history, well-planned, deceptive at every level, intended to manipulate public opinion, and wildly successful in the short run.

9/11 TV-Fakery... Hunt the Boeing (WTC) 2: Pythagoras Exposes Phantom Flight UA175 as a Hoax (Analysis by StillDiggin)

Thursday, October 26, 2006

9/11 TV-Fakery... Hunt the Boeing (WTC) 2: Pythagoras Exposes Phantom Flight UA175 as a Hoax

Introduction

It appears that the newer source of the "Jim Friedl" audio has more to offer than meets the ear. In this newly released video, we are presented with an uninterrupted “live” video feed, which provides us with a reverse version of the magic trick "Now you see it... Now you don't."

At 7:38 of this video, the feed is switched to a different helicopter. A few seconds later, FOX commentator Jim Ryan describes the image from the video feed as "the picture from our chopper now arriving at the scene." This comment seems to validate that this is indeed the same video that was broadcast “live” by WNYW FOX5 on 9/11/01, since the picture correlates with the commentary. In what I referred to in my previous article as the "original source," the video feed never switches to this helicopter (this would have occurred approximately 2:44 into that video).

Although this matching commentary does not necessarily prove that this newly released video is exactly what was broadcast “live” by WNYW FOX5 on 9/11/01, it does seem to prove that this is the feed that Jim Ryan was looking at as he was commentating
Continued here...

Did The Digital Plane Image Decelerate At WTC 2? (Paper by Rick Rajter)

Rick came to MIT as an undergraduat in Materials Science and Engineering. Rick graduated from MIT with a bachelors in 2003 and is now in the Ph.D program at MIT.

DID THE DIGITAL PLANE IMAGE DECELERATE AT WTC 2?
By Rick Rajter - October 26, 2006
One of the major oddities of all WTC2 videos is the apparent lack of plane deceleration from many of the observed camera angles. The plane seems to fly in effortlessly, but then comes to a complete stop while inside (apparently violating conservation of momentum and energy). To the layman, these two conservation laws mean we should expect TWO major sources of slowdown when one object penetrates another:
• Energy is lost via dissipation as the intruding object breaks and destroys the impacted area into smaller pieces
• Energy is transferred to the broken pieces in the form of kinetic energy or gained velocity.

A Challenge To All Who Believe Real Boeings Hit the WTC

A CHALLENGE
TO ANYONE BELIEVING THESE VIDEOS SHOW A
REAL PLANE HITTING THE SOUTH TOWER
I think this could benefit us all!
1. Go down to your local college/university.
2. Find a physics/engineering professor you can trust. (A real one, with a PhD)
3. Show him/her the slow-motion videos here (or better yet, show straight from the CNN DVD)
4. Ask the professor flat out: "Is that a real plane?"
5. Ask the professor to explain the answer scientifically, and list the laws of physics that would apply.
6. Post your results here.
7. Let others with the nohow evaluate it.
8. If any errors are found, make a second trip to the professor ask him/her to explain the errors.
9. Post your results here!
==============================
Former Mechanical Engineering Professor Dr Judy Wood and former Aerospace Engineer Joseph Keith both say the videos violate the laws of physics. If you don't trust them, then get someone who you do trust.
Getting answers from multiple professionals will help us all. Find people you can trust! They should follow the laws of science and nothing else. If they do, all responses should be identical. If you want, tell them that you'll post their answers on this website, but will keep them anonymous. (Perhaps you can post the name of the univerisity.)

Crash Physics

There were no crash physics evident at any of the three sites where planes are supposed to have struck AND PENETRATED buildings.
For the plane for instance to have penetrated the tower, you must assume that it remained intact going through the outerwall.
It is obvious to everyone that whatever, the planes did not smash to pieces and fall into the street.
I will deal with this first.
PHYSICS.
REACTION/deflection
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".
That means that the force recieved by both objects in a collision will be equal.
Now what determines how much force goes into the objects?Well, if one of the objects penetrates the other, the force needed to break through the penetrated object will be the amount of force recieved by EACH object.
If you add up the total sum of the forces required to "punch" through all of the beams we are told that the plane went through, then you would have to say that the plane sustained that amount of force and did not break up.
I contend that the plane would break up with much less force than what it would take to penetrate all those outerwall beams.
Then there is
TERMINAL BALLISTICS.

A Conversation with Nico Haupt 9/10/06 NY City

Please Listen to parts 1 and 2 of this conversation before commenting.

Update: links should be working now.

9/11 Bloglines (09/02)

http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001
September 2, 2006

Aviationbanter about "Pilots for 9/11 Truth"
"AA77" victims Interview in "Pentagon Remembers 9/11" - video
911 - Washington Plane - Google Video
NineEleven co.uk: Debate MORE EVIDENCE FOR NO PLANES
09/02 -Controlled Demolition Blogosphere Roundup
ScrewLoose: Dylan thinks, "there was a jetliner at the Pentagon"?
9/11 PRESS FOR TRUTH posters, flyers and and 4ups
KUER FM -9/5/06: Theories of 9/11
GNN's Reprehensor on Gatekeeper William Pitt's latest 9/11 reprise
9/11 Cover-up Books: The real conspiracy behind 9/11
Taylor Marsh: Calls for a new 9/11 investigation mount
Hangout Mashup: ABC miniseries The Path to 9-11 blames Clinton
Dems Japan Blog vs. Dwyer/NY Times
NewMedia Journal USA: The Real 9/11 Conspiracy
Reuters: U.S rebuts 9/11 homegrown conspiracy theories
Decomsumption Blog: NY Times Goes on the Defensive About 9/11
Nimmo: Mike Malloy Fired by Left Gatekeepers
Loose Change International Broadcasts
1st Italian International Conference on 9/11
9/11 TV Specials (Update)
Aviation Officials Cleared in Probe Of Statements to 9/11
9/11 conspiracy theories come under fire - Albany Times Union
"9/11 planes" must of had Pentanium wings & tails!

god whoever this is over at the history channel forum is killing us with garbage like this

http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=800013594&tstart=0&mod=1156549162488

I want to slap this F*cking idiot

" no planes struck the WTC
Posted: Aug 24, 2006 7:11 AM (1 of 11)

* Click to reply to this Reply to Topic
* Report

Around mid-2002 the case for controlled demolition of the WTC was essentially proven in the minds of many in the 911 truth movement. It was about this time that a small group of researchers discovered an even more remarkable facet of 9/11. Specifically, the shocking realization that the TV networks aired fake video of animated, CGI planes striking the WTC.

I was the first person to declare that the TV networks aired fake video. Since those early days many people have joined in support of this conclusion. At the moment, the question of whether real Boeing 767s struck the WTC is the hottest topic in the 911 Truth Movement. This is the area of research that is most promising for reaching the general public.