26 August, 2007

NO AIRPLANES HIT TOWERS on 911

[Image]

Cartoon by Don Wright (Palm Beach Post) Thursday, September 14th 2006
img posted by Steven Walker (9/21/2006)


LISTEN TO THESE:

August 15, 2007

http://www.911bloglines.com/911bloglines/pegfetz0815071.mp3

http://www.911bloglines.com/911bloglines/pegfetz0815072.mp3


August 22, 2007

http://www.911bloglines.com/911bloglines/pegfetz0822071.mp3

http://www.911bloglines.com/911bloglines/pegfetz0822072.mp3

(incl. special focus on Future Combat System)


MORE early articles on TV-fakery!!




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. Against this background, everything the government and its conspiring media say must be treated as a lie until independently proven otherwise.
No one can prove the plane crash stories because no one can prove a lie. By contrast, here we prove no Big Boeings crashed, we repeat, no Big Boeings crashed (NBB), at designated locations but that does not mean that large planes did not fly by, repeat, planes could have flown by. One thing is sure: laws of nature and physical evidence render the official story and any close variation of the plane story impossible.
Click here for full paper


Info on Rick Rajter and his other tv-fakery related papers

LINKS PROVIDING EVIDENCE THAT NO PLANES HIT THE WTC

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

See here

How about you use your

How about you use your energy for something useful?

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

TV Fakery Discussion Very Useful...

since 9/11 almost every image we are shown on the Tube is intended to manipulate us into fear, anger or a purchase of something - such is the power of the Medium. We need only to look at North Korean TV to see what our own propagandists have in store. Stay tuned...

IOK

QUOTE since 9/11 almost

QUOTE
since 9/11 almost every image we are shown on the Tube is intended to manipulate us into fear, anger or a purchase of something - such is the power of the Medium. We need only to look at North Korean TV to see what our own propagandists have in store. Stay tuned...
UNQUOTE

This, I agree with.

"TV Fakery Discussion Very Useful..."
This is BS

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

TV FAKERY

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

"TV Fakery Discussion Very Useful..."

"This is BS"

In 25 words or less - Why? Do you not believe that Fox, home of Bill O'Reilly, is ready, willing and able to do whatever is necessary to keep the NeoFascists in power?

IOK

It is my opinion that this is spam

Cointelpro disinformation

designed to discredit the movement.

the whole no-planes, star wars energy beams, keebler elves, mini-nukes research is all coming from the sam small handful of clowns who CLAIM to be experts- but are clearly simply pushing absurdist crap - in my opinion intentionally.

The most suspicous part

is their apparant herd mentality, and the notion that it's 'them versus us'. Why is it that the people with the most far- fetched ideas are the ones totally united in attacking the more credible members of the movement? Why does every no- planer adamantly support this brand- new and entirely speculative space laser theory? It's really very bizare... And yet it all makes perfect sense at the same time...

Must read for planehuggers

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

Planehuggers on this site have an obligation to read this article in its entirety and either present coherent rebuttals or STFU.

Planehuggers continue to divide this movement by clinging to their physically impossible theories and attacking those who refuse to drink the CGI Kool-Aid. They really need to get on the ball, for the sake of the families...

LOL

you are so exposed

ha

you guys are a fucking riot. Hey tell me again about those trajectories that don't line up and the fecal matter you ate for breakfast, if you could be so kind?

Thanks

Further Proof of TV-Fakery -- Conservation of Energy is Violated

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

This article (linked from Reynolds'/Rajter's paper) discusses how the "Real Plane Theory" violates Conservation of energy, a standard physics principle. More reason to examine the evidence?

A few quotes from article:

Think of the cartoon scene, where the cat chases the mouse through a mincer. The cat emerges from the other side still running, not realizing that its now made of a jigsaw type shapes. It keeps running for a while, and then with a look of resignation realizes that its been cut up, stops and collapses into a pile of little jigsaw type pieces.

Why do small children find this funny ? Because even at that age, they know that what they've seen is impossible.

In real life, the cat either....

Gets immediately cut into pieces and ceases all co-ordinated movement as a single object, and doesn't damage the blades or Bursts through the mincer blades, breaking them or Mangles itself, stopping almost immediately and also causing significant damage to the blades.

So what we asked to believe at the WTC is a Tom and Jerry cartoon.

What would happen in real life is....

the plane would smash itself to pieces against the building, doing little damage to the building and the wreckage falling mostly to the street. or The plane would pass through the wall making a cartoon type shape of itself (heh! Those sturdy aluminium cutting blades slicing through the flimsy construction steel of the building ! ) and come to rest, relatively intact. or You'd have a smashed up and scattered plane, still in large identifiable pieces some of it inside the building, some falling to the street below, and damage to the wall of some unpredictable configuration.

The latter option is what happened when the plane hit the Empire State building in 1945. Large pieces of the plane broke off and fell to the streets below, and the bulk of it stuck pretty much in the side of the building.

Eric & Brian Salter to Debate Morgan Reynolds & Rick Raijter???

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

Now that Eric Salter has published a "9/11 Pro-Planes" scientific article, and now that Dr. Morgan Reynolds & Rick Raijter have published a "9/11 No Big Boeings" scientific article, the scientific debates & discussions about whether Big Boeings were actually used to effect any of the damage on 9/11/01 should soon scientifically begin in earnest.

The "usual suspects" are lining up on predictable sides of these articles; however, science is not a popularity contest! Otherwise, the earth might still be flat...

We in the 9/11 Truth Movement should not allow anti-science, Neo-Luddites to stifle & shut down the necessary scientific debates & discussions by experts & others about these & other important 9/11 scientific issues. Stifling free scientific speech in this manner may only unwittingly aid & support the 9/11 Cover-Up & PsyOp Perps.

Which 9/11 hypothesis is "9/11 Truth" and which hypothesis is not "9/11 Truth"? Reasonable scientists & others can and do disagree. Scientist disagree with each other on a regular basis.

Scientists, video & photographic experts, and your own eyes & your own reason should begin to settle these questions in the near- to medium-term future. It ain't over 'til it's over! And it ain't over 'til the Fat Lady sings! Despite the tunes that some 9/11 bloggers may now sing (and although I could be mistaken), please remember: They may not be the Fat Lady!

In the interim, however, now that two (2) decently-comprehensive, semi-scientific articles have been published, the scientific debates & discussions are now beginning in earnest.

The "No Big Boeings" and "TV Fakery" issues are also arguably in the NEWS. See, for example, the one and only actual quote of the Iranian Minister in Moscow (as reported in the recent IRNA press release, the mother source for all major stories & virtually all blogs about this issue). The Iranian Minister appears to support the 9/11 TV Fakery Hypothesis. But did he really intend what he appears to have meant by his words? See www.911blogger.com/node/4103.

Maybe the next thing that we should do is to invite long-time Pro-Planes researchers Brian & Eric Salter to debate Morgan Reynolds & Rick Raijter in an appropriate forum. We might even invite some sincere 9/11 WTC eyewitnesses -- such as John Albanese -- to present their testimony & be questioned in a non-hostile manner.

The Salter Brothers & Reynolds/Raijter would do their MS Power Point & video presentations. They then might take questions from an appropriate panel of experts & others via electronic means. The last one-third of the session would be devoted to a true scientific and best-evidence-oriented debate about these potentially important issues. The whole session (including links to the articles & Power Point presentations) would then be posted or linked from the YouTube, 911 Blogger, Scholars for 9/11 Truth & other sites.

Please let us know who will organize the debate, where the best venue would be, and when it will be held...

If 9/11 truths can never hurt the 9/11 Truth Movement, then this may be a useful exercise to scientifically determine what is 9/11 truth and to put these issues to rest -- one way or the other. The controversy surrounding these issues may also help us to publicize other more-established 9/11 truths...

Reynolds & Raijter Accept the Challenge. Now: Salter Brothers???

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

I emailed the above comment & debate challenge to a group of approximately fifty (50) persons interested in the Pro-Planes & No-Big-Boeings issues (about 25 on each side). The list included Morgan Reynolds & Rick Raijter (but not the Salter Brothers -- since I could not easily find their email addresses).

Following in part is Morgan Reynolds' response: "Let's get it on. Salter smack down... More to come and it won't be pretty for Salter and his crew of Big Boeing apologists."

Let's allow these issues be rationally debated in public in an appropriate venue by the most articulate scientific spokespersons on both sides of these issues: Eric & Brian Salter advocating the 9/11 Pro-Planes Hypothesis and 9/11 TV & Media Integrity Hypothesis on the one side, and Morgan Reynolds & Rick Raijter advocating the 9/11 No Big Boeings Hypothesis and 9/11 TV & Media Fakery Hypothesis on the other side.

This is the scholarly, scientific way for the 9/11 Truth Movement to handle controversial scientific 9/11 issues. Science is not a popularity contest.

One month before the 9/11 Fifth Anniversary, I first invited Steve Jones to speak at the National Press Club. Although Steve declined, Morgan Reynolds & Judy Wood (both later invited) accepted our invitations.

Although Wood & Reynolds mentioned the NBB & TVF issues, their presentations concentrated on well-established 9/11 truths on which 95%+ of 911 Blogger & ST911 readers probably agree.

A "Salter Brothers versus Reynolds/Raijter Debate" on the above issues would not be appropriate for the National Press Club. Therefore, if the Salter Brothers also accept the debate challenge, then we will need to find an appropriate venue for this overly-ripe scientific debate.

Yes, the Physics Behind TV-Fakery Need to be Debated.

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

I am all for such a debate. If the Salter bros have nothing to hide, then they should have no problem with a debate!

As we all know, NIST refuses to debate the Truth Movement. I wonder why?

So let's have a debate

and

get something accomplished!

Letter of Preliminary Invitation to Eric & Brian Salter...

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

Following is my preliminary invitation for a scientific discussion & debate to Eric & Brian Salter, as per the above (sent to Eric & Brian by email this morning).

Of course, some may disagree with this approach, because it supposedly has the potential to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement.

However, the 9/11 Truth Movement should not be and cannot be afraid of the truth -- whatever it is.


Eric & Brian:

Congratulations on publication of your scientific article, "A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories" by Eric Salter at Dr. Steve Jones' electronic Journal of 9/11 Studies site (www.journalof911studies.com)! Your article has been published in various forms for years at www.QuestionsQuestions.net (copyrighted by Brian Salter, with Brian's significant contributions duly noted).

Of course, Dr. Morgan Reynolds & Rick Raijter have now published a competing scientific article, "Exploding the Airliner Crash Myth," at Dr Morgan Reynolds' site (www.NoMoreGames.net).

As you know, there is significant interest amongst those in the 9/11 Truth Movement in these issues. Your contributions to a scientific resolution of these questions have been amongst the most significant for many people.

Given the recent publication of the above two (2) scientific articles, and with the arguable endorsement of the general idea of 9/11 TV Fakery by an Iranian Minister (and if so, a mixed blessing at best -- see www.911blogger.com/node/4103), what ordinarily comes next is public discussion & debate about these controversial 9/11 scientific issues.

In your unfortunate absence (since no one could quickly give me your email addresses), some of us have already decided that a debate amongst the four (4) most articulate scientific spokespersons on these issues would be a good idea. We hope and expect that you will readily agree -- so that we can begin to put these issues behind us (or not) once & for all.

For some background on what we have been discussing, see "Eric & Brian Salter to Debate Morgan Reynolds & Rick Raijter?" at www.911blogger.com/node/4120#comment-85295 (and below), "Reynolds & Raijter Accept the Challenge. Now: Salter Brothers?" at www.911blogger.com/node/4120#comment-85316 (and below), and the additional discussion in the emails below.

Let me know. Let us know! Thank you. Best regards,

Thomas J Mattingly

Submitted by Thomas J Mattingly on Wed, 11/01/2006 - 12:40pm




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

http://www.911blogger.com/node/4117



| | |

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...


FOX Blanks Out Live Video to Hide Their Nose-Out Error

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

Go to 7:55 in the newly released video (referenced in above article).

See the fake plane's plastic nosecone poke right out the opposite side of the tower?

Interesting that a blank screen followed that noseout!

why the hell would they

why the hell would they blank it out, it almost looks like some sort of object coming out

Journal of 9/11 Studies -> A

re: Journal of 9/11 Studies

A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf

EXCERPT

Conclusion

There are many solid pieces of visual evidence–video recordings and photos–that show 767's impacting the World Trade Center towers. If only one of these images is authentic, the entire no-plane hypothesis is invalidated. There are absolutely no images of anything else hitting the towers despite the attention the burning WTC1 tower was receiving from a city of millions. The attempts by the no-planers to create credibility for their hypothesis by citing purported anomalies in the visual record have been characterized by a high degree of technical incompetence and illogical thinking. Because an authentic visual anomaly would only prove that that particular image was faked, and would not prove that something besides 767s hit the towers, it is clear that there is no supporting physical evidence whatsoever for the no-plane hypothesis.

-------------------------------------------------------
Eric Salter has more than a decade of professional video experience, which has included editing, 3D animation, compositing, motion graphics, image retouching, and camera operation."

Excellent article by Mr. Salter! Thanks for posting!!

More on Salter and his Unscientific Conclusions

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

Excerpt from another article:

One of the more outrageous of these attempts was an hilarious piece of buffoonery from Eric Salter.

The basis of Salter’s argument is that he claims to be a video professional which apparently disqualifies anyone other than him or people who agree with him from looking at an ordinary video and deciding whether or not they can see a plane. Salter boasts of 11 years experience in video editing, claiming that the strange looking object seen approaching the WTC is “what we would expect” a plane to look like on video. As a video expert, Salter claims that no known video technology can take a video of a plane which actually looks like a plane. Extrapolating from this astonishing revelation, Salter goes on to claim that the fact that we can’t see a plane in the video actually proves that there’s one there—because if there was one present we wouldn’t be able to see it. Therefore, the fact that the video shows no plane proves the existence of one.

When asked several times to produce any other examples of plane videos which look like the Nth tower object, Salter refused to do so, simply continuing to trumpet the assertion that plane looked as one would “expect.” The debate linked here ended very badly for Salter and his tellytubbie partner, his brother Brian.

Since Salter refused to provide any examples of plane videos, I decided to snap a few myself. I happen to have a cheap digital camera, which as a bonus function, can take very low quality videos. 10 frames/sec, a maximim of 30 secs at a time at full size, to be precise.

Before linking to these videos, lets review what Salter claimed in relation to the infuriating inability of even the finest video equipment to make a plane look like a plane.

Professional video cameras, such as that which captured the WTC strike, run at between 25 and 30 frames/sec. These are the cameras about which Salter made the following claims.

“It is the nature of video to blur very small details. As is clear in this image, an object has to occupy at least several pixels to start to register any detail, and judging by the size of the plane, the wing tips might be as little as one pixel in width. Hence, they are not visible. This does not mean that they are not there and that the object is not a 767.”

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html

And

“Video does not have good resolution, and moreover it does not handle edges well, so something as tiny in the frame as the airplane is going to look distorted and unrecognizable. I've been working with freeze frames of video for 10 years, and what I see in these frames is pretty much what I would expect an airplane to look like.”

(In response, I asked for five such examples, to which he could only reply )

“Again, the way the plane looks in the video is how you would expect it to look, given what video does to small details.”

http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=68 (Archived debate )


Later in the very same debate, Salter suddenly changes his mind. It seems that video actually has no problem in making a plane look like a plane.

Extremley Telling

I make a post that refutes your bullshit, and three minutes later, on a late Friday night, you pop out of the woodwork to post a smear attack on Mr. Salter.

The 9/11 criminals are getting more desperate by the minute.

omg

They think that they are our nightmares :) rofl
You are funny and desperate, but not nightmare.

------
NPT fanatics new theory is here: It´s called NBBB "no bang before the boom".

no, what's telling is that

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

no, what's telling is that you would blindly trust someone (like Salter) and not check into alternate information.

Salter's Unscientific Paper

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

A couple reasons why Salter's paper is JUNK:

  1. Use of the phrases "bizarre claim", "bogus no-plane theories", and "Reynolds presents a long-winded argument" are not appropriate for a paper that's supposed to address scientific evidence
  2. Salter is not qualified. Aerospace Engineer Joseph Keith is: "airliners don’t meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them!"

Video Stills Show Laser Beam on Towers !

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

pictures below taken from here

http://covertoperations.blogs

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/10/conflicting-plane-paths-cle...
Friday, October 27, 2006

Conflicting Plane Paths-- Clearest Example Yet?
The two videos in question are shot from opposite sides of the WTC, one about three miles to the EAST of the WTC, and one perhaps four to five miles WEST from the WTC. Importantly, one can see the towers lined up perfectly on north to south, indicating the camera angles are from exact opposite sides...

...The point that should be obvious is that in the top video, the plane undergoes a huge change in size from beginning to end, consistent with the plane coming closer to the camera as it approaches. In the second video, the plane hardly changes size at all, consistent with an approach where the plane maintains a similar distance from the camera throughout....

Lasers from Within or Without?

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

Ever since I got a close up look at the steel beams, I was sure that they'd been cut somehow.

At first I considered conventional means, like using the power outage over the prior weekend to torch them.

That would require many man-hours, and it would involve quite a bit of planning along with some additional risks, I'm sure.

One particular night about a month ago, when I was thinking out of the box, I started to contemplate how lasers or other beams could have been used in ways other than I'd read in some posts in these forums.

Could the beams have been directed from the inside out? I have no way of knowing this, but everybody seems to assume that everybody on a given floor has access to everything on that floor.

What if the sections where the impact holes were manufactured were blocked off, either under the guise of renovation or possibly just limited security clearance?

We never did see a live shot of either tower's impact face prior to the formation of the impact holes.

I've seen pictures of and read about cranes and scaffolding on rooftops of surrounding buildings where these cutting beams may have been directed from, but wouldn't it have been easier to do this from the inside out? At the very least, you certainly wouldn't have to worry about anybody finding them after the fact.

Again, I'm just wondering out loud here. No proof at all. Just trying to figure out how all those cuts are so clean and almost perfectly horizontal, making it look like someone punched a hole in wall made of Legos.

you say laser beams, i say a

you say laser beams, i say a floating piece of paper.

are you really this gullible? if one of your cult leaders told you the buildings were CGI would you believe that too?

HAHAHA --- case closed

HAHAHA --- case closed

Laser Trail is Bogus!

This is a doctored clip in more ways than one. The "laser trail" was added merely to create a phony divisive issue, imo. Why? View the clip below FULL SCREEN, and watch the segment from 1:02 ro 1:05 carefully - you will see a row of ignition flashes from demolition squibs quickly going from right to left across the lower equpment floors of BOTH towers just as the main pyrotechnic event occurs above. The "light trail" in your clip might be neither laser nor paper nor DEMOLITION SQUIB - it may have been added just to throw everyone off of seeing the flashes in other clips for what they really are!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThPTduiA5jI&NR

IOK

It is my opinion that this is all cointelpro disinformation SPAM

This is clearly spam.

this same circle of researchers advocate no-planes, mini-nukes, star wars beams, lasers from the planes, Keebler elves in the towers (bwahahahaha) and little green men.

this is in my opinion designed to disrupt this movement.

They WILL be held accountable.

Spam

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

Albanese is spamming again.

Eric & Brian Salter to Debate Morgan Reynolds & Rick Raijter???

Please see Eric & Brian Salter to Debate Morgan Reynolds & Rick Raijter??? in the separate thread discussing the two (2) scientific articles on these issues.

We are now awaiting a response...

Submitted by Thomas J Mattingly on Wed, 11/01/2006 - 6:38a



LOOK AT THESE PICTURES


They can NOT both be right


March 18th, 2006
(*thx to Ron Winn for this finding.)
The alleged '2nd hit'-aircraft in contradictive geographical positions.
A very clear contradiction. One of many photoshop jobs of alleged photos, which deceived the so called 'planehuggers'.
Therefore let's concentrate on the VIDEO CLIPS only.

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at Sunday, August 26, 2007

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites