Thread Rating:
  • 3 Vote(s) - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
11-12-2010, 01:28 PM,
#1
100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes





[Image: cartoon-foxhole-tales-psy-ops.gif]



Which brings us to what Gerard Holmgren wrote back in 2006 :


http://www.911closeup.com/


Why they didn't use planes

Sometimes people ask me "why would they use missiles or whatever and run the risk of being caught out ? If they're going to sell a story about planes, why not make it as convincing as possible and use real planes" ?

It's a silly question, because in the face of direct visual and forensic proof that they didn't use planes (mostly supported by what little witness evidence we have), speculations about their thinking and planning are meaningless.

Nevertheless, since we live in extremely silly times, I'm going to address this question on its own terms.

Put yourself in the position of the perps. You have to think through what could go wrong in each possible scenario and then decide which scenario poses the smallest risk.

You want to sell a story about hijacked planes.

At the first level of decision making, you have two choices.

1) Actually use planes.

2) Use missiles or whatever the blobs 11 thing is, and convince people that they were planes.

Lets first look at the second scenario. You have the media on your side to tell the story. What could go wrong?

1) Witnesses might see that they were not planes and report it.

Well this has actually happened, but it seems that nobody takes any notice. The myth of "thousands of witnesses" to a big plane strike keeps getting trotted out on the basis of a circular assumption. "Because big jets were there, then people must have seen them - because people saw them, that proves they were there."

Clearly the perps thought about how to minimize the problem of contrary witness reports, and came up with a simple but effective plan.

This problem is easy to minimize. The first strike happens, and because the object is small and fast and unexpected, no-one is too sure what it is, or whether they saw it correctly. A few witness reports go to air reporting missiles or small planes or no craft at all, but there is only an 18 minute window for this to occur before the whole world sees a big jet live on TV - using commercially available real time animation technology. This distracts the media from interviewing many witnesses to the second strike, because everyone is fixated on the video replay. Those few witnesses who might get a moment with the media, then lack confidence in what they saw, because once again, the object was small, fast and unexpected. Seeing the TV replay - which was instantly available - would make most people think that they just didn't see it properly. The few who remain unshakable in their belief that it was not a large plane are easily shouted down and drowned out by the endless replays. In addition the airlines release a statement saying that they've lost two big jets and any witness dissent is *instantly* - the moment the second strike happens - marginalized almost to the point of oblivion.

This is not speculation. Read through the transcripts of broadcasts as they unfolded between about 8.47 and 9.30 and you will see that this is *exactly* what happened. From the moment the second strike occurred, anyone who tried to say that it was not a large jet immediately had a TV replay shoved in their face.

What little witness evidence was gathered in the brief time available between the two strikes was not enough to do any real damage, and everything after that was corrupted by everybody having TV replays of the second jet shoved in their face as soon as they opened their mouths.

In that brief period between the two strikes, there was only one witness who said a large jet - and that just happened to be the vice prez of CNN, which of course is a major player in the scam - just as pivotal as the govt.

So we can see that the problem of contrary witnesses, while a minor inconvenience is easily overcome with some good planning.

Again, this is not speculation. The successful execution of this plan has been tested ion the real world - and it works. The scenario I have outlined exactly fits with the documented record of the events.

Once the sheeple factor sets in, everyone is chanting "what about the people who saw it ? " without ever bothering to check what those people actually did report. And if they do check, the numbers of reports are not high enough to inflict major damage on the official story. What little there is overwhelmingly supports something other than a big jet, but there wasn't enough time to gather enough numbers for this to be a significant evidence factor. And as for the ordinary person on the street - most of them would be easily convinced that they just didn't see it properly. Some might have lingering doubts or suspicions, but would be quickly silenced by ridicule and denial from the overwhelming pressure of the TV footage, and the whole world trying to convince them that they just didn't see it properly. Most would eventually come to believe that themselves.

So - that problem is easily dealt with. No cover story solves everything, and doubtless there are still some mutterings of doubt and suspicion amongst some people who were there, but it isn't enough to cause a serious problem.

Now to the other problem.

Someone might look at the videos and see what's really there. Which is exactly what Rosalee has done. And people just go into mind controlled denial. The alternative media is flooded with endless debunkers. The perps knew our collective psychology well. They certainly wouldn't be happy with the groundswell of awareness which Rosalee has kick-started, but it looks very manageable compared to the problems I'm about to outline with the strategy of using real jets.

Again, this is not speculation. The way that both of these problems have been handled has been tested in the real world, fits exactly with the documented record, and the fact that I am even needing to write this, 3 years after Rosalee first busted the video evidence, is testimony to how wisely the perps judged the choice of strategy.

Now lets look at the other choice - using real jets.

This immediately splits into two sub-choices 1) Pilot them with suicide pilots 2) Remote control them.

The problem with the first choice is obvious and I think most people on this list have already accepted the absurdity and the monstrous difficulties of such a scenario, so I won't go into them here.

Remote control.

Before addressing the problems with that, the scenario splits into more -sub-choices.

1) Hijack a real flight with real passengers aboard. 2) Launch a plane from somewhere else and pass it off as a real flight.

Basically, the choices here split into the option of crashing a plane with passengers aboard or with no passengers aboard. Both possibilities create potentially insurmountable problems in the cover up - and a reduced likelihood of the crash being successfully targeted to begin with.

Let's look at the latter problem. While it's certainly feasible to remote control a large jet into the towers, it's a high precision targeting job for an aircraft with very limited maneuverability. There's a significant risk that the plane won't hit its target properly. That it will hit some other building, just clip its wing on the tower and crash into the streets or cause a cascade of damage on other non targeted buildings, miss altogether and finish up in the Hudson, still reasonably intact - all kinds of risks.

Whatever the calculated likelyhood of a successfully targeted crash, it would have to be significantly lower than that of a missile or blobs- thing, which is specifically engineered for such precision strikes.

Even the smallest increase in risk of the target not being hit properly would be completely unacceptable, given the easily manageable nature of any problems associated with the alternative scenario.

And missing the target is only the beginning of the problem. What about the aftermath ? Once it misses the target, there's a significant risk that the aircraft may crash in such a manner that it's reasonably intact. Rescue workers and emergency services who are completely innocent of the scam, and ordinary people wanting to help out are going to reach the wreckage before any perpsters, given that where it crashed couldn't be foreseen.

And what are they going to find ? Two choices. A plane with no -one in it. How are the perps going to explain that, huh ? Or a plane with passengers. This raises even more problems. Using a plane with passengers creates two more sub-choices.

1) Hope that all the passengers get killed in the crash, so there's no survivors to talk or hope that the perps can get to them first and knock them off before they do talk.

2) Kill them before the crash with a timed release of gas into the aircon system. Which of course leaves more forensic evidence to cover up, when the bodies are examined. Imagine the massive operation needed to get enough perps swarming over the wreckage quickly enough to control what the media,innocent rescue workers or survivors would start blabbing before the spin sets in. Far worse than anything a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the two tower strikes.

These problems are not limited to the scenario of the aircraft not crashing as they were meant to. If the planes were successfully crashed into the towers, its still possible - although not very likely - that there could be survivors. Nevertheless, even assuming that everyone was killed, real crashes with real people leave real bodies, they don't just vapourize like in the S11 cartoon. So you have hundreds of retrievable bodies to worry about. If they were killed with gas prior to the crash, then you have the same forensic cover up nightmare as in the scenario where the plane misses its target.

And if you avoid this problem by hoping that everyone is killed in the crash, you face the horrible risk that there will be dozens of survivors to try to shut up - unlikely if the plane hits the target properly - but you don't know that for sure.

In addition, real planes leave real wreckage - unlike the S11 cartoon - which means real flight recorder boxes to be found and more stuff to hush up, involving more innocent officials to pressure. Of course, enormous pressure can be brought to bear, but the problem is how much would spill out before the spin gets into action. All of this is far worse than what a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the strikes, and what a marginalized researcher can post on her website, hoping that people take notice.

As you can see, the scenario of using real planes creates a logistical nightmare compared to the piddling problem of a few witnesses to the craft, and easily marginalized conspiracy nuts analyzing video - easily suppressed by a compliant media.

In committing a crime, the idea is to leave as little mess as possible, because every bit of mess is a potential clue. Even in the event of a successfully targeted crash, real aircraft, scattering wreckage and bodies everywhere creates an enormous amount of mess to cover up compared to the relatively neat problem of a few witnesses and a few conspiracy nuts trying to tell people what the video shows.

The problems of the real plane scenario are enormously compounded by the possibility of a botched crash, which itself is a significantly increased risk when using big lumbering jets not specifically designed for that task as opposed to precision weaponry which is far more reliable. In the unlikely event of a missile going off course, there would be far less mess to leave clues, and an easier co-opting into a plan B story - like terrorists stealing missiles and firing them at NY.

This explanation should hopefully put an end once and for all to the plane hugging fantasy - but then, these are very silly times in which we live.





Sad to say, Holmgren recently passed away from inoperable cancer in Australia. After pioneering the No-Plane theory now more-or-less proven in the latest version of "September Clues," he retired in frustration and had not been active in the 9/11 half-truth, plane-hugging--thermate-sniffing 'twoof' movement for a number of years. I hope he wasn't given the cancer through some devious means.

11-12-2010, 03:42 PM,
#2
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
This is not 100% proof! This is just one possible scenario. It is an interesting analysis and shows that the video was doctored.

The inside job conspiracy does not depend on whether or not there were plane crashes into the buildings. Poo pooing all the other research which shows that an inside job had to take place is completely counter productive and gives the cover up crew ammunition to shoot us in the feet with.

An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi


Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
11-12-2010, 06:52 PM,
#3
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
have to agree with iso...

and if planes were not used? what of the passengers on those planes who died, were they all relocated and given new names, and none have stepped forward??? Ri-ght (a-la DR EVIL) Some will find conspiracy every where, and I'll be the first to agree it was a set up financed and suggested by isreal, hence no embassy workers reported for work that day in tower 2.... an the buildings were 50 % vacant and a liability to the jew owners...but as they even pulled massive chunks of airplane from the wreckage i think it's safe to say it was a plane, really what diff would a missile have? not much, and did they then sneak large chunks of plane wreckage into the ruined building to make it look even real-er?

All the no planes folks should put there energy to some thing useful like bunker hunting, or cover ups in regards to iraq, iran, et's, free energy, all the things of real importance and not be so silly distracted on this not very important issue made to distract, remember the left hand always dances and draws attention so you don't see the dagger in the right as it sinks in deeper.
Remember Knowledge is the only thing THEY can't take from you, and Knowledge is Know how, and Know how is Power!!!

Live long and Prosper!!!! Have a plan beyond words, and worry not of why the storm is coming as to how you're going to survive in it!!!!

Deathanyl @gmail!!!!!!
11-12-2010, 07:31 PM,
#4
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
They didn't pull plane wreckage from the WTC complex ruins. They found plane parts on the roof of a nearby building and then stopped publicising it because the wings and other sections of the supposed wreckage were in good shape and not consistent with a crash scenario, not to mention trying to explain how the parts could have ended up where they did. They found a piece of an unidentified engine in the streets of NY, a small rotor and no id stamp which would pinpoint where it came from. None of the airline companies removed their supposedly lost aircraft from the registry for years after the alleged crashes. No stamped parts were found at any of the alleged crash sites.
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi


Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
11-13-2010, 08:52 AM,
#5
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
humph! you sure bout all that sounds a bit too convenient... Dodgy I didn't pay it much attention as it's not an important thing really once you accept that the story put out is not absolutely truthful and it was orchestrated by the players affected... ie America and the WTC owners...

However as one who believes what your typing just curious if you can back up the stated facts, many here dis my lack of links so...

An in the manner of the claims put forth on such a recent even links should be a plenty, where as ancient knowledge... i got an excuse.

bottom line is it really important if it's missiles or planes? you know you were lied to, is that not enough, focus should be used on more relevant issues/ conspiracies, though i do recognize it's that time of yearBarf
Remember Knowledge is the only thing THEY can't take from you, and Knowledge is Know how, and Know how is Power!!!

Live long and Prosper!!!! Have a plan beyond words, and worry not of why the storm is coming as to how you're going to survive in it!!!!

Deathanyl @gmail!!!!!!
11-14-2010, 01:13 PM,
#6
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
(11-12-2010, 01:28 PM)Negentropic Wrote: Which brings us to what Gerard Holmgren wrote back in 2006 :

Why they didn't use planes

...

This explanation should hopefully put an end once and for all to the plane hugging fantasy - but then, these are very silly times in which we live.

----------------------------
Sad to say, Holmgren recently passed away from inoperable cancer in Australia. After pioneering the No-Plane theory now more-or-less proven in the latest version of "September Clues," he retired in frustration and had not been active in the 9/11 half-truth, plane-hugging--thermate-sniffing 'twoof' movement for a number of years. I hope he wasn't given the cancer through some devious means.

Whoa, this clown makes arguments with holes in them so big you could fly a jet through! He doesn't even understand the difference between fact and speculation!

Why would they want to kill the best thing that ever happened to the 9/11 truth movement (for the perps)?
[Image: randquote.png]
11-26-2010, 05:51 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-19-2011, 07:39 AM by Negentropic.)
#7
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
Quote:and if planes were not used? what of the passengers on those planes who died, were they all relocated and given new names, and none have stepped forward???


Actually, there seems to be a lot of fakery involved in the identities of a the victims also (both supposed passengers & people in the buildings) , Jayhan and McWilliams at Let's Roll Forums as well as Simon Shack & others on the Sept. Clues forum are discovering more and more fake photoshopped & otherwise made-up victims every day:





Jayhan & McWilliams were on Jim Fetzer's Real Deal radio show a few months ago discussing the fake-deader vic-sim evidence (the July 19th show with Clare Kuehn as well as the July 28th and August 9 shows with Jayhan & McWilliams are all about simulated victims or victim fakery http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/ ).

http://www.nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-twin%20towers%20fakery.mp3

http://www.nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-twin%20towers%20fakery%20ii.mp3

http://www.nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-9%2011%20victims%20or%20vic-sims.mp3

Another thing you've got to keep in mind if you think that planes were remote-controlled to disappear into those buildings with Zero Deceleration on impact (see the frame-by-frame analysis by Simon Shack in Sept. Clues; even hitting a sheet of paper would cause some deceleration, much less hitting steel & concrete) is that NOT A SINGLE PART out of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of individually numbered & identifiable parts belonging to those two Boeings were found in the wreckage. They tried to plant an engine from a different model plane and got busted with that too.
11-26-2010, 05:57 PM,
#8
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
Ooh. Careful now. That sort of information isn't allowed here. Stick to posting up Nibiru videos and you'll be fine.
11-26-2010, 06:15 PM, (This post was last modified: 04-14-2012, 07:56 PM by Negentropic.)
#9
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
Quote:The inside job conspiracy does not depend on whether or not there were plane crashes into the buildings.

Yes but in a court of law (if such things exist anymore), there is 'double jeapordy' and you get only one chance to prove your case. If you fail with half-ass or faulty evidence, the accused inside-or-outside-jobbers get off and that's it, they can't be tried for the same crime twice. That's why it's important to be 100% scientific about it. If all the videos have been proven to have fakery then UNLESS somebody provides an authentic video that has not been tampered with, eyewitness testimony alone alongside those fake videos will not prove any case, never has and never will.

It's really quite simple. I mean if 10 people say they saw you rob a liquor store but the video from the store shows your face on someone else's body, composite video fakery, then you get off scott free. The existing videos, both pro and 'amateur,' have all been analyzed to death frame by frame and proven to have plenty of fakery. The burden of proof is on the plane-huggers now to either find and show an authentic video of an authentic plane crash or at least find some plane parts out of the hundreds of thousands of numbered parts that match those two supposed remote-controlled global-hawked Boeings flying ridiculous flight paths at 500 plus miles an hour at low altitude.


JULES NAUDET'S FIRST PLANE SHOT WAS STAGED
A Clue to the Truth about 9/11?
American Airlines Flight 11, North Tower, World Trade Center
by Leslie Raphael


First draft September 2002
First edition December 2004
*This update July 2007*

http://www.spingola.com/jules_naudet.htm

Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged
by Leslie Raphael
6 February 2006


http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm




11-26-2010, 06:21 PM,
#10
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
Only idiots or shills deny or hamper discussion on 911 video fakery, at this point.
11-26-2010, 06:28 PM,
#11
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
"The burden of proof is on the plane-huggers now to either find and show an authentic video of an authentic plane crash or at least find some plane parts out of the hundreds of thousands of numbered parts that match those two supposed remote-controlled global-hawked Boeings flying ridiculous flight paths at 500 plus miles an hour at low altitude."

You have not looked into this enough or you would not make such a statement.
refer to the september clues threads for your enlightenment.
11-26-2010, 06:29 PM,
#12
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
see what I mean?
11-26-2010, 06:43 PM,
#13
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
(11-12-2010, 07:31 PM)icosaface Wrote: They found plane parts on the roof of a nearby building and then stopped publicising it because the wings and other sections of the supposed wreckage were in good shape and not consistent with a crash scenario, not to mention trying to explain how the parts could have ended up where they did.

Actually it was Louis Briendel, AKA Scaffoldrider who found those parts on the nearby roof. I have been in contact with him and there were serial numbers stamped into the parts he photographed as well as the ones he did not. Those numbers never made it into the public record. If they had a lot of this debate would be moot as I also have contacts which could cross reference those numbers and tell if those parts were actually installed on the planes in question.

The engine left a damage path since it bounced off the top outer edge of another buildings roof before landing in the street, but yes, every moving part within it has a stamped unique serial number which also never made it into the public record.

There is also a wheel assembly embedded in a perimeter column section which landed in the street, the brake assembly within that wheel assembly would also have stamped serial numbers.

The PTB want this debate to go on, if they didn't they would simply release all the info.

Too bad so many of you do not see this.
[Image: Signature2.gif]
11-26-2010, 08:14 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-26-2010, 08:19 PM by rsol.)
#14
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
and jfk brings it home.....

You can say want you want here alex. Just be prepared to be caught when you spout junk.

If you want to dwell in a forum where everything is a conspiracy then im sure there are plenty of forums for you to frequent.

I will be one of those people who will oppose bullshit from TPTB AND conspiracy theorists who seem hell-bent on asserting ever more outlandish tales and disguise it as a source of news.

also...

Quote:"Jayhan & McWilliams were on Jim Fetzer's Real Deal radio show a few months ago discussing the fake-deader vic-sim evidence (the July 19th show with Clare Kuehn as well as the July 28th and August 9 shows with Jayhan & McWilliams are all about simulated victims or victim fakery"

great stuff. now here's the rub....even if this is all true and ALL the passengers are faked. does it mean the planes were faked? does it prove that?
11-26-2010, 10:12 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-26-2010, 10:20 PM by JazzRoc.)
#15
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
It's just another somewhat defective drive with the usual agenda to make something out of poor video definition, and a truly sad understanding of physics.
It's just another "God of the gaps".
The only utility it possesses is that of demonstrating exactly who needs some training in reason and logic.
100% "conclusive proof"?
Not an iota....


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Bug Proof Wikileaks is a Psyop CharliePrime 8 1,290 07-30-2013, 01:05 AM
Last Post: mexika
  computer targeted planes on 911? Bull Medicine 3 878 10-23-2011, 05:34 PM
Last Post: sekular
  Wikileaks and Assange = Rothschilds: The Proof Solve et Coagula 29 6,938 12-15-2010, 10:07 PM
Last Post: rsol
  Firefighters For 9/11 Truth Debunk Assange: Irrefutable Proof Of Cover-Up Dunamis 0 711 12-12-2010, 03:21 AM
Last Post: Dunamis
  Ben 'Shalom' Bernanke on 60 minutes "We're not printing money" Scorpio 3 1,285 12-07-2010, 02:20 AM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  Obama on “60 Minutes”: A Servant of Big Business h3rm35 0 552 11-10-2010, 11:09 PM
Last Post: h3rm35
  16 Lies in 7 minutes State of the Union Video Breakdown datars 0 466 02-01-2010, 08:48 PM
Last Post: datars
  Straw vetoes publication of cabinet Iraq war minutes mothandrust 5 931 03-05-2009, 01:11 PM
Last Post: ---
  9/11 Proof on Video: CNN/FOXNEWS-Involvement! Fake airplane impacts turn to be missiles at WTC Solve et Coagula 2 656 07-16-2007, 10:15 PM
Last Post: TeslaandLyne
  How To Hack A Diebold Voting Machine In 4 Minutes waxzy 2 798 09-06-2006, 06:19 PM
Last Post: tsoldrin

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)