DISINFO CORNER: NO PLANES / VIDEO FAKERY / SPACE LASERS

[Georgiacopguy]

I am still reviewing the things you've put forth, I haven’t given up on you yet. I will say you may have a viable theory, however each segment of evidence should be stand alone,  on it's own merit. If you start cherry picking parts of the overall picture in order to tell your story of the evidence, then you aren't being true to the evidence. I can go into a scene where a husband lives with his wife, and where the wife has been killed. I can then start cherry picking the evidence to  show that at some point he was in the room, therefore he must have been the murderer, but is that true to the evidence? So when I look at a single piece of evidence, I expect it to tell me a story, and yes, at some point, it needs to coincide and corroborate the rest of the evidence. But it needs to tell me an initial story.

Back to the burned vehicles with paper nearby as our example.  A rule of evidence, as I've pointed out recently, is that it is controlled in a chain of custody, and that it is not tainted by an outside source. However, in this instance, paper is the mysterious culprit that may have tainted your evidence. There was paper drifting about for weeks at that site, so the existence of paper at the scene does not necessarily mean there was paper there at the time of the fire, even though there very well may have been, and most certainly was, and it was already burned by the time the burned hulk of a vehicle was photographed. So already, that part of the evidence is questionable because there is no way at all to qualify that that paper was present at the time the vehicle burned, or as you believe was transmuted or melted.  I could go to a murder scene, go to the kitchen, and pick up a knife out of the butcher block, and proclaim it the murder weapon. The fact that it was in the kitchen is logical, its existence within the crime scene a mere coincidence. It's relevance as evidence, questionable at best. UNLESS blood evidence dictated that it was in fact the weapon, or fingerprints, or DNA evidence, or there is video of the suspect killing with that knife then going room to room to deposit that knife in the butcher block again. Now, if we take that very same knife, and let twenty people handle it, suddenly, it’s position as untainted evidence is questionable. Questionable evidence raises doubt, and doubt is usually used to throw out evidence. As far as the car being tossed about; there were a lot of forces at work that day, and it would be an injustice to the evidence itself to say they were thrown about ONLY due  to compressed air columns from a building pan caking in its own footprint. Some may have been moved or displaced due to debris, boulder sized debris, air, no telling. It’s hard to look at every possibility because there really isn’t a body farm where they experiment on what happens when buildings collapse in their footprint. But I do not see evidence that suggests they were levitated or thrown about by magnetic force. That would be an assumption based solely on what has been experienced within a laboratory, not based on scientific study of the vehicles, and the metals, and whether there was magnetic changes in its polarity, structure, or ferrite tendencies.

We just may not ever  agree on that video that you’ve posted, because I know what I see, and you know what you see. However, when looking at evidence, YOU need to be specifically wary of HOW you interpret it, because you are close to the theory, and want it to be true, therefore you are far more likely to see within the evidence what you want to see and interpret. Just a polite admonition from an experienced investigator.And finally, I would suggest that just because Dr. Wood poses an interesting question, theory, or interesting point, it does not become evidence, it strictly defines what may be evident if the evidence presents itself.  But as I said, I’m still reading and watching.

There may be some truth in this.  It's an unfortunate consequence of having to deal with the kind of idiotic and pathetic behaviour seen all over this thread, as well as repeated intellectual dishonesty.  I'm sure you've seen some of it.

When you put all the evidence together, it is conclusive.

When you extract single pieces of evidence, then yes, you can use some of the single pieces of evidence to support alternative theories, which can be rejected when all of the evidence is taken into account.

Obviously you have to study the evidence properly, as opposed to pretending that it doesn't exist.  (I'm not referring to you here.)  There is a two-part lecture, for example, that really needs to be part of any serious attempt to understand Dr Wood's work:

9/11-The New Hiroshima-Pt 1 (Re-edit) - Dr Judy Wood, Madison, Aug 2007 (50mins)
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7892004186194307613#
9/11 - The New Hiroshima - Part 2 - Dr Judy Wood, Madison, Aug 2007 (Re-Edit) (1hr 33mins)
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=6714196008143117547#

There are many important points made and questions asked in this presentation.  If people choose to watch the videos and then simply ignore all of the points and questions, then they might as well not have watched it in the first place.

There are also various other presentations and interviews on Dr Wood's website.

There is other evidence which shows that it is not a simple case of normal fires e.g. vehicles that were badly burned in the same place that paper was not burned at all.

If you look at all of the examples of cars being "thrown about" and conclude that they were all lifted and moved by displaced air, then I would have to conclude that you are not being serious about your interpretation of the evidence.

9/11 happened 9 years ago.  There's nothing anybody can do about that.

No, that isn't true.  The steel can clearly be seen turning to dust.
I'm not going to argue with you over what happens in video footage.  If you disagree, you disagree.  But I can see steel being turned to dust, very clearly, and not just in that single video clip.

So long as people are dishonest about the evidence, the evidence will make no difference to them and their pre-existing beliefs.

And as long as there is an organised "truth movement" telling people how to think, there will always be people thinking in exactly that way, whether or not the evidence proves them wrong, and whether or not their own beliefs contradict themselves (Orwell's doublethink).

Anyone who is willing to study Dr Wood's work and analyse it objectively for themselves is free to do so, whatever the "truth movement" tells them to think.

[iks83]

I used to laugh about the no-planers until I saw the video of the plane going THROUGH the second tower. Now I'm just not sure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTLi4-fxaO0

The video footage seem faked. It does not mean that no planes were involved of course, but it does mean they were prepared to zoom in at the precise time the second plane came even if the smoke was hiding it and overlap the video of a plane and an explosion. Also, that live-footage only appeared once on television, they then cut the frames of the plane going through the building in all subsequent broadcasts of the video.

For the Illuminati it was quite a success, 10 years later and still justifying a century of public oppression, spying, fascism, economic destruction and war.

We all used to laugh about the no planers... and now we all laugh about you too. That video as proof for no planes has been debunked in this thread I guess several times. That stupid nose in nose out garbage again. You cant use footage from the internet for anything! Especially when its a very small dot of a plane behind smoke. If you know a bit about video codecs you know that small objects in an area of smoke, mist, etc will completely get swallowed up. Now if you look at the original footage meaning a uncompressed footage you should be able to see a plane approaching. They saw it too... thats why they zoomed in. And the nose out... its debris... the plane enters the tower, gets shredded up and pushes all the stuff it encounters with it until it comes out of the other side. If the plane would have been out of water it would looked the same.

[Xill]

We all used to laugh about the no planers... and now we all laugh about you too. That video as proof for no planes has been debunked in this thread I guess several times. That stupid nose in nose out garbage again. You cant use footage from the internet for anything! Especially when its a very small dot of a plane behind smoke. If you know a bit about video codecs you know that small objects in an area of smoke, mist, etc will completely get swallowed up. Now if you look at the original footage meaning a uncompressed footage you should be able to see a plane approaching. They saw it too... thats why they zoomed in. And the nose out... its debris... the plane enters the tower, gets shredded up and pushes all the stuff it encounters with it until it comes out of the other side. If the plane would have been out of water it would looked the same.

I'm not a no planer and never said it proved anything. I never jump to conclusion when important key information is missing.

There is no existing HD footage of this. If there is please give me the link, it's not like my mind is closed to the idea the cameraman may have seen it - that is beside the main point anyway:

The nose out is certainly not debris. On this you are totally in the wrong. It is clearly the nose of the plane and those frames have been cut from subsequent broadcast, that is a fact.

Like I said numerous times, it does not make me a no-planer, I believe the planes were remote-controled. At that speed the nose could perhaps have gone through the building if placed properly.

None of that matter anymore, your country is already bankrupt and the American currency is dead, as written almost word for word in the G20 documents available on their website.

[matrixcutter]

I will say you may have a viable theory,

Let's nip this in the bud, it isn't my work.  It is the work of Dr Wood, using the work of  John Hutchison (as in the Hutchison Effect) to confirm the relevant observations.  And Andrew Johnson has supported her work and written various explanatory articles and has been interviewed several times, including with Dr Wood.

And it isn't really a theory, it's just a case of observing the data, thoroughly.

however each segment of evidence should be stand alone,  on it's own merit. If you start cherry picking parts of the overall picture in order to tell your story of the evidence, then you aren't being true to the evidence. I can go into a scene where a husband lives with his wife, and where the wife has been killed. I can then start cherry picking the evidence to  show that at some point he was in the room, therefore he must have been the murderer, but is that true to the evidence? So when I look at a single piece of evidence, I expect it to tell me a story, and yes, at some point, it needs to coincide and corroborate the rest of the evidence. But it needs to tell me an initial story.

I'm not willing to play these games.  You suggested that some of the evidence might support alternative theories, and I'm saying that it might do, but only if you ignore the rest of the evidence, which disproves those other theories (at least the ones that I already know about).  It isn't any more complicated than that, and it doesn't need to be twisted with irrelevant hypothetical scenarios.

Basically, in your example, if there was evidence which proves the husband's innocence then this proves wrong the theory that he murdered his wife, no matter how many pieces of evidence there originally were supporting the theory that he was guilty, or who put them there, or how, or when.

I don't know how you would incorporate the geo-political significance of 9/11 and the slick propaganda machines of the mainstream and alternative medias into your analogy.

Back to the burned vehicles with paper nearby as our example.  A rule of evidence, as I've pointed out recently, is that it is controlled in a chain of custody, and that it is not tainted by an outside source. However, in this instance, paper is the mysterious culprit that may have tainted your evidence. There was paper drifting about for weeks at that site, so the existence of paper at the scene does not necessarily mean there was paper there at the time of the fire, even though there very well may have been, and most certainly was, and it was already burned by the time the burned hulk of a vehicle was photographed. So already, that part of the evidence is questionable because there is no way at all to qualify that that paper was present at the time the vehicle burned,

I don't know which pictures you are talking about.  It would help if you could post specific pictures that you have a problem with on this thread, explain what you believe them to show, and explore whether or not that is different from what Dr Wood's evidence shows.

There are also pictures of cars for example which look badly burned at one end yet they are completely unaffected at the other end.

As far as the car being tossed about; there were a lot of forces at work that day, and it would be an injustice to the evidence itself to say they were thrown about ONLY due  to compressed air columns from a building pan caking in its own footprint.

Yes, that would be ridiculous even if it were true that buildings pancaked into their own footprints, which they did not.

Some may have been moved or displaced due to debris, boulder sized debris, air, no telling. It’s hard to look at every possibility because there really isn’t a body farm where they experiment on what happens when buildings collapse in their footprint.

Can you explain the physics behind the idea of boulder-sized debris falling, and lifting nearby stationary cars into the air and moving them several feet in the process?

The most obvious reason that there was no pancake collapse was the lack of pancakes after the buildings went away, as opposed to collapsed.

But I do not see evidence that suggests they were levitated or thrown about by magnetic force.

Then you haven't finished looking through the evidence, as you have admitted.

That would be an assumption based solely on what has been experienced within a laboratory,

No it isn't, as you will know when (or if) you watch the videos I posted earlier:

9/11-The New Hiroshima-Pt 1 (Re-edit) - Dr Judy Wood, Madison, Aug 2007 (50mins)
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7892004186194307613#
9/11 - The New Hiroshima - Part 2 - Dr Judy Wood, Madison, Aug 2007 (Re-Edit) (1hr 33mins)
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=6714196008143117547#

not based on scientific study of the vehicles, and the metals, and whether there was magnetic changes in its polarity, structure, or ferrite tendencies.

Basically, you seem to going out of your way to find reasons to reject the pieces of evidence that you don't want to accept, for whatever reason.  Sometimes it makes sense and sometimes it doesn't, but then you haven't really studied it yet, so it's understandable.

We just may not ever  agree on that video that you’ve posted, because I know what I see, and you know what you see. However, when looking at evidence, YOU need to be specifically wary of HOW you interpret it, because you are close to the theory,

I'm not close to these observations in the way that it sounds like you are suggesting.  Either way thousands of people died and hundreds of thousands of more died because of the lies that were told about 9/11.  And even people who understand all that are still being suckered by the next layer of lies, which has been implemented with an admirable level of organisation and expertise.

and want it to be true,

It is true, whether I want it to be true or not.  These red herrings don't help anyone.

therefore you are far more likely to see within the evidence what you want to see and interpret.

Does this also apply to everyone else too, or just me?

Just a polite admonition from an experienced investigator.

Well thanks, but my feelings are not getting in the way.  I know what evidence I have actually bothered to study, and if people want to reject all of it without studying it themselves then that's just what they'll do.  I'm only really interested in communicating with people who are willing to study the evidence properly, and objectively, as opposed to continually being dishonest and even pretending that it isn't even there.

And finally, I would suggest that just because Dr. Wood poses an interesting question, theory, or interesting point, it does not become evidence, it strictly defines what may be evident if the evidence presents itself.

The important points I was referring to are points about the evidence, and the questions are generally the obvious questions raised by these different pieces of evidence.

But as I said, I’m still reading and watching.

Indeed.

[attietewd]

Mysterious Ball Object Seen Flying Over WTC on 9/11 Part 1 - New Uncovered Footage

part one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShbY0Oa-6v8

part two:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiwBo7gz2C0

Very interesting.  I had noticed this ball before and wondered why no one professionally spoke on it sooner.

[attietewd]

How come everytime someone posts new info, or different info that doesn't exactly fit with the MSM intitial footage of "planes" flying into buildings it gets put in the disinfo thread?  Since when has the main stream media been so keen on getting the truth out?  If the main stream media says "planes, absolutely planes" then I start wondering whats the real truth?

[mr anderson]

How come everytime someone posts new info, or different info that doesn't exactly fit with the MSM intitial footage of "planes" flying into buildings it gets put in the disinfo thread?  Since when has the main stream media been so keen on getting the truth out?  If the main stream media says "planes, absolutely planes" then I start wondering whats the real truth?

Simply because there are eye-witnesses, hundreds in New York that heard, saw and felt two planes hit the trade towers.

The No Planes B/S is just a joke and even the debunkers I feel don't go down that avenue, it's never been a serious avenue of contention on either side for or against the official story.

When delusional cointelpro provocateurs like NicoHaupt and PaulaGloria says "Planes, no planes?!!!!" and dress up in lizard outfits, then I start wondering what's the real truth (& they are not it, they are meant to cause division & disinformation. They get paid very well  ).

[iks83]

Hah hilarious! That guy has a science background and worked on nuclear plants and what not but still so stupid to fall for the september clues crap. He has no idea of camera angles, lenses, video compression and so on. And the debunkers never bothered much with that garbage is because its so obvious that noone wants to waste time with it.

[Wormsaregood]

Hello,


I'm writing because I find myself very troubled by the "Screw 9/11 Mysteries" and "Screw Loose Change" videos.  I have watched multiple 9/11 documentaries, including those produced by Alex Jones.  I've reviewed many of the materials contained in these videos, most specifically 9/11 Revisited (which in my opinion is the best, because it requires no narration, just interpretation)  and I've seen the usual back and forth between truthers and those people who call them "conspiracy nutjobs."

However, after going halfway through 9/11 Mysteries and then changing computers, I ran the "9/11 Mysteries" search into google videos to continue my browsing and to my surprise I ran across "Screw 9/11 Mysteries"  I didn't watch it in its entirety but I did go through quite a few parts to see his commentary on some of the events.  Some of the things he says are obviously narrow minded and require distrust in your average citizen/witness.  For instance:  If a witness says they heard an explosion, it makes sense to take the witness at their word, considering we were not there.  Obviously they COULD be using the word "explosion" to mean something other than "bomb" and people do use the word explosion to mean "loud noises", however this does not automatically disprove anything and the author admits that.  Therefore, pointing this out was a childish attempt by the author to discredit a witness based upon conjecture and put a certain idea in the viewers minds.  However, he does have some points that I actually can't be sure about.

What worries me is that...he has succeeded in watering the seeds of doubt within my own mind, which is precisely what he was trying to accomplish.  What worries me more is that the only response by 9/11 Mysteries to the video rebuttal is this

"We have been repeatedly asked if we intend to rebut the recent production entitled "Screw 911 Mysteries - Clunkety-Clunk Edition."  This is our response:  A Major Republican who donated $100,000 to George W. Bush recently tried our suggestion.  In his hotel room, using a stopwatch, he said "clunkety-clunk" 110 times.  It took him over three minutes.  Ten seconds vs. three minutes.  You decide.

(To [loosely] quote the filmmaker on the 12-2-06 Kevin Barrett show: "The buildings came down in 10 seconds.  A pancake collapse would have been 110 floors falling one by one, all the way down.  Clunkety-clunk.  Try saying the words.  "Clunkety-clunk" 110 times.  You couldn't even say that in 10 seconds.")"

I'm sure most of you have seen this before.  I'm not entirely sure what this is about, so if someone could explain it to me I would greatly appreciate it.

At any rate, do the authors of the movie believe that the claims made by "Screw 9/11 Mysteries" destroy themselves?  Has anyone even attempted to write a rebuttal to the rebuttal?

I honestly don't enjoy the feeling of new doubt creeping into my mind, but part of being an informed citizen and not a "sheep" involves me being open to the idea that my feelings may have been wrong. 

I would GREATLY appreciate any and all resources, opinions, or anything else I could use to squash these doubts rolling around in my head.


Thank you for reading.

[Scootle]

911 mysteries and loose change second edition are quite old and many of the arguments are old claims which have been 'debunked'. The final cut and American Coup do not have an SLC equivalent because they are undebunkable.

If you are concerned by the debunkers... go here...

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com

That site, which I contribute to, will cure you lol.

And this post will expose how full of shit they are with regards to the nanothermite...

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/04/thermite-denial-year-in-review.html

[Wormsaregood]

Great! thanks. I'll check these out!

Any idea how up to date the information is in "9/11: In Plane Sight"?

[Scootle]

The 9/11 debunkers are so full of shit it's not even funny. They make fun of us for comparing the WTC fires to other skyscraper fires which didn't result in a collapse by arguing that those buldings were structurally different from the WTC so no comparison can be made. Meanwhile they cite some badly constructed toy factory or some small university building as examples of buildings that collapsed due to fire.

So 30 to 60 story steel framed skyscrapers = bad comparison, small toy factory = good comparison! - makes perfect sense.

[Wormsaregood]

I'm not sure why my post is here ;(  Do the mods think i'm a disinfo agent or something? lol.  I appreciate the answers Scootle.

As for the mods, I'm not saying I didn't still believe in what I saw, merely that when I do get challenged, it irks me until I can come up with a reasonable response. If I CANT find one, I start to worry.

[Scootle]

it might be coz u mentioned in plane site.

[Wormsaregood]

Oh... haha.  I hadn't watched it.  I was actually just going through the list in the video section with all of the massive amounts of downloads and going through them one by one and watching em. x_x  Had no idea that there would be disinfo movies there waiting for me..  In Plane Sight...off the list. haha

[Wormsaregood]

Hey everyone,


Another question from me today ;p.


I heard that James Fetzer and Steven Jones parted ways due to Fetzer's acceptance of some rather controversial methods for the WTC destruction. 

How does the community here at large feel about either of these two men?  I'm ASSUMING that we've "sided" with Jones over Fetzer, but I have no real idea.  Perhaps we accept them both.

Anyone have any input? thanks

[themadness]

Dimitri A. Khalezov  supplies the idea that wtc demolition was an underground nuke. i just heard of this today and he makes some good points. can someone else who has heard about this elaborate a little more. here is a vid of an interview, his english struggles a bit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSV6k7VZu-k&feature=related

sorry if this is old news, but its new to me and the Prison Planet Forum search didnt bring anything up about khalezov

[Finchie]

This has been debunked by Prof. Steven Jones. See

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters.html
 or the direct link
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf

[citizenx]

Don't even know who Fetzer was or what the dispute is.  Can you fill us in?  Yeah, so far, Jones is the man, IMO.

[Hawkwind]

i still think that dust not only had asbestos in it but also nuclear fallout from the tac nukes placed in the basement

[EvadingGrid]

i still think that dust not only had asbestos in it but also nuclear fallout from the tac nukes placed in the basement

ROFL

[iks83]

HAH... ROFL indeed. Yeah nuclear fallout yeah right... since we all know how high the radiation was back then from all the mininukes.

[larsonstdoc]

  900 Responders have died--there had to be a series of mini nukes in the towers--radiation kills.  Is there any data on cause of death--cancer, etc.?

[Dig]

please do not hijack threads into mininuke cointelpro BS crapola.

if your ineffable insatiation to promote Judge Judy's claims overwhelmes you, post it here.

thanks

[citizenx]

Judge Judy?

But I agree, "No nukes."

Asbestos kills, too, right.  How much might have been in those towers?  And how much other toxic crap in the smoke from the fires?

And if the PTB were willing to sacrifice 3,000 people that day to further their aims, what's another 900 first-responders, if they felt they needed to hush them up?

911 wasn't cheap, I'm sure.

Silverstein had to be paid, for one.  The people who paid him knew what a ripoff it was.

[Wormsaregood]

Don't even know who Fetzer was or what the dispute is.  Can you fill us in?  Yeah, so far, Jones is the man, IMO.

Fetzer I guess was one of the co-creators of Engineers for 9/11 truth or something like that, then they got into an argument and split up

[citizenx]

But over what?  That's what I don't get?  Not sure what the controversy is supposed to be.  Mildly curious as to what these engineers would be arguing about though.

[Letsbereal]

Thierry Meyssan is not credible at all. He claimed Mike Walter witnessed a missile hitting the pentagon. No, Mike Walter witnessed an airliner hitting the pentagon and used the missile as a metaphor. See the unedited clip here...
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1jqaz_pentagon-eyewitness-mike-walter_news

Many people watched an airliner crash into the pentagon. The gov article is mostley correct....except the part highlighted in red. See how they throw all the BS in with something true? They want us saying a missile hit, or the plane flew over and "fooled everyone"   or any other BS that can be debunked and then shown that 9-11 truthers are "tin foil hat conspiracy theorists that can't get anything right, so why believe them?"

That's just another example of how the no plane at the pentagon hoax is used. Planes flew into buildings on 9-11, don't fall for the no plane hoaxes.

Some people who actually witnessed some sort of aircraft flying into the pentagon talk about a very small plane and one witness thought he saw some sort of Business Jet.

If you look at this Boeing Cruise Missile pictures (below) it's easy to understand why somebody who never saw this kind of Cruise Missile before could easily mistaken this for some business jet.

Cruise Missiles were almost from the beginning designed to fly at very low altitudes to avoid enemy radar contact.

This explains why this Missile could be flown so acurately trough a window in the Pentagon without even a scratch on the lawn right in front of the impact zone of the Pentagon.

9/11 Shanksville Eyewitness Susan McElwain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gliHOhXYFQ

[citizenx]

'Fore!

[iks83]

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/Prison Planet Foruminal.html

Sadly the larger versions of the pictures are offline. But thats quite alot of aluminum for a cruise missle. Also I didnt know cruise missles carried luggage.

And looky looky here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nBaU0vwP-o

Totally awesomeness. I could watch that all day. I can see how it must be absolutely impossible for a plane to fly fast and low enough to crash into the pentagon without touching the ground first especially when remotely controlled and guided by an advanced system.

[Tsul777]

From what I've gathered after hearing or watching just about everything to do with the pentagon incident, my theory is thus:

Yes a plane did hit that building on 911 but it wasn't a passenger jet. It was one of these:


0800 - Jan. 15, 2010

A REPORT FROM MIKE GLENN ON THE GROUND AT EDWARDS
 
I got a call Monday from Ron Woltman, the Raytheon pilot who is coordinating the A3's.  He received an email from Ken Ballard at NAVAIR telling him to give the "Edwards Project" any parts and tools they need.  As far as Ron is concerned, this is sufficient to go forward with us picking up the parts.  Caution is still that all parts have to be carefully accounted for including any replaced on the airframe, and we have agreed to that.

He also advised that they were doing the final prep for cutting up 144841 at Mojave, Raytheon had guys there defueling and removing selected parts, but everything else on the airplane is fair game for us.

http://a3skywarrior.com/index.php?nid=100111&s=ms&grpid=6055&grpDetails=true


http://a3skywarrior.com/index.php?nid=101206&s=rs


Now why would Raytheon be so interested in this good guy restoration project they got going on here?

http://www.air-and-space.com/skywarrior.htm
They're are many variants of this aircraft and as you can see by this Raytheon product, might be mistaken for a passenger jet at high speed if you only caught a glimpse.
These have been around since the sixties and I imagine could be remotely controlled. They've had lots of time to fuck with them.
This particular one was built for Hughes Aircraft by Raytheon. Now what psyop was that used for?

My guess (and that's all anyone's is except the bastards behind it) is that we will probably never know until footage is released of that crazy, cooked up day. The world won't believe any single theory until they see it on TV unfortunately. We here are all guilty of the same but that's OK. It just makes us dig deeper and try to find that nugget that keeps us coming back. Thank you Prison Planet Forum for giving me so many new ideas and possibilities!!
Well, I've said my piece so let the debunking fly!

[citizenx]

I forgot how much I missed this thread  -- no fooling.

Iks, it doesn't matter how experienced the pilots or computers are at that altitude.  Suction alone at that height would drive the plane rigt into the ground before hitting the building according to the aviation experts.  It is an engineering problem -- not a mere problem of steering/controlling the plane -- if it indeed was a jetliner.

Again everything points here to a missile or another kind of plane.

Tsul at least is offering one plausible possibility IMO.

The impact also doesn't seem to correspond to a jetliner in terms of overall area or point of impact.

I'm still willing to look a the eveidence on the other side, and I do see some problems both ways, but I'm still on the fence at best about this one:  the jetliner at the Pentagon.

[Tsul777]

I forgot how much I missed this thread  -- no fooling.

Iks, it doesn't matter how experienced the pilots or computers are at that altitude.  Suction alone at that height would drive the plane rigt into the ground before hitting the building according to the aviation experts.  It is an engineering problem -- not a mere problem of steering/controlling the plane -- if it indeed was a jetliner.

Again everything points here to a missile or another kind of plane.

Tsul at least is offering one plausible possibility IMO.

The impact also doesn't seem to correspond to a jetliner in terms of overall area or point of impact.

I'm still willing to look a the eveidence on the other side, and I do see some problems both ways, but I'm still on the fence at best about this one:  the jetliner at the Pentagon.

Thank you for that CX. I'm actually sittin' on the fence about the whole darn thing myself but the more possibilities we offer, we get even more information back in the long run. Webs on webs man! Somehow, some way, all this will bite Rummy's butt one day. Not to mention a few other undesirables.

[iks83]

Iks, it doesn't matter how experienced the pilots or computers are at that altitude.  Suction alone at that height would drive the plane right into the ground before hitting the building according to the aviation experts.  It is an engineering problem -- not a mere problem of steering/controlling the plane -- if it indeed was a jetliner.

Again everything points here to a missile or another kind of plane.

What do you mean? LOOK HERE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nBaU0vwP-o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nBaU0vwP-o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nBaU0vwP-o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nBaU0vwP-o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nBaU0vwP-o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nBaU0vwP-o

DO YOU SEE ANY SUCTION THERE?!?!! whatever suction is. I don't care what those damn aviation "experts" are saying just as I don't care what the "experts" from Popular Mechanics are saying. You have a huge plane flying at high speed at very low altitude... see the plane in the video? See the high speed? See the low altitude? I don't see how a building in its fly path suddenly activates suction. And at mass at that speed the lamp posts wont change anything either. Also if you account for the lens at that checkpoint from where the explosion was filmed, whatever has been there it fits to a large passanger plane and not some small plane or a missile.

[citizenx]

It's not the building, it's the ground.  And you can't tell the speed of the plane flying from the video.  That makes a huge difference.  This is hardly irrefutable scientific evidence.

The suction is basically caused by Bernoulli's principle, the action of the wing to force air to go around the wing in such a way as to create lift.  This causes suction under the wing -- not normally a problem unless it is travelling very fast as the plane was supposed to have traveled and very close to the ground (below the level of the lampposts ostensibly) for some distance.

And no, iks, it is not Pop Sci saying this -- they still believe in the 19 Arabs with boxcutters theory.

I looked at your evidence, I'll lay out some for you, but others have done so rather amply previously in the thread IMO.

[jimd3100]

All planes land. In order to land the plane must descend. The plane at the pentagon was still descending when it went into the first floor of the pentagon. In other words it landed into the first floor of the pentagon. All planes land. Even big planes. Plane parts were recovered. The plane parts were from a passenger jet. Luggage was recovered along with dead bodies. There are lots of witnesses, and lots of plane parts recovered. It all adds up to a passenger jet. What a coincidence. There is a missing passenger jet. I wonder what happened to it? Perhaps it crashed into the pentagon?

What is the insistence on ignoring all this? What is the reason?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmMBS9xoctQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HBjxYrhI4E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PTRsuRao7A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIJSXow0p0U
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/news/watch/v20425720n8rxQhzj

http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-photos.html

Despite the destructive fire that raged inside the impact area on 9/11, pieces of debris were visible on 9/13 and 9/14, and were photographed by recovery workers. These photos clearly show pieces of landing gears, a large turbofan engine, and fuselage. The evidence inside the building is consistent with the evidence of plane wreckage outside -- indicating that a commercial airliner flew into the Pentagon on September 11th.
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

Where is the luggage and passengers? When you go on a family vacation, you might strap luggage to the roof of your car. When you fly on a plane they don't strap luggage on the roof of the plane, or on the wings. They put it in the cargo hold. The cargo hold is in the plane. If the plane went into the building it would be in the building. Perhaps someone should talk to the rescue workers who went into the pentagon and cleaned up the mess. Perhaps someone did. They name the names and give their story in this book. It is a book "truthers" wont read because allot of "truthers" are more interested in their "conspiracy theories" than the truth. Can you think of a reason why truthers are called "conspiracy theorists"? I just gave the reason.


http://www.amazon.com/Firefight-Inside-Battle-Save-Pentagon/dp/0891419055

[verita5]

Truth and the Twin Towers - Both Bite the Dust
By Cathy Garger
Axis of Logic exclusive
Tuesday, Sep 14, 2010

Dedicated to the angels with beautiful hearts and clipped wings, the emergency responders who toiled for days, giving their very lives - quite literally - often suffering debilitating diseases and disorders, dying slow and painful deaths for doing nothing more than trying to save the lives of 3,000... lives that had, for the most part, already been vaporized into fine dust.

The Beginning of Enlightenment

Unless you're a reptile or psychopath totally devoid of conscience, I'll bet anything that September 11 is an anniversary you're unlikely to ever forget. Much like a soldier with PTSD, horrible images and gut-wrenching visuals come flooding back. And on these anniversaries, endless, horrendous freeze-frame pictures and video scenes playing flash back movies of real life horror scenes incessantly bombard our minds.

The single most horrific event imaginable took place nine years ago today and the nightmare was repeated so many times that, in our deepest recesses of brain functioning, the tragic memories will never leave us. These very images from the Big Apple were used to perpetuate wars without end in endless carnage and death-by-internal radiation poisoning upon entire populations - invasions, occupations, and genocide... waged against fabricated "terrorist", "radical" or "insurgent" enemy groups wherever natural resources - goodies-to-be-coveted by barbarians hiding between the red, white, and blue - have been found.

Like soldiers who witness gut-wrenching horrors in battle, we, too, can count on being shell-shocked for the rest of our lives. By watching in full color the horrid beginning of a never-ending war on humanity, all of us who were 5 and older that particular September 11 are likely to be traumatized forever.

And if you're a bright person with a sharp, questioning mind, today you will watch with gut-wrenching disgust the news stations repeating the vile lies about cold-hearted Muslims who hate our freedoms. Thus, after nine years, no doubt you are sick and tired of the governments' lies... falsehoods repeated and reinforced regularly to cement the lies in our deepest level of consciousness.

And the controllers have mighty good help with this, as the media works hand in glove with those in power to ensure America never discovers what really happened.

For longer than I care to share, I was one of those trusting lemmings. But eventually, after smelling something foul in the "official" rendition of the events of September 11, I began researching that day in earnest. After watching Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, I became a LIHOP (Let it Happen On Purpose) disciple, and then, upon further study, moved to the far more disturbing MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose) with an even darker, macabre sense of reality beginning to set in. 

Soon thereafter, I became a member of the new Scholars for 9-11 Truth group. I did so hoping to work alongside others seeking to discover THE truth, THE definitive answer as to what exactly had pulverized two 110-story skyscrapers into little more than powdery dust. In an effort to absorb wisdom from so-called "experts," I followed every word out of the mouths of these degreed individuals. And, as I did not discover till much later, most of these scholarly "experts" just so happened to be "retired" federal employees.

Fascinating, isn't it, how these so-called 9-11 "experts" possess backgrounds in Army/Marine Intelligence, a weapons laboratory associated with the Department of [Advanced Fusion] Energy, Air Force space weapons, [directed energy weapons] plus a plasma and space engineering scientist [advanced energy technology] brought in later. These pillars of the 9-11 "Truth" community also included professors, an aged movie actor, and more than one "Man of God" as poster boys for Scientific Truth. Apparently, if you plan on creating a Movement designed to hide the weapon? It only makes sense to hire career men in these areas - all the better to sprinkle magic thermite dust all over the place to cover up the actual evidence.

Mind you, I did not recognize any of this initially as I'd never before even heard of the term "controlled opposition".

Over a couple of years, however, certain things became obvious to those of us beginning to sniff the explosive stench of "super-thermite". In essence, numbers of the curious and outraged grew, as an ever larger, more aware populace sought both answers and justice for the deaths of not just 3,000 in New York City, but rather, millions of innocents... including the deaths of Afghans and later, Iraqis, killed in the post-September 11 fabricated "War On Terror" via radioactive poison gas dispersed with gusto via NATO and US Uranium weapons.

So What's All This About Controlled Opposition?

Like other growing citizen movements from the 1960s to the present day, after a few years those running the show apparently deemed the ever-growing numbers of 9-11 truth and justice-seekers in need of some "management." The resulting operation, labeled the "9-11 Truth Movement", sprung up initially out of big cities like New York, spreading eventually to large metropolitan areas throughout the US and beyond.

Official 9-11 Truth meeting content, discussions, films, speaking events and actions were pretty much cut from a cookie cutter mold from city to city: Let's get a petition to the NY Attorney General's office demanding a real investigation. Let's wear our black t-shirts and stand at strategic street corners holding pre-printed 9-11 Truth signs. Let's stage a 9-11 March. Let's talk about put options and Larry Silverstein telling the firefighters to "pull" Building 7 (i.e. controlled demolition). Let's table wherever crowds are gathered, passing out materials and selling our sanctioned books, CDs, and bumper stickers. Let's discuss ad nauseum how 19 freedom-hating Arabs on suicide missions from Allah couldn't fly small Cessna planes [never mind Boeing passenger jets] and how a certain janitor reportedly heard explosions in the North tower.

Although the 9-11 Truth Movement shtick was changed a bit here and there to reflect occasional new developments, the bottom line was always that the [doctored] “Truth” Americans would hear would be uniform throughout the nation. And at "Truth" events from Vermont to Vancouver, you would always be greeted with a cordial handshake from a bright, articulate individual wearing a black t-shirt and a smile, eager to guide you into Official 9-11 Truth-dom.

And although I'm embarrassed to admit it now, like many 9-11 activists and researchers years ago? I, too, was once sucked right into the teachings of the "Truth Movement" operation without as much as a clue.

The Operation's Structure Becomes More Evident

It takes some time, but when one is paying enough attention, it eventually becomes obvious the "Truth Movement" is managed from the top, with a nationally organized central "Headquarters". Yes, a southern organizer one time "slipped" and used that word in referring to her 9-11 Truth organizational contact to whom she reported. Thus, the kind of headquarters we're talking about is not one you could visit, but rather... some sort of Spook Central with armed MPs out front.

No doubt, Truth Headquarters has a knack for selecting outgoing and inordinately bright and professional representatives and training them how to "guide" the 9-11 Outraged. With a slick, focused website and contact information for locations throughout the US, it's not hard to see this is a well-organized deal. After talking to several such contacts in different cities, the pattern became crystal clear. Eerily, regardless of which city, these black shirts chant the same mantras, deliver the same explanations, quote the same saviors, and posit the standard WTC destruction theory without a moment's hesitation. Why, from coast to coast, these contacts even send you the very same films, burned on homemade CDs, sometimes with stickers or a book if you're lucky - mailed to you - for free!

Great way to capture the Truth seekers' names and addresses, eh? Sure glad my tax monies go to fund such a worthy educational cause.

In fact, the more one meets these black-shirted organizers and authors of books filled with 9-11 lies, deception, and mis-direction, it becomes beyond obvious these minders of the Empire have a clear and specific agenda. In fact, once during a newly forming 9-11 Truth meeting, Webster Tarpley was talking to us on the speaker phone in the midst of Israel bombing the hell out of Lebanon. I later found it fascinating, at a 9-11 Truth event featuring a presentation by Tarpley centered around the fact that Cheney masterminded 9-11, (not dummy Dubya) that Tarpley's wife and the wife of the local Truth organizer were both sitting together, all close and chummy.

Lesson Number One: when your gut feels uneasy? Pay attention.

These 9-11 Truth conversations were nothing if not predictable. Without exception, no organizer would ever (as in never) venture to share other, alternative, thermite-free theories. One time, a group leader became more than a bit distressed when I kept trying to chat about other plausible (i.e., non-thermite) ideas. I can still recall the pained expression on his face when he tried his best to be patient and diplomatically agree with one of my points: "Yes, all that talk about missiles at the World Trade Center is a really interesting theory, sure, and I tend to personally believe it might be true. But..." (and then he moved towards me, and whispered, as if about to share some top secret insider knowledge) "if we talk about these things, we will lose credibility and hurt The Movement. So let's just try at first to stick to safe things - things people will understand."

I wish I had a dollar for every Truth agent who admonished us not to “hurt the Movement”. This slippery agent out of Miami brought condescension to a whole new level of low by implying that preserving “the Movement” is more important than discovering exactly what went down. Thoughts of Jack Nicholson in the courtroom sprang to mind as he bellowed at Tom Cruise: "You can't handle the truth!"

Preserving the single, unified "Movement" was THE primary mission with which they'd been tasked. Actual Truth, the honest discovery of what obliterated the twin towers as the goal, you say? Ha! In fact, the real goal of this professional op is Preservation-at-all-costs of the single-bullet (or, rather) single-thermite theory.

Behind the cordial facade at the Truth meetings and "expert" speakers' presentations? These guys (and gals) are downright brutal. In fact, those who refuse to tow the line and regurgitate the dogma of the Official 9-11 Truth "Movement" are publicly trashed and subject to a steady onslaught of character assassinations that follow one around the various yahoo groups, forums, and blogs. Posts authored by anyone daring to challenge the "Official 9-11 Truth" Gospel-According-to-Los Alamos are banned from blogs and ridiculed publicly, like public floggings in village squares centuries ago.

Unfortunately for the free-thinking, anyone who dares challenge the Darlings of the "Truth Movement" are routinely slammed, ridiculed, or labeled in some manner of lunatic-ization. Whether called a whack-o, traitor, or dis- or mis-information agent, the message is clear. If one holds a theory or provides evidence other than the doctrine of the "controlled demolition" operation, he or she is marginalized by more than a few goons... whose job duties are limited to slam dunking anyone who dares not keep sacrosanct the doctrines of the Almighty God and Savior of Thermite.

The Tidy Movement Begins to Unravel

Eventually, when bright minds started researching and publishing things that did not quite "fit" with the Official 9/11 Truth Movement's rendition of Truth, major drama ensued as the Scholars group was sharply divided into those who believe in Thermite and those who entertained other ideas. Those with other ideas were never mentioned on the national "Headquarters" organization website, for Thermite-only was their gospel.

But it wasn't until September 11, 2006 that bells and whistles started going off for me. For it was on that day I met Dr. Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds at a 9-11 "Truth" event in Washington, DC, along with “patriot” Colonel Robert Bowman (Ronald Reagan's Space Wars directed energy weapons guy). I introduced myself to Reynolds and Wood, but not without caution. I had read all over the Internet they were "dis-info" agents, so I approached them with reservation, curious to find out for myself why they had resigned from Scholars. After hearing how their research has been undermined, however, what I had been absorbing as Gospel Truth all suddenly started collapsing in rapid free-fall style.

After the meeting, I learned more in a few months than I had in years spent following the coat tails of the positioned "controlled demolition" experts. After examining more WTC pictures and those of controlled demolitions of other buildings, one thing became clear as the blue skies that September, 2001 morning: New York's majestic skyscrapers clearly did not merely explode a la controlled demolition, but rather, were somehow otherwise pulverized into a voluminous quantity of fine dust powder... quite unlike any known conventional demolition event that preceded it.

It soon became apparent that whoever was being attacked most "energetically" for the crime of possessing views other than 9-11 "group think" were the very researchers worth listening to.

Those who started speaking out about the "other ideas" camp and refused to swallow the thermite pill were courted for various purposes. Yet this time, it was easy to see how free thinkers were being set up to go on radio shows, initially glorified, only to be slammed later in the interview. Eventually, there was no denying this pattern. By comparison, those in the controlled demolition camp were afforded a slick PR machine, complete with frequent speaking opportunities, and TV, radio, films, and print media limelight.

The alternative researchers with "other ideas", however, remained in obscurity with no posse, no PR machine, and no funding.

Yet despite the relative anonymity of the independent researchers who have not yet exactly been catapulted into awareness of the general population? Rest assured... they, too, will one day have their day. All throughout history brilliant - albeit solitary - souls who dared hear the beat of a different drum were, at the time, made out to be as unstable, their theories or works declared inferior or unsound. Sadly, these researchers have been ridiculed mercilessly for their crime of thinking outside the box and challenging the Official 9/11 Truth Movement's approved theories. Now, as we all know, it is typically these very same free-thinkers, ostracized during their time, who were - and still are - centuries later seen as the true geniuses they actually are.

Let's not forget Vincent Van Gogh, the world renown artist, whose work was not valued nor appreciated in his day and sold only one of his paintings in his lifetime.

Coming to Grips

Getting to this place of waking up and smelling the stench of controlled opposition was not easy. It is difficult when we not only have to face head on the horrors of the perpetrators, but, too, the deceit of many in the opposition groups who posed as friends. Developing bonds with these characters can be painful when the truth behind their real mission eventually comes out. There are indeed a few such charlatans I let into my world, only to learn afterwards their concern about me was anything but benign.

Luckily, my antennae that tracks phonies finally sounded when two such "pals" were reluctant to share details about their families and lives, as friends typically do. And when one of them actually asked me outright for a written list of all my projects (so he could "get to know me better") my inner alarm started to sound. These betrayals were perhaps even more difficult to bear than learning that the POTUS and his shadowy backers had carried out the whole deal in order to manufacture justification ad garner support from Americans for the illegal invasion, destruction, radioactive poisoning, and theft of resources - and poppy income in the Middle East.

Admittedly, this inner work is not easy. Discovery of such horror is likely to put even the most chipper spirits in a mighty dark state of funk. And what was nearly impossible to come to terms with was trying to figure out what kind of monsters would commit the mass murder of thousands of their very own? And then I remembered my college courses in psychopathology.

What suckers we were to believe the lies of supposed "Truth!" Eventually we came to realize those with lofty careers in Intel do not leave their line of work only to retire as "whistle blowers" and "patriots"... exactly the same way that that advanced energy weapon scientists do not pursue such careers merely to spend the rest of their days pushing explosives and controlled demolition, such as the kind of "Truth" Dubya told us about the "operatives" who planted explosives in the towers.

I swear I'm not making this up. On September 15, 2006, President George W. Bush, in the Rose Garden at the White House told reporters at a press conference:

"For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."

So as we can see, Americans generally have no clue that not only do those in power lie, but so, too, do those who pretend to rally against the liars in power. These charlatans who hide behind choirboy images and "patriot" personas are specially trained how to speak with forked tongue... taught to keep the actual truth at bay and bring to their knees anyone who dares think for herself.

Eventually it becomes quite apparent that those who, er, "used to" work in high places for the feds were the ones with one agenda and one agenda alone: they would explain their theories, attempt to fit some science around them, declare the single, definitive method used to fell the towers - and Voila! Mission Accomplished! But this was not being done solely by the usual "Movement" characters alone. Over time, others chimed in to tell us Yes! It was Generation IV nukes! Or, look the other way - It was definitively, positively the instrument played by angels up in Alaska!

Professional Truthers like to neatly wrap things up for us. Once a weapon is named, then we can all go back to sleep.

This Weapon? That Explosive? What the Hell Difference Does It Make?

If you say you know which precise weapon was used, you'd better have more than a theory and be able to provide some evidence, some proof of concept.

The difference with one independent researcher who split from our scholarly group, Dr. Judy Wood, for example, was that she presented evidence - in photos and words - leading us to consider the possibility that directed energy weaponry was used at the WTC. Note that Dr. Wood never stated which type of weapon was used. From her work we also learn why other methods were implausible to explain the pulverized dust. In essence, Dr. Wood presented evidence for us to consider, and simply asked the reader to open his own eyes and decide what happened for himself.

In addition, there were many other things (other than pulverization of the towers) upon which Dr. Wood and another researcher, Andrew Johnson, began to report on. These include fascinating experiments conducted by John Hutchison which demonstrated some proof of Nikola Tesla's concepts, making a clear case for certain types of advanced energy phenomena discovered at Ground Zero.

Then, there's spectacular intrigue and mystery reported on Dr. Wood's website that's better than anything out of Hollywood. It involves the not so little matter of a fusion scientist's murder - a fellow who dared dispute the Los Alamos Weapons Lab-trained head Truth Movement's fusion scientist's work. And then, too, is another murder - this one of a grad student who just so happened to have worked as Dr. Judy Wood's assistant in an experiment designed to debunk work of the Truth Movement's fusion scientist regarding the glowing of aluminum. Even more intriguing? This now dead student was the nephew of the fellow who replaced the murdered scientist as Editor of an advanced energy magazine.

Sometimes what goes along with manufactured “Truth” is anything but pretty.

Fascinating research has also been brought to us courtesy of Dr. Wood involving Hurricane Erin. Traveling up the Atlantic coast since September 1, 2001 and becoming closest to New York City's twin towers on September 11, 2001, Erin was tracked in an experiment conducted by NOAA (National Oceanic and Administrative Administration) and a NASA satellite "spacecraft"- outside the awareness of the American public.

Perhaps equally as fascinating? The Langley Research Center recorded Hurricane Erin taking a sharp turn away from the Big Apple, according to their experts at NASA's spy facility. Some may call this an amazing coincidence. Others may want to read about the various roles played by satellites. Hint: They can do more than track storms.

Someone please tell me this. Since when do the weather people ever fail to tell us when a hurricane is headed for the US coast? And when in the world have they ever failed to tell us when a hurricane is heading straight for the Big Apple, particularly since New York City is not exactly a place where hurricanes normally strike? And why is it that Dr. Judy Wood, an unpaid independent researcher, picked up on Erin - and the space experiment taking place that day in a satellite over the Atlantic off the NYC coast when no one on the morning TV news stations did?

All of these oddities, lies, and omissions surrounding the "Truth Movement" are indeed disturbing. And while some merely throw up their hands and say, "So what? Who cares if it was thermite - or nukes - or advanced energy weapons, for that matter? What difference does it make if we ever find out what method they used to obliterate the towers, as long as we know who done it?"

The answer, dear reader, is both simple and critical to understand. While explosives and mini-nukes have often been named as the smoking gun for the murder of not merely 3,000 but actually, the lives of millions in Afghanistan and Iraq... these methods can forever be conveniently attributed to "operatives" planting them in the towers. There are certain exotic weapons, however, that only those in power in one nation could have used while not alerting its own air defense. This precisely points the finger (and, most appropriately, our middle one) directly at one nation - and one nation alone.

The gig is now up and the perpetrators know it. They have proven already they will go to any means necessary... and by that, I do mean any means necessary to preserve the carefully orchestrated facade that individuals from other nations were responsible for the hits in the Big Apple.

Whatever you do, don't take my word for any of this. I did my homework and so you must, too. Review the resources below and decide for yourself. And if you’re disturbed by all this? Whatever you do, make some noise.

Could 9-11 be carried out again? To borrow a quote from one of the Movement's most beloved choirboys, "we've done it before and we will do it again if need be."

-----

Resources:

LIHOP and MIHOP courtesy of Nico Haupt

Reliable source of all things decent, honest, and true, President George W. Bush agrees with the Truth Movement that explosives were planted in the towers
http://merln.ndu.edu/archivepdf/terrorism/WH/20060915-2.pdf

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate?
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/why/why_indeed.html

Thermite Hypothesis - Consider the Science
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/scientific/JonesScientificMethod.html

Physical Effects and Pictures of Advanced Energy
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/

The works of Andrew Johnson, Alternative Researcher with "other [good] ideas"
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms

Timeline: Fusion trashing, independent researchers, the 9-11 Movement's Advanced Energy Choirboy, and 2 murders
www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=162&Itemid=60

Dr. Judy Wood's Grad Student Science Researcher Murdered
http://michaelzebuhr.blogspot.com/2006/09/case-of-michael-zebuhrs-murder-intro.html

Murder of Cold Fusion Scientist Who Stood Up to Dr. Steven Jones
murder http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/JJ7.html

Learn more about Disinformation - What is it? How's it used?
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/disinfo.html

Thinking About 9-11, the Truth, and the Official Movement
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_27305.shtml

Really strange things about the WTC - Evidence of Directed Energy Weapon use
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam1.html

Research of Dr. Judy Wood and Michael Zebuhr (murdered grad student) on Glowing Aluminum
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/Aluminum_Glows.html
and http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/glowing.html

Hurricane Erin - Closest to WTC on 9-11 - Surprise Surprise!
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/index.html
and http://goes.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/goes/010911.erin.towers.gif
and www.spaceweather.ac.cn/publication/jgrs/2003/Geophysical_Research_Letters/2002GL016741.pdf

How to Spot a 9-11 Spook
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/a/CG/spot_a_spook.html
-----

Cathy Garger is a freelance writer, organizer, and speaker who works to stop the continued obscene, eternal radiation poisoning of the planet. Living in the shadow of the national District of Crime, Cathy is constantly nauseated by the stench emanating from the nation’s capital during the Washington, DC, federal work week.

Contact the Author - donnac2222002@gmail.com

[verita5]

WTC Destruction and 9/11 Cover Up - Dr Judy Wood and Andrew Johnson on TNS Radio - mp3

This is something of a Marathon - almost 2 hours and 40 mins....
 
http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/index.php?dir=&sort=date&order=desc
[14 September, 2010 - mp3 is near the top.  Several previous interviews are also archived here.]
 
We talk about the destruction of the towers, the Qui Tam Court Case and how the 9/11 "Truth" Movement has tried to keep the evidence covered up
 
Thanks to Simon, Steve and Angela for setting it up and spending time.

-----

The time has gone to address these issues, rather than simply dismissing them all with misleading smears and false statements.

[EvadingGrid]

Dr Judy Wood has been extensively and repeatedly debunked.

[verita5]

Dr Judy Wood has been extensively and repeatedly debunked.

Only if by "debunked" you mean smeared and had false statements made about her, and having the evidence she highlights ignored or misrepresented.

Can you address the various points made in the article for example?