Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths

Discuss what you think really happened in New York on 9/11/2001

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths

Postby cb_brooklyn » Mon May 12, 2008 1:01 am

Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths

by CB_Brooklyn


(mirrored @ checktheevidence.com)


From the moment people thought that planes crashed in the World Trade Center, the brainwashing had begun.

The “official” account of Boeing 767s striking the North and South Towers, at 400+MPH and 500+MPH respectively, became glued in peoples’ minds as “fact” because of the “tee-vee”. Good ol’ tee-vee. We all trust the media.

Even in 1938, when Orson Welles directed a special Halloween radio broadcast of the novel “War of the Worlds”, millions of Americans believed Martians were invading earth. Everyone trusts the media! (As a side note, I’d like to advertise a new article by Andrew Johnson: “Mars Anomalies”)

It should come to no surprise how the media affects peoples’ minds and our culture, and the media’s reporting of 9/11 is no exception.

The 9/11 coverup perpetrators had their deceptive propaganda well planned. With their total control over the media they successfully conditioned most into believing their “19 boxcutter-wielding Muslims” story. People were overwhelmed; their brains saturated with the propaganda.

November 10, 2001 - George W Bush brainwashes the world into thinking the idea of “inside job” is crazy: ”Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 110-3.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5M0xtxQVQ

But the propaganda didn’t stop there. The coverup perps, the experts they are, knew some people would see through their “boxcutter” deception, so they crafted an alternate propaganda… specifically targeting those already suspicious of the “official” story.

Lenin, the first Communist dictator after the takeover of Russia in 1917, is widely credited with the following quotation, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."
http://www.realnews247.com/fascism_disg ... ocracy.htm

This alternate propaganda is promoted by government plants within the “truth movement”, along with its fabricated evidence (such as molten metal). Of course, the media carefully publicize this “evidence” as a “wacky conspiracy theory”…

November 14, 2005 - Tucker Carlson brainwashes the world into thinking the idea of an “inside job” theory is offensive. Steven Jones promotes the “alternate propaganda”:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053445


Yet, the coverup perpetrators use ridicule to keep the “REAL” version hidden…

December 6, 2006 - Steven E Jones brainwashes the 9/11 “truth movement” into thinking the idea of directed energy weapons and no planes is “crazy disinfo”: “Of late, [Jim Fetzer] refers often to his association now with Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds. These two are noted for their no-planes-hit-the-Towers theories and for promoting the notion of ray-beams from space knocking down the Towers.”
http://judicial-inc.biz/Steven_Jones_quits_911.htm

Jones is one of many in and around the “truth movement” associated with Los Alamos where Directed Energy Weapons are researched. See here to learn how the 9/11 attacks, the 9/11 cover up, and the 9/11 "truth movement" were orchestrated by people associated with directed energy weapons and the media. Jones also suppressed free energy research in ways that mirror his 9/11 coverup:

9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline
By CB_Brooklyn
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/i ... &Itemid=60

Timeline of Events Involving Steve Jones, Crockett Grabbe and Steve Koonin
By Russ Gerst
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/i ... &Itemid=60


If no-planes/TV-Fakery were “crazy disinfo”, why didn’t the media use it to discredit the “truth movement”? Here’s a video of Dr Morgan Reynolds on FOX News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reQZT9Hzvt8

Certainly if no-planes/TV-Fakery were “crazy disinfo”, the media would have invited Dr Reynolds back. Why didn’t they?

On top of that, why didn’t the media report Reynolds’ or Wood’s court cases, represented by Attorney Jerry Leaphart?

Dr Morgan Reynolds, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that the Media broadcasted cartoons of an airplane hitting the South Tower.
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=9 ... deral_case

Docket No. 1:07-cv-04612-GBD
Title: Dr. Morgan Reynolds ex rel. USA vs. Science Applications International Corp. et al.
Venue: United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Judge: George B. Daniels


Dr Judy Wood, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that Directed Energy Weapons were a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center.
http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html

Docket No. 1:07-cv-03314-GBD
Title: Dr. Judy Wood ex rel. USA vs. Applied Research Associates, Inc. et al.
Venue: United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Judge: George B. Daniels

=================================================
UPDATE!!! While composing this article the author became aware of the following:

New York Times
“For Engineer, a Cloud of Litigation After 9/11”
By Jim Dwyer
February 23, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/nyregion/23about.htm


The relevant quote is as follows (emphasis added):

”… one man has sued on behalf of the United States, claiming that Mr. Gilsanz is part of a vast conspiracy to cover up the truth about 9/11, including the “so-called building failures.” The lawsuit maintains that exotic weaponry actually destroyed the buildings, and that the airplanes were mass psychological trickery.”


Wood and Reynolds have filed two separate lawsuits.

No mention of Wood/Reynolds/Leaphart’s names in the Times article.

=================================================


Let us review…

The media (i.e. MSNBC):
promote the “official” version as “the truth”
ridicule the “alternate” version as the “offensive wacky conspiracy theory”
shun the “REAL” version and court cases

Plants in the ”truth movement” (i.e. Steven Jones):
promote the “alternate” version as “the truth”
ridicule the “REAL” version as “offensive wacky conspiracy theory”



We can now understand why many “truthers” shy away from no-planes/TV-Fakery. Seems the 9/11 coverup perps tricked the “truth movement” with a well orchestrated plan of deception! Will these theories really “damage” the “truth movement”, or has the movement merely been tricked into thinking so?

Many “truthers” often wonder why the mainstream media hasn’t broken the “inside job” story yet. The reason is simple: The 9/11 perps have not been exposed. (Check the “Suppression Timeline” linked above.)

Only after the real 9/11 perpetrators are widely exposed with the media break!

Will “truthers” finally start promoting no-planes/TV-Fakery? If the “truth movement” can’t admit their mistakes, why should the average person? People will simply continue believing what they feel most comfortable with: the “boxcutter” story. They don’t care about the evidence. Why should they? After all, the “truth movement” doesn’t. Or do they???


How many “truthers” have looked at the no-planes/TV-Fakery evidence lately… evidence that anyone can understand?

Below you will find a ton of evidence. Look it through… you maybe surprised!

======================================================
======================================================
======================================================


This article is quite extensive. A few points covered:

• Learn of the 1999 Washington Post article detailing the military's hologram project.
• Learn of the NYPD official who said the South Tower strike "looked like an evil magician's trick".
• Learn of the FDNY official who said “I never actually saw a plane hit the building. I never saw that. I saw it on television, but I never saw it while I was standing there”.
• Learn that very few people reported seeing airplanes, and even fewer reported hearing them.
• Learn of the mainstream media articles detailing how the military and TV Networks broadcast fake footage to deceive the public.
• Watch the ABC video of Peter Jennings. He knew the airplane video was fake. Note his nervousness and word fumbling when ABC played the clip back in slow motion.

Click here for full article.
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/i ... &Itemid=60
This user has been permanently banned.
cb_brooklyn
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 12:35 am
Location: NYC


Re: Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths

Postby Chorlton » Mon May 12, 2008 8:14 am

So many links

So little information

So many fetid imaginations

2 Airplanes crashed into the WTC building. Live with it and enough of the conspiracy theories unless you have 100% evidence otherwise, because despite all the links, there aint any concrete evidence to the contrary.

Oh yes
You missed out Loony Lears Hologram theory, and the 'excessive trapped wind explosion' theory
I have become that which I always despised and feared........Old !

My greatest wish, would be to own my own scrapyard.
User avatar
Chorlton
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:02 pm

Re: Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Mon May 12, 2008 3:17 pm

What a bunch of unsupported trash!!!

cb_brooklyn wrote:• Learn of the FDNY official who said “I never actually saw a plane hit the building. I never saw that. I saw it on television, but I never saw it while I was standing there”.


And so...do you think that just because ONE person says this, that it somehow invalidates ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE who were on the streets of NYC that day, and DID see TWO planes hit TWO buildings???

I never see the raving "there were no planes" idiots EVER address this! And next you will claim (without evidence) that is was all "mind control" and "mass hallucination"...which then would beg the question "How do you know that YOU are not the one hallucinating your lame-ass story?"

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths

Postby Chorlton » Mon May 12, 2008 4:31 pm

Y'know Im heading more for Loony Lears hologram theory alongside my mass group trapped wind theory.
Just at the time Lear's Holograms switch on, someone lights a match near someones rear end and BOOM.

Conspiracy?...........Moi????? Pas du tout.

Anyway at least its one theory that isnt on the list......yet.... but its just as valid as some of the other looony theories.
I have become that which I always despised and feared........Old !

My greatest wish, would be to own my own scrapyard.
User avatar
Chorlton
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:02 pm

Re: Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths

Postby MrPenny » Mon May 12, 2008 7:33 pm

I have a linguistic headache. What the hell is an "anti-no-plane-theory-myth"....? Makes my head spin just typing the words.
P.T. Barnum wouldn't stand a chance with this crowd.
User avatar
MrPenny
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:39 pm

Re: Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths

Postby cb_brooklyn » Tue May 13, 2008 6:08 am

MrPenny wrote:I have a linguistic headache. What the hell is an "anti-no-plane-theory-myth"....? Makes my head spin just typing the words.



Okay, that one made me laugh :lol:

Take a look at the full article at the last link. Anyone who does will conclude that no planes hit the towers.
This user has been permanently banned.
cb_brooklyn
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 12:35 am
Location: NYC

Re: Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths

Postby Chorlton » Tue May 13, 2008 8:35 am

cb_brooklyn wrote:
MrPenny wrote:I have a linguistic headache. What the hell is an "anti-no-plane-theory-myth"....? Makes my head spin just typing the words.



Okay, that one made me laugh :lol:

Take a look at the full article at the last link. Anyone who does will conclude that no planes hit the towers.


Yeah sure. Thats your opinion to which you are entitled. Its a totaly wrong opinion, but you can believe what you want. But please dont attempt to foist your BS onto others.

I love this:
”… one man has sued on behalf of the United States, claiming that Mr. Gilsanz is part of a vast conspiracy to cover up the truth about 9/11, including the “so-called building failures.” The lawsuit maintains that exotic weaponry actually destroyed the buildings, and that the airplanes were mass psychological trickery.”
I'm really looking forwards to how they are going to prove it.

Also all the people suffering because of the dust. Didnt anyone tell them concrete dust on its own is an irritant, as is sand, as is dust etc etc etc. I wonder how many of those claims are real, and not just people trying to get onto the gravy train.
I dont know about anyone else, but Ive watched videos of the WTC planes time and time again and I cannot but arrive at the same conclusion. The planes hit the buildings. Was there something else?? Possibly, but I didnt see any proof of that, and, like many scientific things we have uneducated 'erberts' coming up with farcical ideas, sort of like Moon Mining etc etc etc.
I have become that which I always despised and feared........Old !

My greatest wish, would be to own my own scrapyard.
User avatar
Chorlton
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:02 pm

Re: Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths

Postby cb_brooklyn » Tue May 13, 2008 9:40 am

You've been playing too many video games, haven't you?? Aluminum doesn't slice steel. Of course, you would know that if you read the full article...
This user has been permanently banned.
cb_brooklyn
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 12:35 am
Location: NYC

Re: Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Tue May 13, 2008 2:34 pm

And another lamb (who thinks he is a lion) lays down for the slaughter... so be it. Your choice.

cb_brooklyn wrote:Take a look at the full article at the last link. Anyone who does will conclude that no planes hit the towers.


How arrogantly sophomoric of you. Your conclusion is wrong, and yes I read the entire link the first time zplix posted it. There are oh so many failures in your attempt to make a convincing argument. I will focus on the failures in engineering analysis.

cb_brooklyn wrote:You've been playing too many video games, haven't you?? Aluminum doesn't slice steel. Of course, you would know that if you read the full article...


When you start out with insults like this one, there is no reason for me to show you any mercy. But I will be somewhat gentle. You are also incorrect in making a broad statement like "aluminum doesn't slice steel." Your error begins because you make that broad statement without any mention of relative velocity.

The reason I call you sophomoric is well-founded. It is because you appear to have an incomplete understanding of physical mechanics, not the least of which is that physical mechanics can be decomposed into statics and dynamics. Once you move from statics to dynamics, the game changes and your invocation of Newton's Third Law becomes incomplete. Towhit, from your tome:

FACT: Any video that shows an aluminum airplane with a plastic nosecone gliding through a steel/concrete building violates Newton’s Laws of Motion.


Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion: “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

High school physics states that the force an airplane exerts on a building is the same as the force a building exerts on an airplane.


High school physics indeed. One who is "in the know" about your incomplete analysis would need to say no more. But for the analytically challenged (which includes you) I will say more. You seem to think you can invoke Newton's Third Law and that is all that is required. That is the biggest source of your error. By your same logic you would claim that a liquid, like water or hydraulic fluid, "does not slice human bone". And yet, while testing a 5000 psi hydraulic system in a lab, I watched as it sprung a leak and the stream of hydraulic fluid sliced a technician's hand clean off his arm. :shock:

There is a course that all aerospace, and most mechnical, engineers must take that is typically called "Energy, Mass, and Momentum Transfer." Us engineers have a short hand name for it, we simply call it "heat transfer." But the last term in the formal name is most applicable here... and it outlines the area where your invocation of Newton's Third Law makes your analysis incomplete. The airplanes hitting the towers (which did, in fact, occur, despite your bad application of science to suggest it didn't) is a massive "momentum transfer" event. At the molecular level of this impulse interaction there was a massive transformation of rectilinear momentum (mass*velocity) into heat. It is exactly the same situation when a stream of water (or hydraulic fluid) has been pressurized so much that it has a very high momentum if such a pressurized system springs a leak. That high fluid momentum is transformed to heat at the contact point...and it literally becomes a most effective heat razor.

Your science is poor, and incomplete. You are the perfect sophomore ("wise fool"). You have some knowledge, just enough, to think you know it all. But you are foolish beyond your years....and between your ears.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths

Postby Chorlton » Tue May 13, 2008 2:41 pm

cb_brooklyn wrote:You've been playing too many video games, haven't you?? Aluminum doesn't slice steel. Of course, you would know that if you read the full article...


Look sunshine, nothing is going to change your conspiracy theories. I could stay here all day arguing the toss and you wont accept anything thats offered. The evidence from your own eyes should have told you the WTC attacks were real. If you cant accept that, thats your problem.
Youve picked up on some loony theories about Aluminium and steel and your running with it, with little or no knowledge, other than the conspiracy theories you have read.
I suggest its you thats been playing the video games as well as playing with something else a little too much. Still, it keeps you off the streets, doesnt it?
I have become that which I always despised and feared........Old !

My greatest wish, would be to own my own scrapyard.
User avatar
Chorlton
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:02 pm

Re: Bloody annoyed

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Tue May 13, 2008 3:05 pm

And before you even try to argue, and claim that you are still correct that "aluminum doesn't cut steel", you should review what I have already tried to teach you about momentum transfer between a liquid and a solid.

Here, let me get you started:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question553.htm

A waterjet is a tool used in machine shops to cut metal parts with a (very) high-pressure stream of water. As amazing as it sounds, if you get water flowing fast enough it can actually cut metal.

(snip)

Waterjets can cut:

Marble
Granite
Stone
Metal
Plastic
Wood
Stainless steel
A water jet can cut a "sandwich" of different materials up to four inches thick.


All thanks to momentum transfer. And BTW, I should admit the obvious...that I despise people like you who try to get others to believe utter nonsense.
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths

Postby Access Denied » Tue May 13, 2008 3:47 pm

OK everyone, enough with the insults please. Let's do this the RU way...

cb_brooklyn, please read the rest of the threads in this (the 9/11) forum before you post again. Most if not all of your theories have already been thoroughly debunked. Do you have anything new?

Now Ray has just presented some evidence that refutes your claim. You must now either concede the point (i.e. you don’t know what you’re talking about), present a well reasoned counter argument (without trying to change the subject), or you will be banned.

In the meantime I’m pretty sure our members can come up with some other specific questions for cb_Brooklyn to answer. ;)
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Bloody annoyed

Postby Chorlton » Tue May 13, 2008 5:46 pm

Eh ?????
I have become that which I always despised and feared........Old !

My greatest wish, would be to own my own scrapyard.
User avatar
Chorlton
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:02 pm

Re: Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Tue May 13, 2008 6:07 pm

Somehow a follow-up response I posted after my longer one above "disappeared". I know I hit "SUBMIT" but it did not show up under Chorlton's reply. In it I provided this link for water cutting solid objects:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question553.htm

Not sure where the post went...
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Bloody annoyed

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Tue May 13, 2008 6:13 pm

Chorlton wrote:Eh ?????


AH HA! This is where this post ended up! I am not sure how it ended up here, as I was replying to the 9-11 "no plane theory" thread. Weird!! VERY weird!! I was pretty sure I was responding in that thread, but I could be wrong...
None of these comments were intended for you, Chorlton! :)

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Next

Google

Return to 911 - What Really Happened?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron