Cold-Calling "Plotline" Participants and Selected Experts
Sunday, December 23, 2007
He explains how jetliners COULD NOT have it the towers at low altitude with the reported speeds.
The audio interview (pumpitout) is much better than the transcript...
" Joseph Keith is a retired 76-year-old software engineer who worked in the aerospace industry and just resigned from a professional group known as the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE) founded by Canadian scientist, A.K. (“Kee”) Dewdney. The website is www.physics911.net. Curious about why he resigned (I’m still a SPINE member), I interviewed him from his home in southern California.
Q: Why did you resign from SPINE?
A: Well, I was a founding member in 2002 but I have little patience. With all the arguments I have gone through with Kee, I’ve spent so much time with Kee, it’s led nowhere. A plane never hit the second trade center tower, WTC 2, that’s what started our disagreement about 4 years ago.
Leonard Spencer first came out with what I thought was a smoking gun, the pod. I thought that pod must be a smoke screen device to hide the fact that a real airliner flew by but did not hit the building. And then editors doctored the tape after the fact.
Later on I decided the pod was a distraction since I determined that the video was fake. Case closed.
Q: Why is the video phony?
A: The video is phony because airliners don’t meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them!
Q: Why would the establishment elite pull off a phony video?
A: The video had to be phony because the Illuminati, or whatever we want to call them, had to eliminate all possibilities of a foul up. They needed the hijacking scam to implicate the Muslims, but they couldn’t afford any risk. They had to Keep-It-Simple-Stupid so they faked the crashes.
Since we know that the rich will always hang together, have their children intermarry, and do anything to protect their wealth, they must have an organization, an interlocking directorate, if you will, that is compartmentalized. I could have done a better job, but they faked the video in an amateurish way. A friend of mine could have done a much better job of faking an airplane crash—break a wing off, break a part of the body, throw some fluff in and then I wouldn’t have noticed anything wrong.
Q: When did you realize something was amiss about 9/11?
A: I watched 9/11 on TV that day and my next-door neighbor is a pilot for SkyWest Airlines. We were good friends and when 9/11 happened I called up right away and said, “Turn on the TV.” He came over to my house. I said, “It’s fake.” “Yes, it’s fake,” he said. Later, we decided that the networks did not get the real-time feed of the crash and simulated it instead. In about a week we were convinced by neighbors that the networks were displaying the real thing. His wife is an American Airlines flight attendant and she’s very outspoken. Every 9/11 anniversary they put out a big display about praying for 9/11 flight attendants and all that. She thinks I’m a stupid conspiracy nut. Kee used to ask David, through me, airline questions, but now David is not allowed to talk to me. I don’t know if Kee is personally contacting him now.
Q: You knew right away it was an inside job because the WTC hit was faked?
A: I have spent lots of time trying to figure out how the New World Order could screw up so badly, and the only conclusion I can come to is that there must be some high-ranking insider, or possibly group, that is trying to warn the world of the danger of allowing such a powerful force to rule. In another era, the most powerful force in the World was the Holy Roman Empire and it was brought down by an insider who exposed the document that gave it its power as a fraud. I can’t go into the details now but it later led to the Reformation. I wrote a paper on it 50 years ago.
Q: You say anyone can prove the video is fake. How?
A: First get any video. They’re getting harder to find. A good example is “In Memoriam, New York City 9/11/01” from HBO, narrated by Rudy Giuliani, because the plane crashes at the beginning. Start the DVD and as the plane comes into view, hit the pause on your remote and then go frame-by-frame until the plane goes into the building, step by step.
Carefully watch the plane go into the building: it’s like a hot knife cutting through butter. Marvel at how a plane can meld into a steel-concrete building. A plane should crash against the building. It makes one curious! It should make you think about how a plane would enter a steel-concrete building.
Q: One argument we hear is that all the videos can’t be fake.
A: Well, get all 30 of ‘em and run ‘em, I have four. One of mine doesn’t show the actual crash, two of them show a plane banking, one doesn’t.
Every video that shows impact shows a plane flying through the tower wall the same way it flies through thin air: no cratering effect, no pushing parts of the building in, no crunching of the airframe as it hits resistance, no reaction from the heavy engines and hidden landing gear, no parts breaking off, no outer 30 feet of the wing breaking off, no bursting, shredding or bending of the wing. No nothing.
Q: Isn’t that impossible in reality?
A: Yes. Then after absorption of the plane, you see the building closing up and then an explosion. Meanwhile, nothing fell from either the building or the plane.
Q: That’s compelling evidence of video fakery. What else?
A: One more test is to pause with the plane on the screen. Take a magic marker or tape and mark the nose of the plane and then count frames until the tail passes the mark. You’ll find that the number of steps the plane takes while the plane is in thin air is the same as the number of steps the plane takes as it melds into the building.
Q: So there’s no deceleration?
A: Right. It violates all Newton’s laws of motion. I’ll state them:
1. An object at rest remains at rest and an object in motion remains in motion until a force is applied.
2. When a force is applied to an object, the object accelerates in the direction of the force. When an object in motion hits stationary resistance, the force acts in the opposite direction of the object and therefore the object decelerates.
3. Newton said, “For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction” but I say, every action produces an equal and opposite reaction.
Q: So, for example, a diver speeds through thin air but slows in the resistance of the water unless he has a new energy source to maintain speed.
A: Right. It’s like this TV show I was watching called Myth Busters. They dumped this dummy from 100 feet and it registered 16 G’s when it hit water. That can kill you, we can only take about 10 G’s. Then think about hitting steel and concrete.
Q: Believers in Boeing 767s hitting the twin towers always bring up kinetic energy as the big explanation for how an aluminum plane could fly right through the wall of a steel and concrete tower. Speed squared is supposed make us believe the plane-like outline of the holes in the towers.
A: The more kinetic energy, the more damage the speeding object will do when it hits, but they’re claiming that it punched right through. The plane should have continued right through the building like a bullet through paper. Sure, in the bullet case, little kinetic energy is lost. No plane deceleration also means the plane never lost kinetic energy. Victor Thorn and the others, even though they’re good on demolition and no plane at the Pentagon, are afraid to come out for the No Plane Theory (NPT).
When Jerry Longspaugh, an aerospace engineer and SPINE member, saw a photo of a hole in one of the towers and thought he saw the core, he wrote to Kee and me, “It looks like the NPT is true.” Maybe Kee said something to him, I don’t know.
Kee’s got to be a phony. He’s been saying how sorry he was about the hassle I’m suffering from the plane huggers. That kind of thing is not unusual in my life.
Q: Why won’t Kee do the video test?
A: His university won’t let him.
Q: But he’s done a lot exposing 9/11 lies like proving the cell phone calls were impossible.
A: Kee is allowed some freedom but NPT is the key to the kingdom. It would topple the kingdom, so he won’t go there. Physics911.net has this “What may have happened” and “What did not happen” and he won’t use ‘em. He won’t run your article. They have to have Arab hijackers, so they have to have airplanes.
Q: So do you believe there were no planes?
A: Logic tells me there were no airliners involved. They never showed any wreckage, the hole was empty, and the government showed a few parts but no serial numbers, no part numbers.
Q: The government could have crashed a plane, say, in Pennsylvania, by remote control.
A: Too many problems. Somebody could pick up a part with a serial number.
Q: What about the controversy over high-energy explosives at the WTC?
A: Well, I tend to agree with those who believe they were used but my problem has always been the video. It was fake and that was the end of it for me. Case closed!
Q: Is SPINE or Scholars for 911 Truth doing any good?
A: Absolutely not, they haven’t done anything for a couple of years. SPINE is defunct. In 2004, for example, I sent something by Gerard Holmgren against the plane huggers to Kee and nothing came of it. SPINE never puts up anything controversial so it is just safe stuff, orthodoxy now.
Q: Nila Sagadevan is a big defender of planes at the WTC.
A: When he joined SPINE I called him up because he lived in southern California and found he lived only 6-7 miles from me. We talked about going for a beer but when I got around to the NPT, he said that was nonsense. “My friend Greg Szymanski visited ground zero and reported a jet engine so I know a plane hit the bldg,” and he hung up. Nila has some weird beliefs and I forwarded an email from him to Kee and wrote, “Ask this guy if he’s ever interviewed an ET.” Nila wants to get on talk shows, peddle his weird beliefs, and he depends on the media to sell his books. Gurus are liars.
Q: Why is there such resistance to NPT?
A: NPT is a direct attack on the head of the snake. You can go after Bush, Cheney and that whole compartmentalized entity but not the head of the snake. NPT is the only thing that we have direct evidence of, so it is very threatening. The media control everything because they can point the finger at anybody. The media is the enforcement arm of the head of the snake that controls everything. It can topple any government. And NPT is direct proof of their enforcement of the 9/11 scam. It’s the propaganda arm of the ruling class and NPT would break it all open. They’d be done."
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
No offense, his story of the first plane, "The wing came through the other side and bodies were falling to the ground. Liberty street was on fire"
Does not hold.
There was no hole on the South side of the North Tower after the "hit" I have pictures of the ground there and there are no plane parts - let alone a wing. There are no bodies in the photos.
Liberty St. in front of the fire house is to the East of the South Tower. It is not adjacent to the South side of the North Tower.
How can an AL airplane wing penetrate through the building and come out the other side intact? The tower was caged in steel.
John's narrative also breaks apart when he describes the collapse of the North Tower. How did he know it was going to fall? Why didn't the fireman *all* turn back if they knew that? Why did he leave the building? Why is there so much time in his story between the initiation of the disintegration of the building and his getting out? The building turned to dust in 10 seconds.
There is so much more about his story which is confusing and needs clarification.
How did John know it was an airplane that hit when he was in the North Tower stairwell? How was anyone able to tell him, "a plane is coming" before "it " hit.
The "plane" was allegedly traveling at over 500 miles per hour and would not be recognizable as approaching even 4 or 5 seconds before it's "impact." Neither, at that speed, could anyone predict ahead of time, to where "it" was headed.
John, IMO, could be an elaborators and exaggerator (bullshit ) rather than an outright liar. But his story, as it stands, does not hold together. This is why in courts of law testimony is questioned. For clarification and to determine its proper weight and plausibility.
Neither did Luke or Avery seek to clear iup anything John said. Since neither will ever look at the discussions around the "plane" evidence they apparently have no idea even what questions to ask to bring clarity to the issue.
They seem to take exactly what John says at face value because of the emotional issue - John is a "first responder' and firefighter. Just as Les took a 'first responder's word for it last year when the man claimed to see a stewardess strapped into a chair on the roof of a building below - from the window of one of the Towers before it collapsed -with her throat cut. Everyone bought that. She flew out of the building from the crashing "plane" landed upright on the roof of a building nearby? Still strapped in her seat? I don't believe it. People say that is rude to the "first responder" but I simply don't believe it.
Everyone apparently believes Praimnath's story too, even when it is full of impossible absurdities - the "plane" hit his office at 500+ miles an hour and (allegedly) no part of it remained outside nor in the opening into which it (allegedly) disappeared - (which is BTW, too small for a 767 to disappear into) the wing was in the room with Praimnath, and he escaped being hit by the plane by hiding under a desk, although the "plane made a direct hit on his office while he was looking at it approach out his window, and escaped without a burn.
I don't believe that either.
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: <>911TruthNY / CHANGE
Date: Aug 8, 2007 5:18 PM
9/11 First Reponder / Fireman John Shroeder recounts his experience and questions the official story. This is ground-breaking testimony!
Let's spread this to the four corners of the Earth. Please REPOST!!
From Ningen's Blog on the effects of trauma on memory:
Post-event information influences memory
Excerpt from Dr. Elizabeth Loftus and Katherine Ketcham, The Myth of Repressed Memory (St. Martin's Press, 1994)
Dr. Loftus is professor of psychology at UC-Irvine and University of Washington and a prominent expert on memory.
She has written other books and articles that may be more pertinent, but I have a copy of this book, and the below passage summarizes some of her findings that I think are relevant to consideration of 9/11 eyewitness accounts.
This excerpt describes Dr. Loftus' testimony on behalf of a man prosecuted for murdering his daughter's friend twenty years earlier, based solely on his daughter's accusation that she now remembered her father killing her friend.
I took the stand . . . and for two hours discussed my experiments investigating memory acquisition. I explained to the court that memory fades with time, losing detail and accuracy; as time goes by, the weakened memories are increasingly vulnerable to "post-event information" -- facts, ideas, inferences, and opinions that become available to a witness after an event is completely over. I told the jury about a series of experiments I conducted featuring a shocking film simulation of a robbery. At the end of the short film, a child is shot in the face. Subjects who watched the film with the shocking ending were able to recall details with significantly less accuracy than subjects who watched a similar film without the violent ending.
This study, I explained, tells us about the distortions that can occur in the acquisition stage of memory, when an event occurs and information is laid down in the memory system. Other studies tell us about the retention and retrieval stages of memory, after a period of time goes by and we are asked to recall a particular event or experience. Hundreds of experiments involving tens of thousands of individuals have shown that post-event information can become incorporated into memory and contaminate, supplement, or distort the original memory.
I described a study I'd conducted in which subjects watched a film of a robbery involving a shooting and were then exposed to a television account of the event which contained erroneous details. When asked to recount what happened during the robbery, many subjects incorporated erroneous details from the television report into their account. Once these details were inserted into a person's mind through the technique of exposure to post-event information, they were adopted as the truth and protected as fiercely as the "real," original details. Subjects typically resisted any suggestion that their richly detailed memories might have been flawed or contaminated and asserted with great confidence what their revised and adapted memories told them they saw.
I now see that Dr. Loftus has a number of papers online here:
I think the discussion of "misinformation effects" on page 5 of this paper is relevant to the 9/11 eyewitnesses:
And in this paper as well:
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
THE FIRST SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH CONFERENCE: The Science of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not.
THE FIRST SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH CONFERENCE:
The Science of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not
Propaganda by the government and the corporate media would have us believe that the 9/11 "inside job" hypothesis is not merely controversial but unsupported by proof. That is wrong. Academics, experts, and scholars who have examined the physical evidence and considered this event within its historical context tend to converge in agreement that the inside-job hypothesis is, in fact, strongl ysupported by the available evidence, while the version advanced in The 9/11 Commission Report is not only false but provably false and incrucial respects physically impossible. That the official account of 9/11 is a lie and that 9/11 appears to have been an inside job is no longer a matter of serious scientific debate. If you have any doubt, visit our site at 911scholars.org.
Even though the broad outlines of what happened are no longer controversial--for example, we know that The World Trade Center was intentionally demolished by a high-energy causal process physically unrelated to plane crashes and resulting fires--the precise details ofhow the perpetrators carried out the attack remains the subject of intense controversy. What we know with relative certainty about 9/11 is already the story of the century: it demands re-thinking our history, our politics, perhaps even our way of life. From a scientific rather than political standpoint, controversial questions about what may have happened on 9/11 are fascinating and challenging--not least of all because they could lead to a better understanding of 9/11 with respect to its social and political significance. And if high-tech weaponry was used at the WTC, that would rather strongly implicate theDepartment of Defense as their source.
In an attempt to clarify these matters, Scholars for 9/11 Truth willbe hosting a conference entitled "The Science of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not?", to be held 3-5 August 2007 in Madison, WI. I think we can all agree that the most important dimension of our efforts is explaining why the "official account" that the government has advanced cannot be sustained. Since there can be disagreements even here about what we should or should not emphasize and what has or has not been proven to an extent sufficient to emphasize them as basic "refutations" of the government's account, Kevin Barrett and I will discuss the science and the politics of 9/11 research as the opening session.
The major sessions will be devoted to the issues that have tended to divide us. Judy Wood, Frank Greening, and Bob Fitrakis will explore and analyze the serious possibility that non-conventional means, including high-tech, directed energy weapons, may have been used along with conventional methods to destroy the World Trade Center. Jerry Leaphart, Ed Haas, Morgan Reynolds, and Judy Wood will discuss their historic legal actions involving the NIST. Morgan Reynolds, Rick Rajter, and Dave von Kleist will discuss what did or did not happened to the planes alleged to have hit the Pentagon, Shanksville, and the WTC on 9/11. Ed Haas of THE MUCKRACKER REPORT will present our keynote address on "The National 9/11 Non-Debate".
Registration, including lunches on both days, will be $125. Attendance at the meeting is limited to 150 participants. This conference will be distinctive by focusing on the issues that have divided us, by longer sessions dealing with them in great depth and, by virtue of its size, affording unusual opportunities for personal interaction between the speakers and the participants. You will get to know Kevin Barrett, Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds, Ed Haas, Jerry Leaphart, Bob Fitrakis, Frank Greening, Dave von Kleist, Rick Rajter, Jim Fetzer, and more.
THE MADISON CONFERENCE
The Science of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not
3-5 August 2007, Madison, WI
The conference will be held at the
Radisson Hotel Madison,
517 Grand Canyon Drive,
Madison, WI 53719.
Information about the hotel may be located on-line at www.radisson.com/madisonwi.
The hotel provides complimentary breakfasts, has a pool and exercise room, with very nice accommodations. The rooms run $99 per night. Registration, including two lunches, will run $125.
Friday, 3 August 2007
7-10 PM, Registration
Saturday, 4 August 2007
7-9 AM, Registration
9 AM-Noon: The Science and Politics of 9/11
Jim Fetzer, Scholars, and Kevin Barrett, MUJCA
Noon-1 PM: Deli Sandwich, Soup, and Salad Buffet
1-4 PM: What Happened to the World Trade Center?
Judy Wood, Scholars, Frank Greening, and Bob Fitrakis
4-6 PM: The National 9/11 Non-Debate
Ed Haas, Editor, The Muckraker Report
6-8 PM: Dinner on your own on the town
8-11 PM: Taking Legal Action against NIST
Jerry Leaphart, Ed Haas, Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood
Sunday, 5 August 2007
9 AM-1 PM: What Happened to the Airplanes?
Morgan Reynolds & Rick Rajter, Scholars, and Dave von Kleist
1 PM-2 PM: Hot Lunch Buffet, Closing Remarks
The conference will be limited to 150 participants. The program ends early on Sunday for afternoon flights. The hotel has a limo service to and from the Dane County/Madison Airport.
Rooms at the conference rate are only guaranteed until 13 July and thereafter depend upon availability. And you must register in order to reserve your room.
To register, send a check to Scholars for 9/11 Truth, 800 Violet Lane, Oregon, WI 53575. Please contact Jim Fetzer, Program Chair, for more information at email@example.com.
Anyone who has thoughts about the program that they would like to share is welcome to forward them to me at firstname.lastname@example.org at their earliest convenience. This conference should provide an opportunity for experts on complex and technical scientific questions to explain their research and its significance. My hope is that by subjecting each others' research to rigorous but collegial criticism, the
attention-getting controversial aspects of 9/11 research may be turned into a benefit, rather than a distraction, in the larger process of seeking and exposing the truth about 9/11 and gaining an adequate scientific understanding of how all of this was done.
James H. Fetzer
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Friday, June 29, 2007
Flight 11 & 77 Didn't Exist According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics Database
Flight 77 - Pentagon Event - 3d Test
Physical and Mathematical Analysis of the Pentagon Crash
by Gerard Holmgren, 2002-10-23
This animation supplied by NTSB via a FOIA request, does not match the "official" flight path, according to johndoeX and others at Pilots for 9/11 Truth. According to this animation, apparently derived from Flight 77's FDR, Flight 77 did not hit the light poles.
New Study from "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" No Boeing 757 Hit the Pentagon
New study from Pilots for 9/11 Truth: No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon
Thu Jun 21, 3:01 AM ET
Pilots for 9/11 Truth obtained black box data from the government under the Freedom of Information Act for AA Flight 77, which The 9/11 Report claims hit the Pentagon. Analysis of the data contradicts the official account in direction, approach, and altitude. The plane was too high to hit lamp posts and would have flown over the Pentagon, not impacted with its ground floor. This result confirms and strengthens the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the buillding.
Calum Douglas presents his investigation into the flight data recorder from Flight 77, which was supplied to him under the US Freedom of Information Act, to an audience at the Indian YMCA in Fitzroy Square, London on 8th June 2007.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
This is from 1994, and it talks about how the National Security Council can support an unpopular president. It says he needs an "unequivocal good-luck event" like a Pearl Harbor (or a 9/11) and it outlines the TV Fakery research at that time."
THE IMPACT OF THE MEDIA
ON NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY DECISION MAKING
From the Thesis:
"It is not yet common knowledge that some news is "doctored"
or that what is happening before the camera may be only what is
taking place in one small area. As stringers are employed more
and more in the Third World, it is increasingly likely that
activity may be staged or filmed selectively. When the biased
nature of video coverage becomes common knowledge, televised
dramatic events may well lose impact."
The article also offers an alternate conclusion that the "MTV Generation" may simply accept the images they see on TV as fact.
"Conversely, the MTV generation may come to believe the image anyway. It is easy to handle images whereas reading or thinking rationally takes work"
I guess that's the world we ended up in."
-Fred "BS Registration"
"bsregistration" on youtube Link to discussiont at 911 Researchers.
Audio of Dylan Avery arrogantly attacking "Killtown" for being "looney," when it is Avery who is wrong on the point of fact in question - i.e. the question of who allegedly filmed the CNN Exclusive Whitehall..as well as the issue of the likelihood that "amateur" videos were faked, available below in "BSregistration"'s Mash-up, "Loose Change Protects the Perps: 911 TV Fakery Censorship."
Impossible trumps Improbable, Dylan.
When KT calmly asserts that "we don't know who took the video," Avery angrily shouts at him "Yes we do. Big Liar. Big Liar."
"Is he going to let me finish or just call me a liar?"
"No Killtown, because you are lying," says Dylan very convincingly.
Wow, you'd think, with that much conviction in his voice, Dylan himself would be more than certain? Of what kind of people does that level of disconnect remind you?
Avery, and his "Revolution Radio" host gang up on KT, speaking to him, patronizingly, as though he were a retarded child.
Dylan asserts he has watched CNN's, "America Remembers," DVD "a million times."
And Avery says, "Rose Arce is like: 'I was at Battery Park, I heard a plane coming over my head, I turned my camera up, and I saw the plane hit the building.' So that's just one of the problems..is that it wasn't shot by ....whoever."
Unfortunately there is no such quote on that DVD. No wonder he and his buddies strike-out in debates with the shill- flagwaver-hitmen. The guy is making stuff up. (And frighteningly, doesn't even realize it himself?)
Also unfortunate for the plausibility of his narrative, if you see the clip you will notice the camera was trained on the area of the impact well before the "plane" is near. It's not following the "plane." The "plane" is allegedly at a speed of over 500 miles-per-hour. The "plane" was supposedly one half mile away 3 seconds from "impact." When the clip starts, "it's" a mile away. That's how fast it is allegedly traveling. The shot is also, of necessity, a very highly zoomed and cropped shot - which will exaggerate any tiny movement of the cameraperson's hand. To keep the image steady, with that amount of zoom, is really difficult. The shot was set-up before the action - whatever that might have been. It's not an "amateur" as people have been misdirected to assume.
In a patronizing tone, with unintentional irony, Avery chides Killtown. He's exasperated as he impatiently intstructs him, shouting at him, "You've gotta get your facts right if you are going to make accusations like this."
Who is the one not getting his facts right?
Liar Liar Pants on Fire, By Genghis
But if you listen to the interview with Avery below, "Dylan Avery Spells it Out," you will see that Dylan was nowhere near New York City on that day. He thinks he saw it - because he saw it on T.V.!
Dylan Avery, Defender of the Status Quo, Cover-up Artist for the Mind-op Manipulators, and Televison Mind- Op Victim really believes, (listen to the tape). If he doesn't believe what he is saying, he is indeed a good scam artist and con man. The even scarier thought is that he does believe it, since he speaks it with so much conviction, yet is so thoroughly confused.
After watching the CNN special "millions" of times he is convinced that Rose Arce was interviewed on that show and that she there describes her work as the cameraperson.
Yet all the CNN Special depicts is an interview with Arce, interspersed with the blatantly fake but emotionally manipulative CNN Exclusive Whitehall footage. THAT IS ALL!
How come someone so out of touch with reality is one of the most high-profile proponants of "9/11 Truth" in the Mainstream Media?
Avery saw it on T.V. and thinks that's the same as, um, you know, seeing it "in real life."
"No Planes hitting the World Trade Towers defies logic, it not only defies logic, it defies everything we see with our own eyes," says Avery. "We," I guess refers to himself and his Television Friends?
Yet he did not see it with his own eyes. Avery says so himself in the interview shown in the vid above.
"Dylan is going-off based on what all of us are going with - we are going-off the video."
-Mike Swenson May 8, 2007 on the "Mike Swenson Show" interview with Dylan Avery and call-in guest, "Killtown".[hear it]
Photo From NIST. Copyright logo and attribution to "Michael Hezarkhani" is theirs.
Naturally, we'd all like to speak with Mr. "Hezarkhani" to find out from what location, exactly, he "took his vid," the "story" behind it. And what kind of camera "he is" going to claim he used, and how much money he was paid. So far, researchers have been unable to locate him.
"Loose Change" Frontman Dylan Avery Attacks Killtown
Video Mash-up "Dylan Avery Tells Big Lies" by "Guntherznads"
An important point you can see illustrated in the above clip from the CNN "America Remembers" Special interview with Rose Arce is that the car Arce says she was traveling in, coming from the North, as it was, since she described leaving from her Apt. which is uptown from the Trade Towers, was not positioned in any possible location, whereby she could've seen the impact from any airplane hitting the South Side of the South Tower, should there have been one. As "Still Diggen'" pointed out, in the interview of Arce recorded below, she does not mention the appearance of an airplane. Instead, she specifically says “… and when they saw the second plane…” : The grid of New York streets, from her apt. to the Towers runs perpendicular to the South Side of the South Tower. If she were dropped off a few blocks from the Trade Tower complex, coming from the North, she'd be on the wrong side to see any aircraft impact. She also says she was inside of a car when the "plane" came over. How could she see a fourth of a mile into the sky, almost straight up, while sitting in a car?
For important background:
From the MIT Technology Review: How "special effects" are now, not only de rigeur at the Cinema, they now can be applied in "real time":
Original Article: July 2000. MIT Technology Review
Lying With Pixels
Seeing is no longer believing. The image you see on the evening news could well be a fake—a fabrication of fast new video-manipulation technology.
By Ivan Amato
Lying With Pixels, 1/11/2002
Seeing is no longer believing. The image you see on the evening news could well be a fake - a fabrication of fast new video-manipulation technology.
For your added (perhaps) Entertainment and but certainly for your Edification:
9/11 Flagwavers Underground Rage Re-Mix
(Watch out, Wolume High. Somehow couldn't get it to embed at lower volume.)
Mind Control Victims, Enemies of Freedom
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Is it some kind of dream of Dylan Avery's which makes him believe Rose Arce could be at 3 places at once? Which makes him believe she took the Whitehall "Ghostplane" footage but that she just doesn't mention it in any published or extant interview?
Dylan Avery lost a debate about Rose Arce. He claimed she was the person who captured the Whitehall "Ghostplane" footage. But if that were true, she'd have to be three places at once. She is already reported to be in two places - at the moment the "2nd impact" hit the South Trade Tower.
Such a capture is worth a lot of money. Abraham Zapruder's family received hundreds of thousands of dollars for the rights to the video he took of the Kennedy Assassination. Are we supposed to believe that whoever took it, their name is not known? Are we supposed to believe it was taken by a CNN executive? Is Avery really that gullible? And is she the same Rose Arce who was on the phone with the TV Stations being interviewed indoors and who didn't see the plane hit... ?
Mybe Dylan has become more conservative and wants to play it safe now that he's gotten famous? Or maybe he was meant to sit on the important information all along.
Avery claimed a CNN special, "CNN America Remembers" was evidence to the "fact" Rosa Arcs was the person who took this shot:
However, when I got a hold of the interview with Arce from the documentary in question - it does not demonstrate what Avery angrily contends.
When I asked him on his Forum how he got the information he repeated again that it was in this documentary, CNN "America Remembers." And then threw me out of his Forum. So, he still hasn't told me where he got the information he demeans others for not having. Since it's not in the video he claims it's in.
He also loudly over-rode the conversation with KT, the guest on the radio talk show, last night , drowning out any conversation and accusing KT, "Liar" "Liar" when KT said he believed some record, from a government source, [which is true as it was NIST who claimed this] showed that a "Michael Hezarkhani" took the clip. And that was after the radio host repeatedly asked for "respect" to be tendered.
When Avery lost the argument with me on his Forum, instead of admitting his mistake, he behaved like a thug, like mainstream flagwavers who do not want to look at any evidence since they, "already know."
Avery erased my writing and banned me from his closed Forum, without warning, explanation or an any admission that he was blatantly incorrect in his information, even when that was obviously demonstrated.
Apparently only those people who do not find fault with Dylan's logic or point out his mistakes are allowed to post there.
I was given no warning and no explanation.
However, if you read the below, screen shots I took of the dialogue as well as text, you will understand the reason I was locked out. His embarassment was at being proven blantantly wrong and for calling KT a liar when he most definitely was not. And when the real story was that Dylan didn't have his facts right. And didn't like the facts of the "No-Planers." He threw out "Killtown," one of the Nets most long-time and respected researchers from the "Loose Change" Forum, for his own mistake. And because he didn't like the truth. It made him uncomfortable. Dylan was shown not only wrong, but incompetant, since he would not admit his mistake and tried to cover it up by getting rid of the evidence, rather than to learn from it and move on.
Dylan Avery does not want to research all of 9/11 evidence.
The same kind of control of information, which the government uses to maintain its power, through the Media, is used by Dylan in his ownership of his brand "Loose Change" and his desire, through force, to erase those he disagrees with.
Kudos and Credits go to "still Diggin'" who did the original research on Rose Arce on which I based my writing: 9/11 Eyewitness Report Cards, Installment I: Rose Arce
Click to enlarge and read:
From Still Diggn's profile of Rose Arce:
The first video is from ground zero after the WTC2 explosions. In the clip below, Rose is interviewed by Daryn Kagan for about 2 minutes from Video Run Time (VRT) 3:30 to 5:30.
Rose Arce CNN interview Sept. 11, 2001
"In actuality, this isn’t an eyewitness account at all, which is why I found it to be so interesting. Sure, she is talking about what is going on at 9:23am – but notice that she never mentions seeing any “plane” herself, though this interview is taken just 20 minutes after the alleged "airplane" impact." from Still Diggn'
Here is Rose Arc's own article about her experiences on September 11, 2001
The on-line transcript does not mention that Arce took any camera shot, in fact it has the camera in the hands of her host. It only mentions that she was at some stranger's apt, who had cameras, and that they were concerned to keep the children away from the windows.
They take still photos for a living, of smiling children and stuff like shiny fruit. Jim calls his subjects "things that don't move," Arce says.
[This insight and research is from still diggn']
9/11 Eyewitness Report Cards, Installment I: Rose Arce
[QUOTE=dylan avery,May 10 2007, 09:17 AM][QUOTE=vasudha,May 10 2007, 08:16 AM] From where did you get your info, Dylan?
If you do have an "in" with Arce and somehow know her, as you seemed to have insinuated on the radio show tonight, me and some people I work with would be more than interested to speak with and interview her? Did you hear directly from her that she shot some footage from Battery Park? Or did you hear that second hand?
Are you deaf? I explained several times last night.
CNN, America Remembers. It's on DVD.
I have no "ins", you are simply delusional.[/QUOTE]
Ok, I just looked at the CNN clip.
Rose Arce never says, or even slightly implies, in the CNN "America Remembers" Special, that she took the CNN exclusive video of the second "hit," taken from Battery Park. Though the CNN Exclusive is shown in that Special juxtaposed with an interview with her.
Here is the transcript.
Here's a copy of the transcript to joggle Dylan's memory:
"ROSE ARCE, CNN PRODUCER: When I got outside, I saw everybody was like looking up toward the sky and I started running downtown toward the building and I got maybe a block or two before I saw there was a motorist stopped on the corner, so I jumped up to her window and just waved my CNN ID in her face and said "Give me a ride. Give me a ride," and she let me in the car.
I got within a few blocks of the World Trade Center when suddenly there was this second sort of roar that came out of the sky and everyone just looked right up and another plane came and just barreled into the other tower. At first I thought I'm dreaming. Oh my God, this can't be. This hasn't happened.
I looked up and the first thing I thought is my God a plane is flying so low in a big city with these tall buildings. What's it doing so low? There was a schoolyard across the street and I remember there were kids that were being evacuated from the schoolyard and one of the girls looked up in the sky and she said to her father: "Daddy, look they're doing it on purpose.""
All of which kind of makes sense, considering she is also telling people she was just getting to within a few blocks of the Tower, just when the second "plane" hit and considering the "Exclusive" shot was taken from the water's edge - which I explained in my previous post.
I assume Avery either did not read it, or decided, by force of will, that it must be wrong without thinking too much about it.
Also, according to this article she is in an Apt. with strangers for the use of a phone.
So otherwise, if she did take the CNN exclusive, she would be "Triple Girl," at three places at once.
Dylan's brain must've just filled-in that wrong info when he watched the Special - maybe because he were so filled with emotion? And that has given him false-memory syndrome?
If Dylan has another version of the CNN Special, where she says or implies different, I suggest he posts it, otherwise we will considered him wrong. [His reply was to lock me out of the discussion.]
But as I said, even if you are right and another version of the CNN Special does exist...there is still the problem of her presence at three places at once.
This on-line article of hers, does not mention that Arce took any shot, in fact it has the camera in the hands of her host. Only mentioning that she was at some stranger's apt , who had cameras, and that they were concerned to keep the children away from the windows.
"I met Jim and his wife, Julie, and their kids that day because I needed a phone to call CNN."
She says she met the couple since she needed to use the phone to call CNN. Though in the voice interview of her from the CNN archive, she is speaking from the street.
Couple things. One:: I think you are confusing "Battery Park" with "Battery Park City." Those are two separate places. The place from where the CNN exclusive was taken was a park, no apartments or buildings. She could not have taken that video from anyone's apartment. No one could.
There is a CNN interview with her from the archives, which you can find here in which Arce does not mention seeing the "plane" but specifically says, "when they saw the 2nd plane."
I researched that CNN Exclusive shot you got so angry about, the one you banned "Killtown" over, the one you called him a liar about, and the one you called me "deluded" for .......trying to break through your fantasy world to the truth.
Walked around to find the spot where it must have been taken. Gone on a ferry ride to show it wasn't taken from there. Gone on three separate trips to that park and thought about it a lot.
The place where that shot was taken... a shot which is highly zoomed and tightly cropped, is on the edge of the land right at the water.
If you have another version of that Special where she says or implies anything different, I suggest you post that, otherwise we must assume you wrong.
I researched that shot. Iwalked around to find the spot where it must have been taken, went on a ferry ride to show it wasn't taken from there - went on three separate trips to that park and have thought about it a lot.
Rose not only does not make sense in her article:
"They take still photos for a living, of smiling children and stuff like shiny fruit. Jim calls his subjects 'things that don't move.'" Arce says in the article, not making sense.
Since when are small children, "things that don't move?"
Whoever is reading this and is not paying attention must be lulled into some kind of emotional trance, where logic doesn't matter and where it's just the sound of the words which are important.
Arce also claims to be at two or three places at once. (Two or three, depending on if the CNN special Dylan cites really has her saying she took the CNN exclusive.)
The place where that shot was taken... a shot which is highly zoomed and tightly cropped is on the edge of the land right at the water.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
"The pictures on your blog from Feb 4th 2007 gives a clear view what I was reacting to! ["Something was just "off"... Too many years as a graphic I suppose..."] My thought is that this:
...is the correct position for the plate used in the CNN clip, you're just off by 10-15 years of tree growth...
I don't believe you'll need to virtualize beyond your cropped image, this is the location for the primary plate [which] might, in my opinion, even been taken from an old still image."
"Found the (original?) CNN clip on youtube with a major zoom-out in the end which enabled me to composite your current picture and the CNN version clearly showing the impossibility of the shot due to HUGE TREES! "
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Thanks to Andrew Lowe Watson.
Upper photo is still shot taken from a video I made from the tourist boat that travels right up near to the area from where the CNN "Ghostplane" is meant to look like it was taken.
Below is a still from the CNN "Ghostplane" vid.
Even if 16 Rector is alleged to be obscured by the trees....the proportions don't work. The place where "16 Rector" should be visible in the CNN "amateur" exclusive shows empty air.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Whitehall from Tourist Boat: No Angle Matches CNN "Ghostpane" Amateur Vid
Tourist Boat Research: Peggy Carter
Monday, April 23, 2007
Thursday, April 19, 2007
CNN Fake Footage Blasted: When, where, and how did they film this?
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Regardless of what people tell you you see.
This was posted as a response to Humint's excellent blog:
The 2nd Plane and the Lack of Deceleration
Comparing these two clips and analyzing the "physics" of the clips which allegedly show the impact of UA Flt 175 with the South Tower of the World Trade Twin Towers Sept. 11, 2001.
Peggy Carter said...
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Friday, March 30, 2007
9/11 Truth Activists supporting Rosie O 'Donnell on her Birthday, NYC
The main problem is saying we need "experts." Rosie won't be able to choose who. She said on her blog she doesn't do booking.
Same thing happened, with same Network - ABC, in the 60's:
Producers had a debate all planned between the proponents and critics of the Warren Commission Report. ABC News higher ups scrubbed it and instead hosted a presentation by "experts" that was run as a mind control spin devise to "explain away" all the problems of the WCR and to put everyone's mind at ease.
The Powers-that-be made sure to brush it under the carpet at a time when there would still, arguably, perhaps be some repercussions if the truth became widely known. (If Americans are not truly vain and bigoted ignoramuses who allow themselves to be led by clowns and criminals).
If there are two physicists arguing two sides - you're f***ed, (And since when is Physics that squishy?) since one side will provide the Hannity style (bombast liar) and the other the Colmes ( watered down nit-wit sucker suck-up loser).
If they have one "expert", you'll know who that will be - careerist undercover psycho Micheal Shermer or clone thereof. Or Popular Mechanics.
The problem is that the "experts" have misled us. And can't be trusted. Even Steven Jones said, at the closing news conference in AZ, that "more evidence" is needed!
However, I think it's quite clear that what's right in front of us is more than plain.
You don't need an expert to tell you those Towers came down too fast and there isn't enough jet fuel in the universe to pulverize it in total. In ~12 seconds. Nor could simple falling have done it.
You don't need an expert to tell you there was no reason for the collapse of the Salomon Bros bldg (no. 7), likewise abnormally quick.
The only reason people didn't see it at the time was they were in an altered state from the trauma, on-the-ground spin, and larger-than-life drama. Plus folks are used to being fed their world view by their "friends," the talking heads on the Tube - and would never think to question them.
The interesting thing to me is how the ones who designed this could've know for sure how easily they'd get away with it. I contend that there have been practice runs, in getting the public to accept in-their-face absurdities, since at least 1963 when Kennedy died. The public is also used to accepting blatant absurdities in Hollywood movies - trained in suspension of disbelief, trained to put their critical mind in abeyance.
When the collapse of 7 was finally shown on TV, with Mike Berger as guest, if you look at the clip (on the Internet you can replay it and watch closely) you'll see that it was doctored so it wouldn't look as though it went straight down. That's because if you see the unaltered clip it's too likely you'd notice the Bld. comes down too fast. Strangely fast.
I "love" Rosie, (even though in reality I don't know her). I admire her good work and even feel personally grateful to her for speaking out the truth, since I love my country.
However, I think it's naive, and I said so all along, to believe the network Media are going to break this story. As if the only way people will believe it is if the TV tells them and announces to them, "We were in on it too."
But people are waiting for that, and have been, and believe the Mainstream Mass Media are our only hope.
Don't you get it? The mainstream Media are like the pedophile priests, you think they are taking you to heaven but they are buggering your little boy.
How much more obvious is that than from the BBC clip with Jane Standley?
False hope is our enemy. To get the real answer to our bleak situation we're going to have to stop being tricked by false hope. False hope leads us around by the nose, as does our TV.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Ironically Mr. Holmgren's story, "Debunking Conspiracy Theorists" a favorite (as well as a must-read for newbies to 9/11 official story skepticism) is passed around avidly by many "truthlings" who still worship the 9/11 scholar-leader-heroes whom Holmgren has proved to be compromised.
His "And Then I Jumped Over A 9 Foot Hedge - the Surprising Adventures of Stanley Praimnath" should also achieve immortality.
This was a rant which was not intended for publication but was from an email. I thought it important to publish:
"No, I think it's just following the same pattern as demolition and everything else:
First they try to pretend it doesn't exist.
When that's no longer an option, they start attacking.
When that's no longer an option they co-opt it.
It comes back to the same basic lesson. If people had wanted to know, things never would have got to this stage. If people had wanted to know, just TENC and J McMichael [original researchers of Jan 2002] would have started a wave which swept across the world in an unstoppable tide. Any disinfo attempts would have been swept away by millions of people looking into every crevice of the official story. And when you first noticed that there was no plane in the first hit - if someone didn't beat you to it - within a week, the news would have been all over the planet.
What's taken 5 years would have taken 6 months.
Before Sept 11, I was already cynical about people's capacity to think and care. But because this was such an extreme event and so universal in it's impact, I saw it as an opportunity. That if there was anything which could wake people up, this would be it because the proof was so irrefutable from so many different angles.
Yet 5 years later people who supposedly hate Bush are still ridiculing the stand down evidence even. They just don't want to know. You can lead a horse to water but you
can't make them drink.
We can't blame the perps any more.
We can't even blame the truthlings.
The reality is that most people are quite happy to see villages in some far off country get the crap bombed out of them if they think it'll make their petrol cheaper or whatever. They're quite happy to see their neighbor get marched off to Gitmo, if it means an extra parking space in the street or whatever.
People create elaborate charades to fool both themselves and others into thinking otherwise, but the reality is that if people wanted to know, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. When I say "wanted to know", I'm not just talking about no planes. I'm talking about the whole thing.
They didn't want to know about the stand down or the demolition, or the pre-planned invasion of Afghanistan or the fake OBL video or the Pentagon non-plane or Bush in the classroom or any of it. They just wanted to look the other way and pretend not to understand, and pretend to be too stupid. Some of them are stupid, but most of it is just pretending.
The bottom line is that most people would have done the same thing (S11) themselves if they had been in a position of power and opportunity.
I think the reason that the Griffinization of no-planes is happening now is because it's close to breaking out and straight out hostility and ridicule won't contain it any more. So it's co-opt it time.
And the reason it will work is because the average person does not want to know what we've been trying to tell them. If they did, 99% of people would have understood it straight away."
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Yale Beauty Stabbed 17 Times - "Top Al Qaida Expert" Is Only Suspect. -
1998 Murder Mystery has 9/11 Intelligence Connection
Did She Know Too Much?
This was in response to a "Killtown" article/blog. : Yale student's '98 murder linked to 9/11? Jan. 16, 2007
It was a post on his log which got too long.
Just a quibble on the Lie Detector issue to start:
Lie detector tests are always bogus. A real astute criminal, trained operative, and/or Psycho (especially) can always pass. It just takes a bit of training and knowledge. And a certain kind of nerve. An innocent person will often not pass, simply because the procedure frightens them.
The only thing interesting about the Lie Detector element in this case is:
1) Someone thought if Van de Velde passed it, somehow that would show he was innocent. (Sheeple! What can you do?)
2) VdV has refused to take any more tests, beyond the one he has already taken which was administered by some FBI-connected operative.
#2 means VdV is very upset by the situation and is not a top-rated psycho. A top-rated 100% psycho wouldn't flinch when proclaiming innocence. So best guess....He's a medium-rated psycho intelligence operative who botched the job.
The police have some reason for believing Van de Velde guilty.
The people who argue for his innocence seem to make him appear more guilty.
The excuses they give as to why he must be innocent ("The State Dept. wouldn't give highest security clearance to a murderer" "Why would he drive one half mile past his house and kill her on a street corner?") don't ring true.
The answer to the first apology is "untrue."
And the answer to the second has no bearing on whether or not he did it.
Why would his defenders have to go so far out on a limb to find a reason for his innocence. Wouldn't an: "He wasn't there He didn't do it" suffice?
( You will find the same absurd lines of apologetics among the 9/11 government story supporters: "If they really did it why would they be so stupid and obvious as to pretend to find the passport of the hijacker [sic] in the street where nothing else remained?" !)
As we know, (as 9/11 researchers), considering VdV's specialty, his background and standing as an intelligence operative, the extent Jovin did her thesis on his special "field of interest" - "Osama bin Laden" - her strange murder and VdV's connection to her, the events leading up to her death, the timing with the deadline of her thesis, all adds up to too much of a stretch to imagine a mere coincidence.
Sorry, no bite.
The "dating" issue, VdV's lack of social skills, reputed trouble with woman, history of stalking, is a red herring.
The police probably concluded it was a passion crime since she was stabbed 17 times? (Or maybe there are other reasons, not disclosed, for their conclusion?) However, the precise method could have been staged, done coldly and deliberately, to make it look passionate. Or he, whoever performed the deed (most likely "he"), could've been enough of a psycho to get "into" it, without personal motive. The police may have helped with the red herring.
(Anyone see "The Departed," the latest Scorsese which takes place in Boston? It's based on a true story. In real life the two leads were brothers. And in real life the criminal liaison brother, the one in the Police Dept., is still alive somewhere under a false ID. Yes, and the FBI was in cahoots with the local police department. And not in a nice way.)
I don't believe you rise to 5 levels above top secret security clearance without some very special attributes. And pacifism isn't one of them.
I speculate VdV's political power and insider status made him feel he could get away with it. He may have made a mistake in the "information" he gave Jovin, didn't know how to get out of it, stonewalled and put off discussing her thesis.
But when it finally came down to it, couldn't dissuade her from publishing the "info" he had mistakenly provided or recruit her either. That's, perhaps, why she got out of the car. He could've have angered her and that would have been the trigger for her to get out of the car without a destination. The random location near his apartment tends to make me believe she got out of the car herself when they could not come to agreement.
When VdV said to local television reporters soon after the murder, "I never hurt her," it could be he told the truth? Maybe another specialist co-worker did it. Sort of like James Jesus Angleton saying in regard to the murder of JFK (which happened while he was spy-master head of CIA), ~"I don't know who killed John. There are many mansions..." when he was forced by Congress to testify about it.
Perhaps VdV had to cover his ass and the Black or Latino man seen with them all, on the street before it happened, helped out. That explains certain details - the lack of apparent struggle. (But then again, she was stabbed from behind. Maybe that accounts for it.) Certainly, VdV was trained at some point for "self-defense" and had a clean-up crew.
The police couldn't actually arrest him since it's blocked by higher ups? Someone in the Police Dept nevertheless refuses to clear Van de Velde's name.
And ultra-right-wing good-looking woman commentators are set to the task of framing it a "Left-wing conspiracy" by the oh-so-very radical and liberal Yale University!?
Schlussel blames (see below) VdV's supposed wrongful loss of status on the partiality of the Media - with anti-University and anti-Intellectuality as the blinking star at the top of the plastic Christmas tree:
"Debbie Does Washington"
With defender's like Schlussel? ......
Yikes! She's makes VdV look bad! At least to anyone with 1/2 a brain left.
->"And unlike a real murderer he's never even been charged." Schlussel says.
(Apparently the Jovin parents are angry with the University too, for trying to encourage people to put it behind them - ~"Get over it. Or it will destroy the reputation of callous Yale."
Think about that!
With the Yale reputation as it stands?! Association of the Skull and Bones etc. and the Bushes?! They are worried about this!
Ah, Maybe rightly.
Especially how could W. have graduated there?!. And how could he have bragged at a Commencement ceremony, during his tenure as President of the US, that he had read one book while studying as a student during his time at Yale?
W. discredits Yale every day. ! How could it be different? Think of the retard interview where he smirks while coyly stating he hadn't the stomach to watch the complete S. Hussein slaughter video
In the Right-wing criticism of Yale.... what about... should the suspect in the case have been a radical, progressive or free-thinking professor? The reactionary Right-wing Pit Bull hoards of blow-hards would be panting after the suspect's neck, carrying ropes, prepping his ass for a torture session, putting his trash under a microscope for 24/7 surveillance, while blinding him with klieg lights under unremitting Media coverage!
(It didn't bother the Wingers to ruin a previous President's official (because supported by the Media) reputation for integrity when there was, for instance, no evidence then or now that said President ever actually had intercourse with his intern. And even if he did? What if he did? So what?)
And what about the Democrat intern who disappeared/was murdered the summer before 9/11/01? Chandra Levy?
Did it stop the Right-wing blowhards when there was supposedly no good evidence against the suspect in that case either? Did anyone cry tears or complain that their careers had been unfairly ruined? Was there a complaint against the Media for it? No, just righteous indignation and complaint that the suspect couldn't be pinned.
But now the wing-nut flag wavers are all in tears over Van de Velde's humiliation?
And if VdV guy plays his cards right maybe he can profit from the dark side of his personification and get a new career, like O.J. or "Ollie" North!
But VdV doesn't seem to have even the minimum charisma for that.
The 17 stabs makes one think there was emotional involvement and the killer was truly angry?
Not necessarily. I'm not sure on that point. Some types of psychos just get "into" it. Those just happen to be very rare. And usually don't work in rich neighborhoods against popular co-eds ... since they don't want to get caught!
Are the VdV supporters stating that it's a conspiracy by the police against him...and that's why the police deliberately ignored other leads. Or did the police already know who did it and just couldn't get him for it?
And because VdV wouldn't take a police administered lie detector test? Does that mean he's not a bona fide psycho?
Maybe he was afraid a particular question would trigger him? And he really didn't need to take it!? Since he wouldn't be arrested anyway.
DNA evidence is worthless in a politically charged murder case, in Boston. Or probably anywhere. So the fact the DNA under her fingers doesn't match him means nothing.
And what about the class "project" Jovin objected to: where the class was set the task of figuring out if they could gather sufficient info for themselves, from the Internet, to minutely and rigorously plot a terror attack. The plan was how to drop sarin out of an airplane over FL?! Jovin refused to enlist her parents as information sources to help out.
She spoke up on that, and refused the assignment, against others in the class who went along, which shows her fine character.
What was Van de Velde, anyway, getting young top students and brains to help with a "terrorism" project - simulating a terrorist attack?!
Bastards. The good sure die young.
This video proves that in a high speed crash between a plane and a wall much of the material should bounce off on the outside.
You don't see, in this example, some of the material turning to dust while some of it survives intact. You don't see the plane penetrate the wall even slightly, as the "plane" appeared to do completely in the videos of the 9/11 South Tower event.
It's true that the F-4 is perhaps made of harder material and more sturdily built, since it's made to travel at higher speeds and that it is smaller than a commercial airline. But if it is harder, then why isn't it even less likely, than a 767, to disintegrate into nothing upon impact?
So the proponents of the authenticity of the Media videos have it both ways - the "plane" is hard enough to penetrate the outer rigid wall of steel columns, but disintegrates to nothing once it gets inside - where it presumably is met with a lot of air and some central columns.
Did "it" lose momentum upon breaking the shell of the building? As one would assume. (But how could "it" lose momentum if the side of the building appeared to give no resistance?)
To follow this "logic" of no loss of momentum "it" would hit the central core with less force than "it" hit the outside of the building? But this would somehow be enough force to totally disintegrate the "plane?"
Or if not, the intense fires would burn up all the plane parts?
Yet if a fire from a plane crash can burn up all the parts and leave no debris, why is it this has never happened before? (I fully expect the Media perps/suggestibility specialists to start occasionally to stage such "events" from now on, to normalize freaky occurrences.)
Why were supposed plane parts, which don't even match the parts of a 767, then found in the neighborhood? (I should say "put on display" there?). When none were shown to fall away in the video presented? Why weren't these parts found in the regular rubble of the "pile?" But instead all about in the street? (Especially when there is no exit hole on the North side of the South Tower for any of this debris to have exited.)
If a plane breaks up so well upon impact with an immovable object, as it does in the above video - and I will say steel columns, attached to the side of a Trade Tower, are relatively immovable, then why didn't the "plane" appear to break up, i.e. do the same thing it did in the test above, in the videos everyone is shown of the event?
Here's an example of the columns immovability:
None of the steel column segments appear to break off where they were attached i.e. pop out, when hit.
So the columns must've been pretty well secured and attached. The set-up was rigid enough that when a force was applied THE WHOLE BUILDING MOVED.
To quote a structural engineer, Pegelow, who spoke recently on the Alex Jones show, ~"The Trade Towers were not a House of Cards, where one event could push their stability over the edge, and trigger a complete collapse."
If the "plane" truly and cleanly punched out a hole in the side of the building, where did the force come from to cause the building to sway?
If the "plane" truly and cleanly punched out a hole in the side of South Tower, that means a section of wall, in the outline of a plane, put up no resistance to the entry of the "plane."
If the wall *had* put up resistance, some of the plane would've broken up. If it put up none, the building wouldn't end up swaying.
The steel columns were just, supposedly, punched through - without dislodging from where ever they were attached from below.
That would mean the mass of the entire South World Trade Center was behind the "kick" it received from the "plane."
The "impact" didn't punch out the entire column. So this implies the columns were all quite well attached and that the side of the building was, of a piece, a relatively rigid barrier. Made of steel, which is stronger than AL. Planes are made of AL for its lightness. So the side of the building was strong compared to the plane.
The wall, shown in the test video above, is made of a specially prepared cement-like material - which one would assume is softer than steel. It's meant to cushion any impact, so as not to be penetrated, as it would be if more rigid, less giving.
The Trade Tower sides were also all designed to "give" upon having force applied. That is how they withstood wind storms. Witnesses state that the building swung upon "impact." (Not sure how many reading this have felt that swing of a Trade Tower in the wind, from inside of one. But you could feel it quite clearly on a windy day. It induced fear in me, and a kind of sea sickness.)
So even though both "rigid" barriers were designed to "give" upon impact, in only one case, if you compare the video representations of what happen to South Tower on 9/11 and the test for nuclear power station safety, did you see the plane break up *completely* upon impact, and the barrier successfully and totally resist penetration.
And that, we assume, was in a real world test. Why the discrepancies between the records? The cement barrier looks hardly scratched.
So why wasn't any material repelled by the wall of the WTC Tower, if it was indeed hit by a real plane? Why did the "plane" totally penetrate the wall of the Tower like a hot knife into butter?
Why isn't the hole/scar on the South Tower even big enough to allow the supposed "plane" entry, as it is shown in the videos of the event? Why is no plane debris visible in either "mouth"/scar of the World Trade Towers' wounds?
Why isn't there an exit hole on the North side of the South Tower building, even though numerous videos show material and a nose-like object, timed with where the "plane nose" would've been seen, had "it" continued on its apparent trajectory without impediment, exit on that side??
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Above is a picture from Battery Park of the Whitehall Bld. featured in this Video:
The picture above is the viewpoint from here as shown by the black "x." The Whitehall Building is the large brick-colored and dirty-beige checked one, with brown stripes, at the very left front in the picture above.
The view, is actually looking over the top of the fort. In the top image you can see the fort Clinton, which is a low brick structure at the left. In the picture directly above that's the circular building in the foreground.
Here is the same exact photo from at top cropped and zoomed to imitate the view in the "Ghostplane" rendition as seen in the video.
Here is a still taken from that video.
Here is an overlay of the two pictures above, done by "brianv" see his
"No Planes 9/11 - The Holy Grail"
Below are the approximate locations "x"-ed out: of the viewer, the Whitehall Building and the South World Trade Tower.
Red "X"-es here:
Here is a Google Earth screen shot where I have "x"-ed in the three players. It shows the relationship between the viewer, the top of the Whitehall Bld. and the World Trade Tower South. The height of the Whitehall Bld. is represented by the two "x"-s, one on top of the other. The height of the Trade Tower is the vertical line to the right. It's all roughly to scale. If you want it larger, click on the picture.
These are the measures I made. From the front of Whitehall Bld. to observer, 1000 ft. From observer to foot of World Trade Tower South, 3300 ft. Height of Whitehall Tower, 424ft. Height of Trade Tower, 1727 ft. When these figures are mapped out, the line of sight of the viewer, from where I stood in the Park, captures the appropriate top section of the Trade Tower as shown in the above clip, altered in any case. The buildings between the Trade Tower and the Whitehall Bld. are too short to interfere with this sight line. The ones to the right when you're facing it, could very well be covered with trees. It's not uncommon to have the leaves on the trees here in September.
The model is approximate and rough but illustrates some reasons behind the optical illusion many people experience in viewing one of the government-sponsored video clip, "Ghostplane."
When I made my triangles of the correct proportions and drew a sight line - only the top portion of the South Tower was visible - exactly how the scene was rendered in the government released clip.
The Towers appear too short above the Whitehall Bld. This is due to a few things: Please notice the shortening of the perceived distance between the observer and the WB in the "close-up" shot. This comes about through the use of zooming and cropping so the perceived distance is shortened. One has no idea how high up one is looking or how far away. However, the Whitehall Bld is over 400 ft. tall.
Appreciate the scale clearly by looking at the first picture above which shows the Whitehall Bld. in the context of the Battery Park setting. The distances: both between the observer and the building and between the top of the Whitehall building and the ground are clear in the unaltered perspective.
The difficulty in processing the scale here is due to another factor: the unnatural height of the Tower and its obscure distance from the viewer. (The South Tower is over 1/2 a mile away from the observer in Battery Park and is itself 1/4 of a mile tall.)
Much as the gigantic moon, though very far away, will appear larger when it is near the horizon. In this case we only feel the building should be larger.
The larger-Moon-near-the-horizon effect is an optical illusion since the moon's objective size doesn't change. It's so far away its apparent size won't change no matter where it moves.
When you plot the distances out between the observer, the top of the Whitehall Bld. and the top of the South Trade Tower, the top of the South Trade Tower is right where it should be and where it is depicted in the screen shot of the video. The World Trade Tower South is so much more huge than we can process and therefore subconsciously "assume" the proportion is wrong. We can't see it as being distant. From what it looks like in the cropped rendition we assume that it must be closer and the size of a regular skyscraper. This is also partly because we are deceived, from the photograph since the Whitehall Building appears there much smaller than it actually is. Most of the building is cropped away in the "Ghostplane" video clip.
Click on picture below for full size image:
If you click on the pictures you can see the larger versions.