On Disinformation and Damaging Associations

[reprehensor]

Nearly seven years out from 9/11, and disinformation remains a persistent problem within the 9/11 Truth movement. Part of the problem has been that sites like 911blogger.com have been slow to label blatant disinformation as such. Back in April, I noted that certain topics would no longer be tolerated (at 911blogger). In the interim, two of these topics were introduced in a U.S. District Court in New York, setting a poor benchmark for future 9/11 Truth-related cases in New York. It's now time for a firmer, (and admittedly glaringly late), stance on Fakery, DEW, and "SBHT" syndrome, at 911blogger.

To start, let's skip back to 9/11/2001;

"So did you hear?"

"Hear what?"

"An airplane hit the World Trade Center this morning."

"What kind? You mean, a little plane?"

"I don't know, just 'a plane'. It was on the radio."

Immediately, something didn't seem quite right. I thought that it could have been a small commuter plane, but not a jumbo, not with contemporary guidance and radar systems. No way. However, before long, the radio was delivering the news of a second plane strike. Definitely a big jet.

This was an attack.

Aircraft struck the twin towers. It's very likely that they were Boeings, and it's also probable* that they were the very Boeings that the media reported as "hijacks". It seems absurd to have to say these things, but the fact of the matter is, there is a disinformation campaign afoot, largely confined to a handful of sites and YouTube, to trick people into thinking that "no planes" hit the Towers, that the objects that hit the Towers were cloaked in holograms, or were holographs, and that digital alterations were made to broadcast footage on the fly, on 9/11.

If this were the case, then there would be no video or photographs in existence that are basically anomaly free, depicting the 2nd aircraft hitting the other WTC tower, but this is not the case;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgRK2bvu--I

It's just not the case.

Further, the transcribed oral histories of First Responders that were recorded in the days and weeks following 9/11 indicate strongly that debris from loaded commercial jets was in plain view in the area surrounding the towers;

Christopher Attanasio (EMT): "...we took 2nd Avenue all the way down. Upon arrival, towers one and two were both ablaze. The second plane had hit the second tower already. Both towers were totally engulfed. People were jumping out of the buildings. There was airplane fuselage and landing gear around the site. Body parts, victims' remains on the floor. There were some injuries on the street. Some cars were on fire."

John Breen (FDNY): "We did see part of -- I didn't see it, but Jeff Johnson told me later on he did see part of the landing gear actually fell right through the roof and it was in one of the Jacuzzis in another room."

Michael Cain (FDNY): "We parked on West Street and I guess about Albany, West Street and Albany, got out of the car and started going up West Street and there were body parts in the street. The plane wheel was in the street."

Richard Carletti (FDNY): "When we passed 10 and 10, there's a bridge that runs I guess into one of the buildings directly south of Trade Center No. 2. There's a pedestrian walkway. As we passed that, we came into the debris field. It was jet parts and body parts."

Manuel Delgado (EMS): "An explosion goes off. I immediately tell everyone to get out of the car and hide somewhere, go underneath something. It's interesting because, as we were there, there was a police car, I guess, on Vesey, on the corner there, and some debris comes down from whatever this explosion was, at the time we really didn't know, and it just crushes it, I mean, crushes the top front of the police car, which really scared me at that point.

Q. Could you tell if it was airplane parts?

A. It looked like an airplane part afterward, yes, it did. It looked like part of an engine. It was pretty big. It was probably the size of the hood because it kind of hit it, bounced, and then rolled off."

Michael Donovan (FDNY): "We heard the plane briefly, the earth shook, the buildings shook, a tremendous fireball overhead. I thought there was a bomb or an explosion. A tremendous fireball, flaming debris, pieces of the airplane, fuselage, landing gear, pieces of the building."

Thomas Fiztpatrick (FDNY): "I figured, as long as we didn't get hit by the plane, we were ahead of the game. The next thing I was worried about was getting hit by the parts. Various pieces of the plane were falling on the street. As we went down the street you could see parts of aircraft with stencil numbers on it and things like that. There was a wheel, or like a wheel housing or something else there in the street."

Ray Goldbach (FDNY): "The four of us got out of the car, we started to cross Broadway, and the second plane went into the other tower. I don't know what time it was, but Tom McDonald yelled something like holy shit, oh, fuck. He hit the ground out on the street. We all got up. We kept walking. I believe we went down - I don't know whether it was Dey or Cortlandt Street. We walked down that block. It was littered with airplane parts, pieces of the building."

Steve Grabher (FDNY): "...by the time we got near 2 World Trade Center people were jumping off the roof like crazy. Landing near the hotel and the street was littered with body parts. I don't know if it was from the plane or what. But there was just body parts all over the place. Chunks of meat. I saw an airplane tire. I walked past an airplane tire. What looked like an airplane tire."

Stephen Gregory (FDNY): "I saw airplane parts on West Street.

Q. How did you know they were airplane parts?

A. It looked like pieces of a plane, skin of a plane. I mean, they weren't really discernible. I couldn't say this was this part of a plane or that was that part. Just knowing a plane had hit the building and I looked and I saw it looked like the skin off a wing or a fuselage or wherever it came from.

Q. Clearly not building material?

A. No. The building material was sort of gray and you could see it, you know, how it differed from the plane."

Michael Guttenberg (Office of Medical Affairs): "The other thing that was actually evident, though, is what appeared to be some plane parts, like some circular pieces of a plane, and lots of shoes. I don't know if that was women jumping out of their – jumping out of their heels to run, but there were -- just impressed me there were no -- you know, there were no injuries on the street at that point, but there was lots of shoes all over the place and plane parts. It was the same thing in both directions."

Michael Hazel (FDNY): "We just passed a compact car where the engine was running and the door was open, which looked to me like the driver had escaped, but from the back seat to the trunk was crushed by a jet engine."

Todd Heaney (FDNY): "THERE WERE PEOPLE DEAD PEOPLE EVERYWHERE DONT KNOW IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THAT WHAT DID YOU DO YOU KNOW YOU CAN SAY IT WHATEVER YOU SAW YOU KNOW THEY THE PEOPLE WERE JUST EVERYWHERE SAW SOME LUGGAGE FROM THE PLANE"

Stephen Hess (EMS): "...our initial response was seeing body parts and airplane parts all over the west side. Just traumatic to see."

Paul Hyland (FDNY): "We were coming across and we walked down. We had to go down to the command center. We carried all our tools, the bottles, everything, and as we're walking down, part of the plane engine was sitting right in the street, still burning. I said, look, this is the plane."

Robert Kimball (EMS): "Like I remember walking by with the chief, and I remember seeing the airplane engine, you know, pieces of, you know, obviously trade center all over."

John Lynn (FDNY): "I parked soon thereafter on West Street, geared up and walked along West Street, where I noticed landing gear and the evidence of some kind of explosion."

Orlando Martinez (EMS): "Once we started taking off, I guess 30 feet in front of us, there was a lady on the ground by the curb and she was just waving her arms. That's all she could wave. Her legs were crushed. Apparently she got hit by part of the landing gear, one of the tires of the airplane. There was a large tire next to her. The person who was next to her, I guess worked with her, said something hit her. It may have been the landing gear. It was a large piece of metal that was so sharp it slit her whole back open, buttocks. Her legs were exposed, bones. We boarded her as fast as we could. There was nowhere to grab her. She was too slippery, so I grabbed the hip bone. That was exposed. We just kind of picked her up, put her on the long board and we strapped her up, put her on the stretcher and took as much flesh as we could. It was just hanging all over the place, put it between her legs. Put her in the ambulance and rushed her to Beekman."

The above lady was not hit by a "holograph". She was mangled by an aircraft part. An aircraft part that came from one of the planes that crashed into the towers. It's really that simple.

One of (911blogger's) users, "SCAFFOLDRIDER", sent in photos that may reflect some of the kinds of airplane parts that the First Responders saw that morning. You have to forgive them for not grabbing pictures of the parts themselves, they had a few thousand other things on their minds. Nor were they expecting that the PsyOp of 9/11 would be extended indefinitely, attacking the verity of their experience. Here is SCAFFOLDRIDER's story;

I was there that morning of 9/11 working on a nearby roof and the following week I was asked to go to Ground Zero to help with the rigging of some of the buildings that were damaged. I worked on, 1 Liberty Plaza, Century 21 Building, Hilton Millenium Hotel, and The Federal Building.

Working at the Federal Building, it was our job to hang swing stage scaffolds from the 7th floor setback roof. When I first got up on the lower setback roof and saw the amount of debris I was amazed. Giant pieces of the World Trade Center aluminum siding were everywhere. We had to move most of them to fasten our tie-back scaffold cables. While moving one of these 7 foot pieces of aluminum I noticed what looked like an airplane part. I picked it up and it had a serial number on it and something in writing "hydraulic piston".

About a half hour later, the Postal Investigator and an FBI Agent came up to the setback roof. I was asked where exactly did I find it and not to remove anything else, especially anything spray painted in yellow paint. I was told that there were many airplane parts on the roof and most of them were identified by yellow spray paint.

Well throughout the day working on the roof I had come across the yellow paint on some objects. No one was supposed to have a camera on the Ground Zero site, but everyone had one. I had my in my work bucket and took pictures of the whole setback roof and debris.

Well, we had problems securing some tie- back cables to the setback roof and I had to go to the upper roof to see if we could run the cables up there. I had my camera and headed for the upper roof and I couldn't believe what I saw. There was a large piece of a landing gear and pieces of airplane parts all over the roof. I took many pictures and quickly left he roof.

Here are some of the photos that SCAFFOLDRIDER sent in to 911blogger.com;






Pretty persistent illusion, I would say. Most of these photos have been in the public domain since 2005. Other photos of aircraft parts are easily accessible via a google image search.

Witnesses saw the planes come in. Witnesses saw the debris in the streets. Video and photographic evidence confirms the reality of the 9/11 planes.

So those who propose that the 9/11 planes were video forgeries or "holographs" are either seriously confused, or they are purposefully promoting disinformation.

This site will not defend, support, or promote the instigators of these lies, or those who give them a platform. They are not friends of the truth. It doesn't matter if 90% of what they pump out is good. If 10% of what they are promoting is poison that is being injected into the public perception of 9/11 Truth... then they are a liability to accredited professionals laying their careers on the line to investigate 9/11, and they are an embarrassment to 9/11 activists who hit the streets in an effort to wake up the masses. Don't play dumb, unless of course, you are paid to play dumb. In which case, no amount of proof or shame will snap you out of it.

What is striking about the proponents of the above fraud, is their zeal in the face of the obvious. No matter how much proof you throw at the diehards, it won't change their brains by one synapse.

The aggressive promotion of the Fakers is matched only by the devotees of "Directed Energy Weapons" as the cause of the destruction of the Twin Towers.

There many problems with the DEW idea... it shouldn't actually be called a scientific hypothesis or theory. You have to be able to TEST a scientific hypothesis or theory, but you cannot test a system that you cannot even properly identify. It's an idea about how the Towers were demolished. Just an idea.

Physicist Greg Jenkins has written extensively about the improbability of DEW on 9/11 at the Journal of 9/11 Studies;

Solving The Great Steel Caper: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence

Supplemental: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence

The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center

INTERVIEW WITH DR. JUDY WOOD AND DR. GREG JENKINS**

Jenkins is also joined by Frank Legge;

"A study of some issues raised in a paper by Wood & Reynolds"

The majority of Jenkins' work has been in the public domain since October of 2007 at the latest. It utterly deconstructs the viability of the idea of DEW on 9/11.

Since then, the so-called Hutchison Effect has been rolled out as evidence of DEW on 9/11. There is a kind of relation. Both Hutchison and the video fakers rely on dodgy video clips to make their points. If Hutchison has been "creative" with his video footage, can the same be said of the anomalous footage of the fakers? It would certainly explain a lot. It is of course possible that some bored technician at Langley is throwing bogus footage out there for the Fakers to "discover", but either way, it's bad business.

In the face of the strong arguments against DEW on 9/11, the DEW proponents only plow ahead, indifferent to reason. So very similar to the proponents of video fakery.

What has support of this idea by a handful of people done for 9/11 Truth? By far (to date) the most damaging thing has been that Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood attempted to take their ideas to court. United States District Judge George B. Daniels dismissed their complaints, with prejudice;

"Plaintiffs claim that a terrorist attack was not responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center complex (“WTC”). According to plaintiffs, the evidence demonstrates that the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers was caused by a United States secret military “directed energy weapon.” Plaintiffs’ attorney argues that “the defendants knowingly participated in the fraud of furthering the false claim that two wide-body jetliners hit the World Trade Center on 9/11/01.”
...

"All defendants ... moved to dismiss the lawsuits as being frivolous, and for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6), respectively. The motions to dismiss are granted and all three complaints are dismissed with prejudice."

"Plaintiffs maintain that the alleged fraudulent nature of the investigation has furthered the deception, perpetrated upon the masses, that the WTC was demolished as a result of terrorists plowing two commercial airplanes, filled with thousand of gallons of jet fuel, directly into the Twin Towers at a high rate of speed. They claim that, through the employment of psychological operations, millions were deceived into believing that the destruction was caused by a terrorist hijacking that murdered thousands of innocent people inside. Plaintiffs theorize that what actually occurred was that the Twin Towers disintegrated after being struck by the United States military’s secret laser-like weaponry. All three plaintiffs explain that these “directed energy weapons” “are operational in Earth<’s> orbit, at high altitude, low altitude, at sea and on land, ranging in lethality from the capacity to do great damage such as that of destroying the World Trade Center Twin Towers in less than 10 seconds each, as occurred on 9/11/01, down to and including imposition of a disabling stun on human beings for crowd control and/or other psy ops purposes.”

"Plaintiffs, understandably, offer nothing more than conjecture and supposition to support their claim that the towers were struck by high powered energy beams. Their personal hypothesis about what should be concluded from publicly disclosed information does not qualify either of them as an original source of information in order to sustain an individual FCA claim on behalf of the Government."

"Plaintiffs’ theories about the cause of the 9/11 disaster completely fail to state a cognizable claim for relief."

"Plaintiffs merely allege the existence of a nefarious conspiracy of epic proportion. They name all defendants as coconspirators. They therefore conclude that all defendants’ work records and the services they performed are fraudulent because they are tainted by the illegal conspiracy in which they participated. Such generalized attempts at fraud pleading fail to meet the requirements of Rule 9(b). See, United States ex rel. Joshi v. St. Luke’s Hosp., Inc., 441 F.3d 552, 556-57 (8th Cir. 2006)"

The above is extracted from Judge Daniels' dismissal.

This is the bitter fruit harvested by supporting this nonsense.

Now, all of these defendants;

APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.; SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP.; BOEING; NuSTATS; COMPUTER AIDED ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.; DATASOURCE, INC.; GEOSTAATS, INC.; GILSANZ MURRAY STEFICEK LLP; HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC.; AJMAL ABBASI; EDUARDO KAUSEL; DAVID PARKS; DAVID SHARP; DANIELE VENEZANO; JOSEF VAN DYCK; KASPAR WILLIAM; ROLF JENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.; ROSENWASSER/GROSSMAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, P.C.; SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER, INC.; S.K. GHOSH ASSOCIATES, INC.; SKIDMORE, OWING & MERRILL, LLP; TENG & ASSOCIATES, INC.; UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, INC.; WISS, JANNEY, ELSTNER ASSOCIATES, INC.; AMERICAN AIRLINES; SILVERSTEIN PROPERTIES; and UNITED AIRLINES.

...have this dismissal to point to the next time some 9/11 Truth activists come calling in a New York District Court with a legal complaint alleging that something other than airplanes took down the Towers.

It's shameful.

If you are promoting this nonsense, you are no friend of the truth. If you give a platform for this nonsense, you are no friend of the truth. This site will not support you.

Finally, on a different track, there is the phenomenon of "Suddenly Blossoming Holocaust Truther" (SBHT) syndrome. Truthers who don't talk of their obsession with proving that the holocaust of WWII is a "hoax", until AFTER they have wormed their way into your community. The most clear cut example of this is of course Eric Hufschmid. (Jim Hoffman's 911review.com tells the basic tale here.)***

The general pattern is as follows, the "Holocaust Truther" makes friends and allies within your 9/11 community, even publishes a great book or video, (in Hufschmid's case, both a book and a video), and after a period of time (after the work of the Holocaust Truther has been disseminated and quoted widely) the real Truther is revealed.

What is one of the most popular 9/11 Truth videos on the street right now?

Arguably, Sofia Shafquat's "911 Mysteries".

Sofia Shafquat is currently selling "The Ernst Zundel Story" at her online store.

I repeat; One of the highest profile 9/11 Truth websites is selling an Ernst Zundel documentary. This has been going on for months.

When you consider the attention that the Simon Wiesenthal Center has paid to the 9/11 Truth movement, and AE911Truth.org in particular, you have to seriously consider the intentions of such a move.

Is Sofia Shafquat giving us a head's up about her future research?

Her store also distributes The Science and Politics of 9/11 - 2007 Conference DVD, which documents a conference in Madison, Wisconsin conducted late last summer (2007) that promoted the disinformation of the Fakers, and the non-hypothesis of DEW.

When the Financial Times of London did its first major piece on the 9/11 Truth movement, it zeroed in on the Madison conference as a wellspring of hit-piece source material;

...Fetzer was off to that seat of academic respectability, Yale University. To prepare for our meeting, I watched a DVD of a 9/11 symposium he held in his new hometown of Madison, Wisconsin last year. The star of this show was Alfred Lambremont Webre, a judge on former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad’s alternative international War Crimes Tribunal in Kuala Lumpur and co-author of the Space Preservation Treaty. He delivers what might be the most momentous opening line in the history of town hall seminars. “Fellow Citizens... 9/11 was a false flag operation by an international war crimes racketeering organisation to provide a pretext to engage in a genocidal and ecocidal depleted uranium bombing of central Asia, Afghanistan and Iraq in order to secure vast oil and uranium reserves; to roll out a terror-based national security state system worldwide and ... to implement the final stages of a world depopulation policy.” There are two more “false flag” operations in the pipeline, he says. The first is the war against asteroids, the second the “war against the evil aliens”.

Hearing this, you either experience the thrill of revelation or the sinking feeling that the person you are listening to is having some kind of breakdown. Within 30 minutes, Webre has folded into the 9/11 plot the Skull & Bones society at Yale University – or the “Brotherhood of Death”, as he calls it – neocon think-thank the Council on Foreign Relations, the Rothschilds, the Queen and the City of London. I wondered how all these conspiracies could be maintained without the whole conceit unravelling.

The answer, of course, is that there is only one conspiracy. Pearl Harbour, the moon landing, JFK, 9/11, the Illuminati, the Black Helicopters, Skull & Bones, chemtrails: all faces of the same demon. The plot goes all the way to the top, and all the way back in time. You could come to believe that it involves everyone except yourself – at which point it’s all over for you. And as I listened, I just waited for him to say the Word. And, inevitably, Webre brought it all back to the “international neo-Zionist organisation”.

I asked Fetzer about this as we sat in a cafe across from Yale, home of the Brotherhood of Death: how did he keep his scholars on message? “It’s obvious to me that you have to consider all the possible alternatives,” he says. “You can’t exclude any, lest, as you proceed in your investigation and eliminate hypotheses, you eliminate the true hypothesis because you’ve never allowed it to be considered.”

Yes, you CAN exclude some. The most improbable, the most unlikely, the impossible, the absurd ... grossly obvious disinformation, you CAN exclude this nonsense from your 9/11 horizons.

You can also exclude the proponents and promoters of this nonsense, because they only poison the well of 9/11 Truth.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Independent researcher Aidan Monaghan has been having an extremely difficult time even finding out if normal aircrash protocols were followed by the NTSB or FBI which would have verified the plane parts as the specified 9/11 hijacks. His effort continues.

** Greg Jenkins and Arabesque

*** Lots of worthwhile material relating to the topic(s) at hand at Hoffman's site: http://911review.com/infowars.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Further reading:

A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories by Eric Salter

Rebuttal of Ace Baker's "Chopper 5 Composite" Analysis by Eric Salter

Interpreting the Boeing-767 Deceleration During Impact with the WTC Tower: Center of Mass Versus Tail-end Motion, and Instantaneous Versus Average Velocity by Gregory S. Jenkins, PhD

Three Amigos - Reynolds, Wood and Fetzer’s assault on 9/11 Truth by Jeremy Baker

Arabesque's blog

Michael Wolsey's Special Report on COINTELPRO.

Related video:

William Schaap's expert testimony on the history of disinformation:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=BA69081DC9C0AE84

[Flatulo]

1. While it's admirable to disassociate oneself from crazy theories, how

can you be sure that the proponents of such theories are not just... crazy?

I don't buy into the notion that they are paid or otherwise motivated to spew bullshit.

I think they're just crazy, and they should be treated as such.

Don't respond to the bullshit.

[Realityhack]

2. The majority are just crazy

self deluded, willfully ignorant, stupid, whatever you want to call it. They respond exactly the same way as people who propose all kinds of other pseudoscientific BS.

[vincent_vega_lives]

4. Yup and it's not just the no planers

Include mini-nukes and microwave beamers in that elite group.

[SDuderstadt]

3. I'm with Flatulo on this one....

as I don't think most of them are intelligent enough to disseminate disinformation. I believe they earnestly believe this nonsense.

[defendandprotect]

12. Personally, I think those who don't question this are "crazy" . . .

APOLLO 11 LUNAR MODULE

Have you ever taken a nice, close look at the Apollo11 lunar module? I will let anyone judge for him/herself whether the object pictured below is :
- a 1969 state-of-the-art NASA machine
- a third-rate, B-movie stage prop.
- a totalled Winnebago camper

Be honest with yourself - don't take the "I'm no rocket scientist" escape-route from expressing an opinion on this !

APOLLO 11 LUNAR MODULE enlarged from picture on NASA website

NOW THAT'S SOME REAL TINFOIL . . . !!!

[defendandprotect]

13. Above . . .

thanks to Social Service at 9/11.org forum

[jberryhill]

15. It's not tinfoil, by the way

It is metallized kapton. It's a lot like the aluminized mylar balloons, but a thicker and resistant to a broader range of chemicals.

[defendandprotect]

17. Oh, yeah . . .

That certainly took them to the moon -- !!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[jberryhill]

19. No, it didn't....

The metallized kapton is there for thermal protection.

[defendandprotect]

22. It didn't take them to the moon?

It isn't the landing module?

[jberryhill]

23. The material you are identifying as tinfoil

...is metallized kapton. It was used for thermal insulation on the lunar module.



It's interesting that you find it necessary to bring up something as loony as asserting moon-landing denial in response to Reprehensor's suggestion that idiot theories interfere with a sincere effort to understand 9/11.

[defendandprotect]

33. The "MAGIC" tin foil tape . . . ????

Here are some comments on the LEM . . .
again, compliments of 9/11.org --
I used different fonts to separate them --

You'll note quite a few comment on the "tin foil tape" . . .
Not something I've really looked at, but still even to a novice, the presumption
is ludicrous --



You would be forgiven for thinking that the descent rocket might have blown a charred crater under the Lunar Module as it landed - but no! We cant have that because it would have melted all the tin foil.

And a strange thing about the LEM...it is a very fragile construction with thin alu sheet walls.
It had to be pressurized iirc.

Well....1 bar pressure means 10^5 N/m*m ~ 10000 (earthly) kgf per square meter wall surface.
How could that pressure be held by such an edgy fragile construction ?

Even if it was only pressured to 0.5 bar or so
the forces would be far to large i think.


I went to the a NASA site. Simon's picture of the LLM is actual. The way the sheet metal is riveted is really sloppy. Consider that a rocket engine capable of 10's of thousands of tons of thrust is housed in that thing. That rocket being fired would have caused great vibration throughout the entire structure. There is no way those rivets would have held up.

god I feel stupid. it took me 2 and 1/2 years to question 911 and over 35 yrs to question the moon landings.


Simon-your see through astronaut sure looks like a celluloid composite. Not very well done, I have to say.

I am really taken aback that this shit flies!!!!



You should have said that this was one of those 'find the 50 errors wrong in this pix', lol!!

By looking at the beige (tan) panels affixed to the side on the lander with only a couple screws in the middle and the bulging edges is pretty funny. I know a lot of times 'low bid' means cutting back on supplies, but that is crazy!!. Those panels made it down from the CM and back up later?, Ya, rite.


You should have said that this was one of those 'find the 50 errors wrong in this pix', lol!!

By looking at the beige (tan) panels affixed to the side on the lander with only a couple screws in the middle and the bulging edges is pretty funny. I know a lot of times 'low bid' means cutting back on supplies, but that is crazy!!. Those panels made it down from the CM and back up later?, Ya, rite.


NOTE : All these pictures/videos are to be found on the OFFICIAL NASA WEBSITE.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/mult...pollosites.html

giant Jiffy Pop Popcorn Maker'

There is no way a couple of rivets in the middle of those panels would hold that tin trap together during descent and ascent from the Moon. You would be more right to see an over abundance of hi temp hi strength nuts and bolts used in a precise "nailing" pattern along the edges when you are talking about a contract given to some one o/s NASA; it's the nature of the beast to over buiild the mouse trap than to build that piece of crap.

As to your inferring that the panels would only be used for insulation, reflect heat and covering up pipes.........that is also, respectively, far fetched. Those panels as shown would NEVER be used as heat deflectors, as NASA was famous for its use of gold foiled MYLAR to deflect 'energy' back and away from sensitive parts on their space equipment.

Gold is one of only 3 items in nature that reflect 97%+ of 'energy' (heat,cold) back towards its source. Aluminum and Silver are the other two, but gold is the best. Though gold, silver and aluminum are great conductors of energy that is not the same as radiant energy encountered in space. (As long as a roughly 3/4 inch of non conductive material is used behind these three elements, is the reason you see now in insulation factoring the rise in products as "Thermax" and the like.)

Going through the dead of space without even the protective atmosphere here on earth, that fake lander would have been scorched from the radiation from the sun.



The LLM has to be robust. Because there is a rocket engine (supposedly) on the inside capable of producing 1000's of pounds of thrust in order to blast off from the moon. Any engineer can tell you that when energy is introduced into a system there is a forced and a natural response. In the case of a rocket vehicle this means vibration. That sheet metal would have vibrated like a tin roof in a hurricane when that rocket fired and I have a hard time believing those rivets would have held those panels in place.


I wonder, too, why is there no crater from the rocket exaust under the LLM?
and I wonder: is there any footage of a rocket on earth making a perfect verticle landing?

I did see this picture on an official nasa website.

1 more point...it took a saturn 5 rocket almost 500 feet tall in order to put a vehicle in orbit over the earth. The moon only has 1/6 the gravity of earth but still that is a substantial gravitational pull to overcome. How did that little LLM have enough room for the fuel and oxygen required to blast off from the moon?

Also, the LLM was untested and just went right into service...practically unheard of in the engineering profession.

This thing is made of sheet-metal, pop-rivets and tinfoil. Yeah, that'll work.

The photo below is to ridiculous for words. It is supposed to be the Apollo 16 Lunar Module on Moon's surface. Look at all that gold foil around the base, and why is that gold foil not seen in the photo of Apollo 11 LM, after all they were of the same design. I would like to know how they got the Rover out without tearing this gold foil. In addition to the gold foil there is also some sought of black fabric draped just anywhere. What a mess, moreover what a joke. Look at side of LM. It's made up of sheets of thin metal pop riveted together, or maybe cardboard held together with double sided tape. Even the joints are not seated flat, but buckle out in all directions. The under side looks like corrugated sheet, and even that does not mate correctly with the vertical panels. If this is top quality engineering for such an important mission, then I'm a banana. Can't you PAN's see that this is a quick knock-up job, taken in a studio here on Earth, to satisfy gullible people like yourselves, it could not have landed on Moon. Incidentally Grumman built a life size LM in cardboard, I think this is it.

In the picture below we take a closer look at this supposedly high quality work from Grumman Engineering, and can see just what a botch job that made of it. Look at the angle strip on corner edges, they cannot even get the beading strip angle correct, but have left it jutting out. This is a joke because I have seen better quality work from kindergarten kids building a stage prop for pantomime. Lets face it the whole Apollo project was a pantomime and the Apollo astronauts were nothing more than clowns. In the name of progress it's a dam good job that Grumman Engineering went out of business, I for one would not want to fly anywhere in anything they had built.

Here are the photos . . . blue skies and more gold foil -- !!

http://apolloreality2.bravehost.com/


Invisible Astronot - there is no way the camera would have picked up the images behind the astronaut if that were a real photo despite faux technical explanations. And regarding the radiation, here is a NASA infomercial which talks about the unknown effects of radiation. They talk about the moon like no one has been there yet, like a moon landing is in the future (they better get a lot better at their photo fakery). But this video is very revealing to me because it isn't pro or con moon hoax, it just shows that after all these years they do not know the effects of radiation and the moon has no atmosphere and nothing to protect people from it. They talk like no one has been that far yet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeKs826uplM



Metalized Mylar failure . . . ?

http://forums.swissair111.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/322103945/m/694104945

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Breaking_News/Snippets_/snippets6.html

[prestonPjr21]

61. Point Taken!

I actually can relate to what you are seeing! But extreme heat and cold are major forces in the vacuum of space. Not wind or turbulence, as for extreme vibration,there is no sound in the vacuum of space. All of the LEM`s vital construction and parts are wrapped in the so-called REYNOLDS WRAP along with LEGO`s rivet set for thermal purposes.

[defendandprotect]

34. FOIA: Pentagon "plane" flight recorder says plane at an altitude which

would NOT have permitted it to hit the lightpoles, etc nor Pentagon as indicated --

Also, there would have to have been TWO planes for one to have hit the Pentagon and
one to have flown off!

Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information
Posted on: August 30, 2009, flags: 119
"Researchers present new eyewitness testimony which they say proves the government's story to be a "monstrous lie". A three year independent investigation into the September 11, 2001 attack on the Pentagon has yielded new eyewitness evidence which, according to the Southern California-based researchers who conducted the investigation, "conclusively (and unfortunately) establishes as a historical fact that the violence which took place in Arlington that day was not the result of a surprise...

Several Eyewitness accounts are aggregated, including a Pentagon Police Officer painting a different picture than the one given by The U.S. Government.

"To put it as concisely as possible, the plane had to have flown on a very specific flight path in the final seconds before it reached the Pentagon in order to have caused the observed damage, starting with the light poles that were photographed on the ground and ending with the directional damage to the building itself which was outlined in detail by the American Society of Civil Engineers," explains Ranke. "The government claims the plane flew on this flight path and hit the building. The eyewitnesses in all of the most critical vantage points, on the other hand, independently, unanimously, and unequivocally report a drastically different flight path, proving that the plane absolutely could not have hit the light poles or the building. It is a non-controversial scientific fact that a strike from this trajectory would have caused a very different damage path."

www.thepeoplesvoice.org


It's interesting that you find it necessary to bring up something as loony as asserting moon-landing denial in response to Reprehensor's suggestion that idiot theories interfere with a sincere effort to understand 9/11.

It is an "idiot theory" that a plane hit the Pentagon --
And, you have only to watch the CNN journalist who had been there before
the stated event to understand that "no plane hit the Pentagon" --
he repeats that fact over and again on film.
The journalist is filled with the excitement of truth -- trying to get the message out--
"NO PLANE" --

Until later coerced to retract that truth.

These are TWO idiot theories . . . the idea that four planes were hijacked simultaneously
and that a plane did anything more than fly by skyscrapers or the Pentagon . . .
AND the moon landing -- protected by magic aeronautical mylar tape!

:eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

49. D&P keeps peddling this absolute bullshit about a CNN reporter saying that "no plane hit the..

Pentagon". The reporter in question is Jamie McIntyre and if you actually watch the piece he broadcast, it becomes clear that he is not saying what D&P is claiming and, in fact, specifically states that a plane absolutely hit the Pentagon and that the wreckage was inside. Here's the part that D&P is intentionally leaving out which occurred BEFORE the little snippet she is quoting:

A short -- a while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.35.html

The question begging to be asked, of course, is why would anyone who calls themself a "truther" be so dishonest about this matter? Of course, D&P will not answer this question because anyone who asks her hard questions like this is rather hastily put on "ignore".

[Bolo Boffin]

56. Let her.

People who continue to flog something so easily disproven don't help their stated cause any.

[Woody Box]

5. Open letter to Reprehensor

Aircraft struck the twin towers. It's very likely that they were Boeings, and it's also probable* that they were the very Boeings that the media reported as "hijacks". It seems absurd to have to say these things,...

Dear Reprehensor,

was it really necessary to disclassify an Operation Northwoods/plane swap maneuver as "absurd" and pigeonhole it into the no-plane corner?

Does that mean that Operation Northwoods is tabu at 911blogger and that researchers and sites working in this direction - f.i. pilotsfor911truth.org, thepentacon.com, loosechange911.com - are viewed as disinformation and not welcome there?

Please clarify. I've seen so many attempts to mix up the difference between no-planes and Operation Northwoods that I can't believe you are jumping onto this bandwagon, too.

With all respect,

Woody Box

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CB_Brooklyn]

8. heeeeeeeeeeeeeey rep

Can you link to the Jones/Jenkins papers that debunk Hurricane Erin and the Magnetometer data???

We're waiting...

[Theobald]

9. It seems to me that a posting such as this

full of detail and statements of specific facts would be pure fodder for those who don't believe the Official Conspiracy Theory. Why aren't all the no-planer, mini-nuker, controlled demolition, space death ray experts tearing this posting apart with counter facts and arguments?

[jberryhill]

10. Good Post

Like others, I don't question the sincerity of some of these kooks.

Judy Wood, for example, appears to be quite genuinely mentally disturbed, and sincere in her crazy beliefs.

[defendandprotect]

11. Well, I'll give it a try . . . but the interesting thing in the responses to this thread . . .

is that those posting, simply accept everything that is said without any kind of
challenge whatsoever -- !!!

Further, they don't even challenge the idea that questioning 9/11 is anything but
"disinformation" . . . wow!

Trust that eventually others who know much more about 9/11 will happen by to give
a hand here --

Meanwhile . . .

There is video which doesn't show a plane -- and doesn't show announcers reacting
to a plane coming in -- doesn't show guys in helicopters reacting to another plane
coming in! Why might that be?

As for other video or photographs, those who supposedly took them have suspicious
connections to film production -- just as those who most frequently "saw" planes
in discussions with TV anchors were people connected to the networks!

Further -- and you can see this clearly on video -- there were witnesses in the
street behaving like actors -- in fact, identified as actors. We saw legitimate
witnesses being ignored when they said there was "no plane" only an explosion, while
the street reporter has to wait for another actor to double back because he wasn't ready
for his "witness" report as the actor came by the first time!

Don't have a lot of time right now, but did pick up some of the comments by firefighter
witnesses for a start . . .

There was airplane fuselage and landing gear around the site.

landing gear actually fell right through the roof and it was in one of the Jacuzzis in another room."
The plane wheel was in the street."

whatever this explosion was, at the time we really didn't know, and it just crushes it, I mean, crushes the top front of the police car, which really scared me at that point.

Q. Could you tell if it was airplane parts?

A. It looked like an airplane part afterward, yes, it did. It looked like part of an engine. It was pretty big. It was probably the size of the hood because it kind of hit it, bounced, and then rolled off."

We heard the plane briefly, the earth shook, the buildings shook,

Various pieces of the plane were falling on the street. As we went down the street you could see parts of aircraft

(Block) It was littered with airplane parts, pieces of the building."

I don't know if it was from the plane or what. But there was just body parts all over the place. Chunks of meat. I saw an airplane tire. I walked past an airplane tire. What looked like an airplane tire."

it looked like the skin off a wing or a fuselage or wherever it came from.

but from the back seat to the trunk was crushed by a jet engine."

THE PEOPLE WERE JUST EVERYWHERE SAW SOME LUGGAGE FROM THE PLANE"

and airplane parts all over the west side.

part of the plane engine was sitting right in the street, still burning. I said, look, this is the plane."

where I noticed landing gear and the evidence of some kind of explosion."

Now, first of all, ask yourself what you see when you see slow motion of the plane hitting the
tower. To be honest, do you see a plane going thru the building like butter? Or do you see
a plane disintegrating?

Also notice that from the reports below, it would seem that there was nothing left of the plane
to go thru the buidling providing even kerosense for fuel, BUT, even further supposedly going
through the building ---------------------------------------------------- all the way to the
central core and knocking the central core of steel girders out completely!!

Let's face it, folks, you can't have it both ways and you can't have it three ways!


I'd also comment

Various comments make clear that these witnesses didn't see a plane hit the WTC towers.

whatever this explosion was, at the time we really didn't know

and it just crushes it, I mean, crushes the top front of the police car, which really scared me at that point.

Q. Could you tell if it was airplane parts?

A. It looked like an airplane part afterward, yes, it did. It looked like part of an engine.
It was pretty big. It was probably the size of the hood because it kind of hit it, bounced, and then rolled off."

Now -- commenting on that post above, keep in mind that a Boeing engine would be around 4 tons
or more!

Do you really think it would crush the top of the police car and BOUNCE, and then ROLL OFF????

How many here really think that a engine which can be as much as 10,000 pounds would "bounce" after
hitting the car -- ?

As for the sound of the plane, there is no sound of a plane on many of the videos which do have
sound on them -- oddly enough.

Also, a plane flying that low could not go as fast as reported without shaking itself apart!

That's the reality and fact of these jets and what they can do.



back later --

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jberryhill]

16. No, what's interesting about the thread

...is that most of the positive responses in it are from people who would likely disagree with Reprehensor on many things, and I'd guess Reprehensor agrees with that observation as well.

[defendandprotect]

18. And that's your response to what I posted . . . . ?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[OnTheOtherHand]

21. "questioning 9/11"

This "questioning" is an awfully elastic enterprise. If you agreed with the OP, I bet you would think it questioned 9/11. Apparently you don't, so you don't.

Now, this is funny. You quote someone saying that a piece "looked like part of an engine." And you say, "...keep in mind that a Boeing engine would be around 4 tons or more! Do you really think it would crush the top of the police car and BOUNCE, and then ROLL OFF????"

I have to wonder: what part of "part" don't you understand?

The witness goes on to say, "It was probably the size of the hood...." Are you seriously arguing that this is evidence against a plane strike because Boeing engines are larger than car hoods?

[anigbrowl]

31. Well surely the reasoning is obvious

a certain poster's name is a clue to what their mission is. Is it any wonder that person would show up in a thread about disinformation, with crazy arguments taking in everything from deliberate misquotes (as above), mention of video that shows The Shocking Truth (but no actual links to this video or details of where to find it), and suggestions that the moon landings are Not Really True...

Could be the crazy, or it could be an attempt to distract and conceal :think:

[jberryhill]

48. You Have A Good Point

In most instances, I'm willing to accept that a poster is being sincere.

But in the case to which you refer, I find it difficult to believe that one person capable of putting together a sentence could hold so many mutually contradictory premises sincerely at one time.

It is someone's idea of performance art.

[Larry L. Burks]

63. Give a helping hand here?

Sure why not.

[vincent_vega_lives]

20. I agree

thanks for the work putting this together. only one thing...it isn't "disinformation" it is "misinformation" or even just plain ignorance to suggest no planes hit the WTC towers. This is people actually thinking this up and believing it, not information planted by "informants". No one would seriously believe anyone would believe it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

24. as a matter of logic, it could be both

"No one would seriously believe anyone would believe it."

Why not? Anyone who has paid attention to other CTs, or the history of religion, or of medicine, or... would have to conclude that you can get some people to believe just about anything.

That said, I don't believe in the "false flag" theories either. I think they mostly amount to sectarian bickering among people all of whom believe fairly weird things. But the idea isn't inherently implausible IMO.

[vincent_vega_lives]

25. Becasue a "no planes struck the WTC"

would be like claiming....I can't even think of somthing that is comparable. Some huge public event that took place in one of the most heavily populated urban areas on the planet in daylight JUST AFTER an shocking event just occured (1st Jet Hit), and disinfo agents claim that the people standing on the street in in the buldings didn't see anything...it was CGI on TV.

Insane.

[OnTheOtherHand]

26. and your point is? ;)

Seems to me that as a matter of logic, if the objective is to discredit the Truth Movement by being able to point to some wackos, the ideal disinfo is something that the vast majority of Americans would immediately reject as batshit crazy -- as long as the disinformant can get someone to bite and to make some noise about it. And it seems that that is always possible. Heck, that might not even be necessary, if one can afford to pay enough people to pretend to bite.

On the other hand (grin), if the objective is to lure as many Truth Movement folks as possible into some plausible blind alleys, then one might invest in organizations like AE911Truth.

I really don't think that anyone is getting paid to do 9/11 Truth, except in the sense that probably some are conscious hucksters -- and it's beyond me to figure out which ones. Moreover, I don't think that everything self-identified Truth Movement people say is ridiculous. But an awful lot of it is, and I think some folks who didn't exactly cover themselves in glory back in 2001 probably appreciate that, whether they had to invest in it or not.

[vincent_vega_lives]

27. Feel free to speculate all you want

but the point of disinformation is to lead competent but amateur investigators down complex alleys (not blind because they come to a quick end), not to lure wackos to lu lu land.

[OnTheOtherHand]

29. shrug

I don't think we really disagree, but personally I wouldn't feel qualified to say what "the point" of disinformation is.

[greyl]

35. The effect of mis/disinformation is something else to agree on.

For example, when the National Geographic thread was in GD, there were a few complaints about the show was only dealing with ridiculous theories and not talking about the Aug PDB, terror warnings, etc.
I wonder in futility, would the "National conversation" about 9/11 be measurably different if looney theories were never spread about it?
Are Birthers significantly diluting the strength of the right-wing or even of the country? I'm not sure.

[defendandprotect]

36. You mean the UNITED NATIONS National Security Council warning in August????

Right . . . Russia was so concerned by the Bush "Operation Ignore" going on
re all of the intelligence coming in from about every intelligence agency
in the world that they finally went with their information -- which had been
supplied to WH and all of our intelligence agencies -- to the United Nations
Security Council --

United Nations Security Council sent their representatives in AUGUST to
the White House and to our intelligence agencies to WARN them again --

Operation Ignore continued on --

MIHOP --

[greyl]

37. This:

APRIL 10--Under pressure from the September 11 commission, the White House today declassified and released an intelligence digest given to President George W. Bush weeks before the 2001 terrorist attacks. The confidential President's Daily Brief (PDB) for August 6, 2001 contained a two-page section entitled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US," and refers to possible hijacking attempts by Osama bin Laden disciples and the existence of about 70 FBI investigations into alleged al-Qaeda cells operating within the United States. The August 6 PDB, an excerpt from which you'll find below, was presented to Bush while he vacationed at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

More, and a copy of it here

[defendandprotect]

39. The immense numbers of terror warnings, including from our CIA, make it

very clear that they were all being ignored -- "Operation Ignore."

Your info points to LIHOP at the least!

After all, how could they not have known?

We also know from Coleen Rawley that there was an estop put on some of the FBI

investigations -- and she calls for a new investigation of 9/11.

This is, of course, quite similar to what happened with FBI pre-investigations

into the first attack on WTC in '93.

Again, re Al Qaeda . . . we created Taliban/Al Qaeda and were financing it with

hundreds of millions of dollars -- in fact tens of millions in the month before 9/11 -

and right up until 9/11!!

[anigbrowl]

32. I'll disagree slightly

Leading wackos to la la land is not very convincing (certainly less so than leading competent investigators down false trails), but it is relatively easy, in that wackos are easily persuaded to believe just about any old BS. The advantage of that is that by associating investigators of 9.11 with wackos in the public imagination, perfectly legitimate research and investigations can be discredited without having to address substantive claims.

Of course, this isn't necessarily the case - one could equally argue that wackos seek out controversial topics to feed a lust for attention.

[vincent_vega_lives]

28. On the right track

If we can agree to eliminate the wackiest theories it would be a little more civil down here.

It would seem that Pod planes have fallen out of favor for Noe Planes with the more extreme of the truthers. I should ask before I diss a whole subgroup. Does anyone still believe in pod planes?

One thing I have never fully understood is it that CD'ers think explosives were only placed at the point of collapse or on every single floor of the WTC towers?

[anigbrowl]

30. Excellent, this should be a sticky or similar

[defendandprotect]

38. Where is the reconstructed plane . . . ???

That's yet another point on your info which begins here . . .

One of (911blogger's) users, "SCAFFOLDRIDER", sent in photos that may reflect some of the kinds of airplane parts that the First Responders saw that morning. You have to forgive them for not grabbing pictures of the parts themselves, they had a few thousand other things on their minds. Nor were they expecting that the PsyOp of 9/11 would be extended indefinitely, attacking the verity of their experience. Here is SCAFFOLDRIDER's story;

IF ALL OF THOSE PLANE PARTS YOU'VE MENTIONED -- NUMEROUS ENGINES, FUSeLAGE, LANDING GEAR, WHEELS

WHERE IS THE RECONSTRUCTED PLANE . . . ???


That's exactly what they do when they are investigating these events -- they put the
plane back together. Where is it?

And, again, if all of these plane parts didn't go into the building, what is that we all see
on film going into the building without breaking apart?

Aluminum Plane Slicing Thru Steel Like Butter -- !!!

oh, yeah --

[greyl]

40. Crashed planes are reconstructed in order to figure out why they crashed.

There was no mystery as to why the planes crashed on 9/11.

[defendandprotect]

41. As the guy supposedly said, don't touch it . . . it's evidence . . .

This was a crime scene -- and they needed to prove that the alleged hijacked

planes were actually hijacked -- were actually run into the buildings.

Needless to say, all the steel was hauled off immediately --

Crashed planes are reconstructed to figure out all kinds of things about crimes ....

included whether or not what actually happened to them actually happened!


Granted, all of this is nonsense -- from alleged hijackings to alleged aluminum

planes attacking a steel building!!! And, floating right thru!!!


AND, there is now FOIA release which says the Pentagon "plane" FLIGHT RECORDER

INDICATES THE PLANE WAS FLYING AT AN ALTITUDE TOO HIGH TO HAVE HIT THE TELEPHONE POLES, ETC.

REPORTED BY THE OCT!!!

[greyl]

42. You're tripping over your own tale.

You can't logically entertain no-planes theories, no-hijackers theories, and a LIHOP interpretation of the unheeded warnings.

[defendandprotect]

44. You're confused . . .

I support "No planes" ....

but I support MIHOP . . .

But good, non-answer . . .

[greyl]

45. That's not accurate. Your posts are clearly contradictory.

In this thread you say : "The immense numbers of terror warnings, including from our CIA, make it very clear that they were all being ignored -- "Operation Ignore." Your info points to LIHOP at the least!"

and: "I support "No planes""

[defendandprotect]

51. I gather this is a bit confusing for you . . .

however, take my word for it, I know what I've said and it's that it is likely

there were NO PLANES . . . and that Bush/Cheney etal MIHOP.

Your confusion seems to center on the fact that I was saying to YOU that with

all of the intelligence that was being ignored by the White House, the least

position that would have to be supported by everyone is LIHOP.

Got it now?

bye --

[greyl]

55. Bulloney.

If one believes the August PDB was a real warning about an actual threat, the minimum position is that the Bush administration failed to prevent the attacks. That position rests upon a wealth of evidence.

Your position is a special brand of incongruity.

[defendandprotect]

58. So . . . you're saying you don't belive the United Nations warned the White House in August . . .

or are you saying the reported threats by intelligence all over the planet were faked?

The minimum or maximum positions have to be that Bush/Cheney did not prevent 9/11 --

and more likely LIHOP, or MIHOP.

And, just who is arguing that Bush/Cheney didn't "fail" to prevent the 9/11 attacks?????

That would seem to be amazingly clear to the world -- !!!

Meanwhile, try to absorb this . . . when I'm talking with someone who really believes

that aluminum planes sliced thru steel towers like butter, I do tend to refer to planes

because that's what they believe in. It's difficult to get them to reexamine their

theory without referring to "planes." See how that works?

In fact, American Airlines tells us that there was no flight #77 or #11 that day even

scheduled. But that still doesn't bother the "planers."

[jberryhill]

47. So The White House "Ignored" Warnings Of An Attack By "No Planes"?

WTF?

Wait wait, don't tell me.... You believe the UN Security Council warned the US that it was going to be attacked by non-existent airplanes.

You believe that. Really?

[anigbrowl]

50. It's obvious

They ignored warnings - negative
There were no planes - negative

-1 * -1 = +1 = POSITIVE--

so MIHOP--

!!

[anigbrowl]

59. Good grief...talk about life imitating art

#52, that is.

[defendandprotect]

52. Jberryhill meet greyl . . .

Obviously, the both of you seem to be united in common confusion about dual concepts --

It works this way . . . I support NO PLANES/MIHOP . . .

Some here support PLANES . . . and OCT ...

At times, I am commenting on my own beliefs --

at times, I am commenting on beliefs held by others --

For those who believe the OCT, the challenge is why didn't our government react to all

of the warnings and how could you possibly suggest they didn't know?

I've added the UN Security Council warnings in August because that should further alert

everyone to the extent of the warnings -- and the extent of "Operation Ignore."

"Operation Ignore" does not depend upon PLANES to be activated . . . it depends upon lies

and denial, as in WMD/mushroom clouds/"terrarists" --

Maybe if the two of you get together, you'll be able to unravel your confusions?

Good luck --

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

46. Anybody using the term "OCT-o-bots" and complaining of bullying tactics and attacks?

I don't listen to a word they say.

[defendandprotect]

53. "Oct-o-bots" .....

is a bullying tactic and attack??????????????

Oh, dear me!!

:eyes:

[Bolo Boffin]

54. Yes, it is. n/t

[defendandprotect]

57. Are you reporting it to the mods?

I'm sure they can chase down the anti-bots for you . . .

[vincent_vega_lives]

60. at the very least

it is a childish attempt at an insult.

[CrunchMaster]

62. People should be looking MUCH CLOSER at the groups pushing the disinfo

The groups(mostly extreme right wing) spewing disinformation regarding 9/11 are not doing this by accident. They are doing it purposely to poison the 9/11 truth movement so that it cannot clearly see all of the right wing connections to 9/11 and America's other big terror events. With the aid of the FBI and other agencies, Americans faciliting our big terror events has been completely protected by likeminded agents in government.

The disinformation that surrounds 9/11, the World Trade Center bombing and OKC Bombing mainly comes from the same sources... Muslim Brotherhood and right wing extremist networks in the USA working with rightwing extremist networks abroad in UK, Germany, Switzerland, Canada, Austria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Philippines, etc. Go research America's big terror events and you see the same terrorists entering the USA through the same states and traveling abroad to the same areas in a tightly protected loop.

For example you will see that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed(alleged 9/11 mastermind), Andreas Strassmeier(OKC Bombing Provocateur), Ali Mohammad(World Trade Center 93 bombing provocateur)... all of these guys had ties to some type of underground network running between southern states and Hamburg, Germany among other places. Other parts of this network involved the Philippines(see Michael Meiring and how he was extraced by FBI after bombing a hotel in Philippines), and San Diego, California. The same group of white supremacists and Muslim brotherhood are behind all of America's real terror events(not talking about the phoney FBI terror setups where they paid blacks and foreigners to pretend to be terrorists. Talking about the cases where things blew up... 9/11, OKC Bombing, WTC 1993.) The FBI and CIA keep the American side of this mostly covered up so they can continue to pull the strings of racism and fear that keep the USA stuck in all of these wars abroad against "THE DARK EVIL OTHER." The military gets more money to blow stuff up, Republicans get to push the government closer to the right, and the white supremacists get closer to their goal of wrecking the U.S. Federal government. All of them profit from this game.

9/11 is directly tied to the 1st attempt to use bombs to brings down the WTC in 1993. And both of these are tied to the Oklahoma City bombing and Landmarks bombings cases.

If you want to understand where the disinformation is coming from you need to take a closer look at the networks beneath the surface.

[mrarundale]

64. Does Reprehensible work for "The Onion"?

Because his O.P. reads like satire. Using photos that some random poster sent in 2005??? of plane parts that could have easily been planted/staged? Where did those pictures come from? who took them?

This is supposed to be the fuselage from flight 175. Now, for this barely damaged fuselage part to be on WTC 5 (keep in mind it is only aluminum or another light weight material) the fuselage would have had to go through two steel beam re-enforced walls and through the core which had over 100 elevators WHILE EXPLODING before landing on the WTC 5 with no evidence of fire damage and in a still recognizable state. That is RIDICULOUS and Reprehensible knows it or he would have shown that too.

Wikipedia shows this widely disseminated image:
<img alt="" src="" width="300" height="225" class="thumbimage">

If there HAD been a plane there would have immediately been no doubt when flight 11 hit rather than "maybe a missile", "an explosion" "no I didn't see a plane" ,etc....

Why doesn't he put the live (with a delay) footage in his proof of planes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP5uIPyYDlQ

As for the fire fighter's statements (which I have been scrutinizing) all of them have turned out to have major contradictions and take note that most see "parts" which, again, could have easily been planted, like the undamaged tire ...


It is irresponsible to claim that those who question the plane hits are somehow "cointelpro". That means you are saying that I am. I don't CARE what other people think, this is what I think after a LOT of investigation. I question posters who forbid discussion on something so fucking suspicious. Although I bet your site would be a good place to read and see what really was disinformation.


One thing that I have noticed is official theory conspiracy theorists/corporate media/politicians tend to give the emotional appeal when arguing against 911 questions. This is what you are doing by mentioning the lady who was hit by landing gear (what was her name??- why didn't this get reported by the doctors who said they weren't getting any victims?) Upon closer inspection someone only THOUGHT she was hit by landing gear.


as for as court cases and judges, corrupt judges are a dime a dozen remember the Bush administration?