Beware of disinformation in 911 "Truth" forums
A funny thing happened to me in my quest to seek the 9/11 Truth. I didn't start to look into the events of 9/11 until the lengthy litigation with a large national bank was settled in the fall of 2005.
Since I had extra time on my hands someone suggested that I watch "911: In Plane Site", so I did. One question led to another question, you know how it goes. I bought numerous DVD's that dealt with the subject and then went to find a website to learn more and to share what I had learned from others.
I thought I had found a home in 911 Pilots For Truth. I was very active asking questions and posting replys and sharing my information.
I am a firm believer that all 4 of the original "Flights" are still missing. I have listed some of the reasons below:
1 - There was no passenger aircraft wreckage nor passenger bodies recovered from Flight 77at the Pentagon and the damage to the building itself is not sufficient to uphold the theory that appears in the Official Story.
2 - The lack of wreckage of a passenger aircraft at the "crash site" in Shanksville PA.
3 - The obvious differences in appearance between the Flight 175 that took off and the POD oand other appearance differences of the "Flight 175" that crashed into the tower and the "flash" just prior to impact.
4 - The video "911: In Plane Site" points out that a flash occurs also from Flight 11 just prior to impact with the Tower.
I did learn in 911 Pilots for Truth that Flight Transponders can be controlled in the cockpit and the signal can be manipulated ie "the hijackers turned them off". The signal that the Flight Transponders send back are controlled by a code number that is imput into them. Therefore the aircraft that took off as Flight 77 can turn off their Flight Transponder and another aircraft can enter the code of Flight 77 and the Air Controllers would not know.
This to me is perfectly reasonable, logical and possible.
Especially since United 93 was originally reported to have landed in a Cleveland airport due to a bomb scare. Also that some of the claimed hijackers have been reported alive in other countries. How would they have gotten off the aircratf ?
The Administrator at 911 Pilots for Truth could not accept this and because I was posting the truth to questions asked by other members I have not been permitted access into their Forums.
Oh, What a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive.
- NJcpaTOM's blog
- Login to post comments
Welcome TOM...
Every forum is bound to be infiltrated, and the game is to figure out who among the posters is genuine and who is disinfo. This is an unfortunate reality, and accusations can fly one way or the other, so the best policy is to stick with facts.
I tend to agree with you that the flights were either swapped or never existed. Careful with the Pod theory though--personally I find it much more likely that the flashes (and yes, there seem to be flashes) are actually from explosives timed to go off near the impact zone as the planes hit the buildings.
A few reasons this makes sense to me: the pod theory sugests that they would have risked using a plane that had someone taken the right picture would have given the game away. We know, on the other hand, that explosives were going off everywhere in the towers. We know that someo of those explosives were detonated simultaneously with the impacts (see William Rodriguez, both in the basement of the North tower and upstairs in the north tower when the south tower was hit. This would seem to make sense in that the eprps would have wanted to "hide" as many of the internal blasts as possible under cover of the spectacular fireballs of the impacts.
The only problem with swapped or nonexistent flights is that it would seem to indicate that everyone on the flights was in on the conspiracy to some extent (they may not have known what exactly it would entail--maybe they were surprised wth how evil it turned out to be) The flights we know were way underfilled--that's suspicious. We also know that the families of everyone presumed dead would have received, if they agreed not to sue, 1.5 million in victims compensation money. We also know that the flight families have been almost completely silently supporting the official story while the families of those who clearly died in the towers have been clamoring for a new investigation, and in some cases did not accept the hush money, so that they could sue.
Thoughts?
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
There could've been few, if any real passengers on those flights
Operation Northwoods 45 years ago was ready to use imposter passengers (gov't agents) & swapped drones.
Likewise, it would've been far less risky to slam drones into those targets rather than real commercial airliners with pilots, crew, passengers & hijackers running amuck inside them.
Ergo, the obviously fabricated DNA results of passengers at the towers, Pentagon, & Shanksville.
RT- another explanantion
You say:
"The only problem with swapped or nonexistent flights is that it would seem to indicate that everyone on the flights was in on the conspiracy to some extent "
Perhaps, as mention in the Northwoods scenario, the 'planes' were "loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases."
For more on faked passengers see:
http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eholmgren/fake.html
POD theory
Thank you for your response and thoughts.
As far as the POD theory is concerned I believe that an investigative reporter in Spain took the picture that was on the cover of Newsweek and wrote an article about the POD. The article even went into how the distance of the engines from the body were adjusted to offset as a counterbalance. My thinking is that they possibly can be missles that were used to insure the planes would make it through the sides of the building.
In the other forum there were discussions that seemed to lead in that direction due to the flimsy outer surfaces of regular passenger aircraft. Some members were surprised that they made it completly through.
As far as the missing passengers are concerned I try to stay away from that. My sister firmly believed that United 93 had crashed in Shanksville. She and her daughter knew someone that was on that flight and went to the funeral. I didn't push it with her but I did put together some research for her that has given her doubts that a plane crashed where they claim it did. The lack of wreckage amazes me that the perps actually did such a nice job averting the usual FAA & NSTB required investigations.
I use that the flights are missing which includes the passengers. I didn't say the planes crashed someone else did.
More human remains were found last week at ground zero and they claim to have identified the parts as passengers of Flight 11.
Then comes the fact that some of the "hijackers" have been reported seen alive and well in other countries. How would they have gotten off the planes ?
I can go on and on with this. My wife was in the Century 21 store that was across the street from the WTC when the first plane hit. She went into her office on Maiden Lane and called me while she was brushing the dust off. I was on the phone with her when I heard the second plane hit. Our lives changed so drastically since that day. I felt useless because I could not get into the City to rescue her. She still ducks when planes are landing in the nearby Teterboro Airport and wakes up screaming during thurderstorms.
Thank you for you encouragement.
And beware of disinformation in 911 "Truth" blogs also
NJcpaTOM, you should have titled this 'Beware of the content of this Blog entry, it is laden with disinformation.'
It's because of the high rate of bullshit Blog's like this, and the large amount of fake people at 911Blogger purposely pushing non-evidence, disinfo & misinfo, that I don't participate in this site anymore.
I think it's time that I delete 911Blogger from my Bookmarks.
why are you still here then?
can we have this discussion without you please? thanks!
or if you want to take issue with any facts, then go ahead. but coming in here to explain why you don't come in here anymore is just... silly.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Real Truther
Thanks
In Plane Sight
"The Administrator at 911 Pilots for Truth could not accept this and because I was posting the truth to questions asked by other members..."
Don't you mean that you were posting your opinions?
I admire your curiosity and encourage you to keep researching and being an activist for the cause. But, we must all get out of the habit of claiming to know the truth - and forwarding pet theories - like the infamous "flash" on the In Plane Sight DVD.
Observed evidence from grainy videos tends to be very unreliable. You seem to have made up your mind about "the flash" - but please keep in mind that many other people would disagree with your OPINION - and you should not attempt to present opinions as facts.
This is why we are called conspiracy theorists.
In Plane Sight is one of the poorer - more speculative - DVDs on the subject of 9/11. Its forwarding of the "pod" theory and mysterious "flashes" have by and large been dismissed as red herrings by the movement - and perhaps done more harm than good.
You are of course free to disagree. But, please keep in mind that if you were banned from 911 Pilots for Truth, you should consider that it may be for other reasons.
Please keep researching and seeking the truth - but in my opinion your time would be better spent looking for actual direct evidence of governmental complicity - lies - cover-ups and whistleblowers..... as opposed to looking for the "truth" behind different "theories" about swapped planes and grainy video evidence.
Opinions
John when I post an opinion I call it an opinion.
Generally, I try to put links into my replies to support any facts. Facts are different. They are what they are and for somepeople who can't and/or won't see the difference I can't do anything about that.
I went in there in the first place with the hopes of finding some information that might lead me to the missing planes.
I was banned by one person. Who did not like the answer that I got when I applied what I learned from the material that he told me to read.
the flash is a headscratcher
How often do you see a plane crashing into a solid object at 500mph? Not often, aside from 9/11[WTC2 hit] there is only one that I know of that clearly shows an aircraft hitting at the same speed.
http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/video-gallery/index.html
But low and behold, this empirical evidence shows exactly the same phenomenon, a flash as the nosecone of the aircraft is destroyed.
Sandia F-4 Phantom tests
I have followed the link that you included in your reply and watched a 6:58 min video of the test. The only video that was available for me to see did not have sound.
I had to look at it a few times because it is a slow motion compilation of all the camera views.
Only one of the views might show the flash that you wanted me to look at but I could not determine if the flash was before impact or a result from the impact. Will you please tell me the time on the counter that the flash occurred ? As you recall they substituted water for the Jet fuel.
Another flash occurred in one of the views but it was obvious to me that it was clearly a reflection of the lights that lined the path of the sled near the impact zone.
None of the still images that they have available for download shows a flash but I downloaded them anyway.
There are also 4 links --2 to mov files and 2 to mpg files. None of them were working when I tried to download them.
I would like to remind the readers that the purpose of this 1988 test was to "determine impact" of the F-4 Phantom "...onto a massive, essentially rigid reinforced concrete target (3.66 meters thick) ".
If I might ask you a question in return - "How would you compare the F-4 Phantom (that was fastened to a sled) to either of the two flimsy passenger aircraft that were crashed into the aluminum coated steel beams that encased the building ? Do you think that there is any comparison at all ?
"Falsehood is never so successful as when she baits her hook with truth and no opinions so fatally mislead us as those that are not wholly wrong." Charles Caleb Colton
looked at the html of the
looked at the html of the page and the needed javascript function is not defined - probably left out from a redesign of the page.
In anycase the link to the very first file is:
http://www.sandia.gov/videos2005/f_4crashtest_slow.mov
I suspect the remaining footage files would be in the same directory...
The flash is clearly visible as the nose of the aircraft is destroyed and the frame of the F4 begins to impact with the concrete block.
The flash is apparent and clear. The flash of the WTC2 impact is also apparent and clear from various angles.
This fits with the observed events, and while it does not explain WHY high speed impacts produce flashes as the nosecone is destroyed, it certainly is evidence that it is not such an uncommon event.
static energy
If I had to theorize about the flash I would have to assume that a flash of this nature could have been a flash similar to that of a static electricity shock.
I am guessing that a projectile constructed from a thin layer of aluminum flying through the air would create static energy due to the friction of it moving through the air.... the friction would excite the electrons in the air..... most probably causing the excited electrons to staticly cling to the exterior of the plane.... then when the plane came with-in range of the neutral building the electrons would jump.... causing a massive spark.... hence the flash prior to the plane hitting in both cases..... the buildings acted like a huge door knob
If planes flying through the air cause a great deal of static energy like I theorize..... then this could also possibly account for the strange video anomalies.... if the excited electrons have an effect on the way the light interacts with the excited electrons.... which is quite possible.....
I'm not sure the flights were even real to begin with
"I am a firm believer that all 4 of the original "Flights" are still missing. I have listed some of the reasons below"
I read several times that at least 3 of the 4 flights weren't even scheduled to fly that day.
Flights & reality
From my research I have only heard that two of the four Flights were not real. Someone was looking for the American Airlines and United Airlines schedules to confirm them. To the best of my knowledge at this time I can not locate them anywhere on the internet.
I also heard that American Airlines Flight 11 has been reported as being boarded at two different Gates before take-off. I don't recall the exact Gate numbers at this time.
Thank you for your interest
Information regrading fake fligts
If you want more information regarding the Flights this link should start you off in the right direction:
http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eholmgren/1177.html
thank you for you interest.
you just id'd yourself...
you just id'd yourself...
Sorry, It was intended to be
Sorry, It was intended to be additional information for the first person.
I'm actually leaning towards all 4 flights being fake or
non-existent that day. Send up drones from somewhere to hit the towers, a drone or missile to hit the Pentagon, and blow a hole in the ground at Shanksville.
The above is so much easier & less risky than utilizing real airliners, real passengers & crew to be disposed of, wacky hijackers slitting throats with boxcutters, etc.
more physical evidence-AmEx bldg. embedded beam
So--assuming no explosives, in other words just gravity working on the collapse. We know this 300 ton set of beams and spandrels lodged itself into the AmEx building, presumably from the North Tower, which was about 390ft or 119m away from it. So as part of the gravity induced collapse, this breaks breaks apart from its mates and flies outward and downward. We know that the law of falling bodies applies even for something that is thrown sideways, that is, the time it takes to hit the ground will be the same whether you throw a ball away from you (assuming you do not throw it up at all) or whether you drop it straight down. So we know based on the height at which the beam embedded itself roughly how far it fell before impacting with the AmEx building. Assuming for a moment that it started out at the very top, we know it would take about 8 seconds to fall that far. Meaning it travelled horizontally those 119 meters in the same time, 8 seconds. Giving the horizontal component of its velocity a value of about 15 meters per second. If it had originated at a lower point it would have fallen in less time, meaning its horizontal speed would have been even higher, i.e. the 15 m/s is a low estimate of how hard this 300 ton piece of metal was launched outwards. Since gravity works only straight down, what gave it that extra oomph? Is this not proof positive of some explosive force?
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
more physical evidence
I agree.
Both of the planes entered through the sides of the buildings. This fact rules out any possibility that the piece was broken off and thrown toward that building as a result of the impact.
Therefore there had to be another source of energy to hurl 300 tons further the the length of a football field.
but wait--how DID the Pakistanis manage to put the bombs in???
And cleverly make it look like the Zionist landlord was involved by making building 7 crumble? If we can't link the Paksitanis to it, it just means nothing, right Johns?
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Who said it was the Pakistanis ?
Who said it was the Pakistanis ?
not me... that was a joke!
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Who said it was the Pakistanis ?
Who said it was the Pakistanis ?
9/11 Revealed
All of these flights flew directly over several military bases on their way to their destinations.... many times after their transponders were shut off.... there is military protocall which should have rang a few alarms if these planes were not meant to fly over military bases.
One of these bases was the top East Coast radar monitoring stations with the militarys most sophisticated radar systems.
If these planes were remotely controlled... they took a very convenient flight path... directly over these military installations where the flight paths could best be monitored or controlled.
COuld these flights have been switched out in mid air?... once the transponders were shut off.... it would have been a piece of cake.
Could the drones have been remotely flown into the twin towers?... considering that is how planes normally fly.... from pre-programmed point to pre-programmed point with very little pilot intervention..... all that would have been needed was to program the planes with the appropriate flight path..... appropriate heading and altitude.... and the drone planes could have easily flown themselves.
Remote Controlled
I do not believe that I mentioned "remote controlled".
I merely stated that I had learned that the Flight Transponders are controllable in the cockpit and that the flight information that the Flight Transponder emits is determined by a Code number that is manually entered into the equipment that is already aboard the aircraft.
For example: If Flight 77 were to take off using Code "1234" (example purposes only) and the transponder was turned off another aircraft could enter Code 1234 into it's Flight Transponder and would be mistaken as Flight 77. If Flight 77 even existed at all. In your case of a Drone I guess the Code number could have been entered into a transponder while it was turned off and turned on while the Drone was in flight.
From what I have read NYC spent millions of dollars turning one of the floors of WTC 7 into a Emergency Control Bunker. Complete with it's own source of oxygen. It is strange that the mayor of New York did not set up his command center there on 9/11/01. It has been rumored that he was not permitted access to the bunker since it was being used as the Command Center for the aircraft that hit the towers.
So to answer your question, Yes, I believe that WTC 7 could have put out the required beacons necessary for the aircraft to lock onto in order for them to crash into the buildings.
Thank you for your interest.
Starting Off on the Right Foot
Tom,
Any "beginner" can save themselves from wasting a lot of time by realizing that any individual/group/site promoting that ANY of these flights (or replacement planes) actually crashed in front of video cameras is spreading disinformation, whether they know it or not.
Sadly, that statement is a fact, and not just an opinion.
http://911logic.blogspot.com/
I want to get this
I want to get this straight.....
NO planers??.... is it your contention that there were no planes?
or just not the planes that they said hit the buildings?
Real Question
My real question is this.... Do you have any eyewitness testimony of seeing an explosion buy not seeing or hearing a plane?
You mean like in this video?
Reporter Didn't See Plane
"Eyewitness Testamony"
I think the lack of eyewitness testamony of a plane crashing into the Pentagon speaks louder than the few "Eyewitnesses" that are either employed by the Pentagon or are receiving Survivor benefits.
Starting off on the right foot
How can you have a picture of a still intact nose cone coming out of a building that does not include the bright flash of the jet fuel explosion that occurred while the plane was inside the building ?
I would have thought that the nose cone would have been damaged upon impact with the aluminum coated steel beams of the outer wall on the way into the building, let alone still be intact going through a second side of the building on the way out.
I am sorry but I do not think that is logical.
My point EXACTLY!
Well, one of them anyway....
Tom, this isn't MY video. This video is what FOX broadcast "live" on 9/11/01.
It sounds to me like once you figure that part out, you'll realize that you're agreeing with me.
Then I guess I am agreeing with you
I must have gotten confused reading your article. It came off to me that you were making the nose cone argument. Sorry
Now I'm confused...
If it hasn't occurred to you that agreeing with me means that you understand that there is no real plane in any WTC2 "impact" video, then you may want to go back and read the article again...
...or you can wait for Part II, which will further clarify my point. It's coming along quite nicely, and should be ready to post sometime this weekend.
ok dude, careful now
you seem to be referring to that still from a video of the explosion on the south tower... there is a thick plume of smoke coming out that if you freeze the video looks like the shape of a nose cone. that is an example of a very poor attempt at questioning the legitimacy of the south tower plane strike, which is a thoruoghly unconvincing tack that I long since wriote off as one part of a disinfo tactic. the other side of the disinfo is those who vigorously argue against the noplaners while advocating LIHOP. The truth, of course, is in the middle.
Here's a recap-- there were real big planes at the towers--unclear if they were the actual flights alleged though
there was no big plane at the pentagon, and possibly not in pennsylvania either, though that one MAY have been shot down. Also unclear if it was, that it was flight 93 as alleged. most likely not, given the fraudulent account of its having flown straight into the ground.
there is an effort, as in the disinfo tactic i described above, to confuse the plane issue by throwing out two different and contradicting accounts that are both not true. understand that and you're halfway to the whole truth!
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force