“We are going to be struck soon. Many Americans are going to die and it could be in the United States.” — Cofer Black speech at Department of Defense coronation on counter-terrorism (8–15–2001)

There was an aura of heightened tension that encompassed every intelligence facility in the United States, even around the globe in the summer of 2001. The warning cables of an imminent attack upon the United States came from every corner of the earth. Italy, Spain, Lebanon, Germany, Israel, France, Canada, Egypt. The information, vague, Al Qaeda led by it’s emir, Osama Bin Laden, had a plot to conduct a massive domestic attack. But how, when?

I LOVED Anthony's "This is an Orange" and now, here's another fantastic piece from him.
Please forward far and wide in order to wake up more!!
And let's THANK Salem-News.com. ;O)

Email Salem-News.com:
Newsroom: newsroom@salem-news.com
http://salem-news.com/pages/Contact_Salem-News.php

Views of flight 175 Courtesy: bollyn.com

Mar-18-2010 14:21
A Little Known Fact About the 9/11 Planes
Anthony Lawson for Salem-News.com

Another seriously undeniable flaw in the 'official' 9/11 story.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/march182010/911-planes-al.php

The Academic Fallacy

(May be redistributed for non-profit purposes, with copyright acknowledgement; orig. place of pub. http://www.geocities.com/mdmorrissey/academic.htm)

Michael D. Morrissey
Nov. 5, 2006

Morgan Reynolds* begins his most recent article on the planes/no-planes issue (Did planes actually hit the WTC or were all the videos faked?) by referring specifically to Eric Salter's article in the Journal of 9/11 Studies** and makes available the (second negative) review of his (Reynolds') article by the journal's editors.

This is a small step in the right direction, providing at least the beginning of a dialogue, which is what a real debate is, but unfortunately, instead of continuing in that direction Reynolds has simply posted his essay in reply to Salter's essay. This is the academic form of debate, which illustrates what I will call the ACADEMIC FALLACY. It has several aspects.

1. Academics cannot talk easily to non-academics because of mutual hatred, which has nothing to do with the issue under consideration. Exchanges with people like Gerard Holmgren (a "no-planer") make it obvious why they are hard to get along with, since they will insult you at the drop of a hat, so I won't belabor the point. It is less obvious why academics are hard to get along with, and since I have been around academics for many years in two countries (Germany, the USA), I think I am qualified to have an opinion. They are for the most part--I'll say this in German so maybe it will hurt less--aufgeblasene Arschlöcher. This means "puffed-up assholes," which is something above and beyond "arrogant assholes," because it means the arrogance is unjustified.

Note: This probably should have been a blog instead of a story. The views expressed herein are solely those of GeorgeWashington, and not of 911Blogger.

In order to test the no-plane hypothesis that CGI imagery generated fake video images of planes crashing into the Twin Towers on 9/11, it would be useful to analyze the number of eyewitness (earwitness) reports that they HEARD the planes.

My theory is that if enough witnesses heard planes, then CGI would be highly unlikely, since that would not account for the sounds of planes (especially if witnesses heard planes from multiple locations).

The following Google search (i.e. using the search terms 9/11 heard plane "world trade center") yields 55 pages worth of results.

Anyone want to divide this up and find the relevent quotes? Let's figure out whether the acoustical evidence refutes or supports the no-plane theory.

Become a part of history. Do some original research, and help be a part of a team which tests this theory.

Alternative searches could use the words "Twin Towers", "South Tower", "North Tower", "WTC", "1" and "2" instead of "world trade center"

Two animations purport to model flights 11 and 175 crashing into the North and South Towers:

Here's the animation for WTC 1

Here's the animation for WTC 2

These animations were posted at the website of Engineering News-Record, a subsidiary of McGraw-Hill, back in 2003 (I just saw them yesterday for the first time).

And NIST has made 2 animations of its own:

Here's the WTC 1 animation

Here's the WTC 2 animation

NIST's animations are linked from this page.

Are these animations accurate, in the sense that they show what Boeings crashing into the Twin Towers would have looked like? If so, does that refute the argument that there should have been more aircraft debris outside of the Twin Towers?

If the animations are not accurate, would discrediting them also help to discredit animations of the purported Pentagon plane crash?