Humint Events Online: March 2006

Friday, March 31, 2006

I Always Thought the Naudet Video of the First Hit Showed Something Not Unlike an Out of Focus Plane

But some of these stills from the video are just bizarre.

Here I show the eleven frames, before the "plane" hits the building, rated on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being MOST like you would expect a somewhat out-of-focus 767 to look:

Frame 1-- 5

Frame 2-- 2

Frame 3-- 4

Frame 4-- 6

Frame 5-- 2

Frame 6-- 2

Frame 7-- 7

Frame 8-- 6

Frame 9-- 5

Frame 10-- 5

Frame 11-- 2

An average of 4.2 per frame....

What is most strange, even accounting for the low resolution in this video, is the way the front of the "plane" is barely visible in most frames, and is just a dark smudge when it should be in full sun.

Here is a real 767 viewed from a rear-side angle (can't find a picture from the rear with the plane going downwards):

Naudet frames from "Missilegate".
Bookmark and Share

Bravo Charlie

Bookmark and Share

Some Recent Thoughts on Demolition

Some points that I find notable:

1) I find it very suspicious that NIST investigators and other official investigators won't even CONSIDER the idea that the towers (WTC 1, 2 and 7) were demolished. How can they rule it out so simply? If you knew nothing about the history of the buildings prior to their collapse, and then saw them collapse, a reasonable explanation would be demolition. It is still not clear to me why they have ruled out demolition (except obviously this demolition was not done in the typical way where the building is evacuated, stripped out and wired up-- but for instance, the buildings could have been covertly wired up as a "safety" measure following the '93 bombing. The reason was to prevent the buildings from toppling over in case of a basement bomb that took out one side.).

2) the rapid recycling of the WTC steel by Giuliani (Ghouliani) is simply inexcusabale. Here we had the three largest building collapses in history, and the site was quickly cleaned up with incredible security, before any serious investigation could be done. This stinks.

3) another suspicious feature of the collapses is how global they were once the collapse started. There was no partial collapse of a section that gradually cascaded into a larger collapse. There was no partial collapsing period. It was simply total collapse, for all three towers, each in a matter of seconds.

4) most videos of the collapses (except for 911 Eyewitness) have no sound, so we can't hear if there any explosions prior to collapse or not. Of course 911 Eyewitness reveals EXACTLY those prior explosions.
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Meta Second Hit Videos

I think I have seen every second hit video out there now. There are somewhat over twenty of them (note to self: make a comprehensive list of all the 2nd hit videos in the near future).

Most videos, not surprisingly focus on the twin towers, and many are from close-up. They are from many different directions and distances.

In any case, here's something curious-- is there ANY 2nd hit video where the plane shows perspective and changes in size?

I've never seen one.

I find it remarkable that the only significant video of the first hit (the Naudet video) shows perspective (the flying object starts big and gets smaller as it moves away from the camera), yet even though there are over 20 videos of the second hit-- not one shows perspective.

You'd think at least ONE videographer would have tracked the second plane from some distance out, such as this guy. But even this Manos fellow, who captures the event from at least eight miles away, only captures the plane for two seconds. Very odd.

Here's another interesting finding from my survey. There is not one video or photo of the second plane from New Jersey from the south west-- from the area WHERE THE DANG PLANE WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE FLOWN OVER!

Wasn't anyone from Jersey, across from the Hudson from the WTC, filming the towers???? (like from the position where Rick Siegel (911 Eyewitness) was?)

The longest shot of the second plane is a Japanese video*, taken from a few miles west in New Jersey, but it is fairly far off. It's hard to believe no one in New Jersey closer to Manhattan wasn't filming. Doesn't anyone in New Jersey own a video camera???


*I must say the Japanese video looks quite real, though the flying object is just a dark smudge, and so we cannot be sure what it is. I also can't rule out that the flying object wasn't inserted to make the footage more dramatic. (The problem of course is that videos of the plane contradict on where the plane came from, and so one has to wonder which, if any video, is real. Plus, there are several other reasons to wonder if a real plane hit the south tower...)
Bookmark and Share

Three Networks on the Morning of 9/11 Used the Same "Live" Feed for the Second Hit

ABC, CNN and FOX. Rather remarkable. Why did three networks all patch into this particular video feed at the same time?

I've noted previously how odd this footage was to begin with.

Also, the camera on the helicopter that took this footage had a very special camera (Wescam) that is used by the US military (though not exclusively by the military).
Bookmark and Share

Pick Your 9/11 Truth Teller!

Nice post here at the TPM Cafe.
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

The Flight 93 Crash

Still makes no sense.

The plane DISAPPEARED into the ground, AFTER the front end of the plane supposedly disintegrated upon impacting the ground, spewing tiny tiny plane parts around.

We've never seen any pictures of a tail, wings, or any significant piece of a 757 from the Shanksville crash site. No significant human remains were found, mostly small pieces of skin. No blood was seen at the crash site.

This is the one part of 9/11 where there just is NO good explanation for the official story. I have never seen anyone defend this aspect of 9/11 in any convincing way. The only rebuttal I've seen is that lay people can't judge crash sites, you have to be an NTSB aviation crash expert to judge this crash.

There has been tons and tons of debate on the collapse of WTC1, 2 and 7 and what happened at the Pentagon.

But there has been hardly ANY debate on flight 93--- and this crash was for me, the first piece of 9/11 physical evidence that really stuck in my craw.
Bookmark and Share

Flight 77 Hit the Pentagon

Bookmark and Share

Great Resource of Interesting 9/11 Images


They look like they were used for this site here.
Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Angle of Attack

The first two clips of the second hit shown by CNN were very similar to these clips:

1) Video 1.
(this footage essentially is the same as the first shot of the second hit-- the "live" shot, shown by both ABC and CNN. This footage was disrupted by an inexplicable close-up of the north tower that separated the clips of the plane and the clip of the explosion. It is interesting to speculate that the reason they broke the shot up was because the timing of the plane and explosion was so off in the quickly done animation.)

2) Video 2.
(this video is essentially the same as the second shot of the second plane CNN showed-- same exact angle, this is just a different source)

In ANY CASE, what is interesting is that the approach of the plane is very similar-- a sharp southwest approach-- in both video clips.

But check out the banking angle of the plane between the two clips-- they are significantly different:

It may be a little subtle to see, but the lower plane has more sharply banked wings. Look how much lower the port wing is in the bottom picture versus the top picture. Both videos are shot from a similar height, and the plane is horizontal in both clips. Thus, I don't think this difference is a perspective issue. The banking angle of the plane never changes in either clip. So this would appear to be a clear contradiction. (If nothing else, you should be able to see here how cheesy these plane images are-- particularly the lower one, it hardly looks real at all.)

Moreover, the sharp southwest approach in these video 1 and 2 is quite different from this long shot CNN video, video 3, where the plane comes essentially from the south.

If the plane really came from the southwest, as in videos 1 and 2, then in video 3,
which is taken from a southeast view of the WTC, the plane would be MUCH smaller in the beginning of the video as at the end. However, the plane length NEVER changes in video 3, and so the approach angle flatly contradicts video 1 and 2 (which also came from CNN).

...just another discrepency in a long line of video sloppiness with the second hit.
Bookmark and Share

On Missiles, Invisibility and Holograms

Bookmark and Share

Is the Moussaoui Trial a Psy-Op?

The trial certainly has dragged on long enough, for various reasons, not the least of which is that Moussaoui keeps changing his story, and alternates between lucid and unbalanced states.

Moussaoui was initially indicted in December 2001 and the trial started in October 2002.

So we're three and a half years out on this craziness, which seems to primarily serve the function of keeping the official 9/11 story in the news.

I can hardly believe that right after 9/11 skeptics have scored major victories by publicizing Charlie Sheen's views and getting time on CNN, that it is a coincidence that Moussaoui comes up with a new, deadlier version of 9/11, in which he was supposed to play a key role.

Of course, no major media figure will question the idea that Moussaoui could have successfully hijacked and flown a huge 747. Rather Moussaoui is a convenient symbol of the lurking danger of Al Qaeda.
Bookmark and Share

Monday, March 27, 2006

Now Moussaoui Says he Was Part of 9/11?

ALEXANDRIA, Va., March 27 — Zacarias Moussaoui testified in Federal District Court here today that he knew of Al Qaeda's plans to fly jetliners into the World Trade Center and that he was to have piloted an airliner into the White House on Sept. 11, 2001.
This is a total turn-about from what was always claimed about what Moussaoui was up to before he was arrested in August 2001!

This stinks to high heaven.

I can only imagine this is some new diversion meant to prop up, once again, the sagging 9/11 plotline.

UPDATE: Apparently Moussaoui was wearing a STUN BELT under his clothes, whereby US Marshalls could stun him if he got out of line.

Gee, I WONDER if that affected his testimony at all....
Bookmark and Share

Bush Proposed a Flase-Flag Provocation Prior to the Iraq War

"The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq," The Times relates. "Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein."
Kind of makes you go, hmmmmm.
Bookmark and Share

Iraq Leaders Want the US to Give Up Control

and the Shiites accuse us of cold-blooded killings.

And the killing goes on and on and on and on and on....
Bookmark and Share

We Have a Constitutional Crisis

because the founders never really envisioned an administration as breath-takingly lawless as the Bush administration.
George W. Bush and his most trusted advisers, Richard B. Cheney and Donald H. Rumsfeld, entered office determined to restore the authority of the presidency. Five years and many decisions later, they've pushed the expansion of presidential power so far that we now confront a constitutional crisis.

Relying on legal opinions from Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Professor John Yoo, then working in the State Department, Bush has insisted that there can be no limits to the power of the commander-in-chief in time of war. More recently the president has claimed that laws relating to domestic spying and the torture of detainees do not apply to him. His interpretation has produced a devilish conundrum.

President Bush has given Commander-in-Chief Bush unlimited wartime authority. But the "war on terror" is more a metaphor than a fact. Terrorism is a method, not an ideology; terrorists are criminals, not warriors. No peace treaty can possibly bring an end to the fight against far-flung terrorists. The emergency powers of the president during this "war" can now extend indefinitely, at the pleasure of the president and at great threat to the liberties and rights guaranteed us under the Constitution.
Bookmark and Share

Media Politics and Deep Politics

Fascinating article here:
...Two days before, on March 20th, two unexpected things had happened, and one expected one didn't.
- Charlie Sheen came out of the cold on the Alex Jones show and ripped the veil of the governmental 9/11 cover-up.
- New York Magazine did a full feature on Tarpley's NY911Truth conference, complete with his model of the network of false-flag terror moles inside the government.
- The Euro-denominated Iranian Oil Bourse, a threat to the dollar which Tarpley promotes as the real reason for an attack on Iran, didn't open as scheduled after all.

Coincidence, or a coordinated counteroffensive against the neo-con crazies? Tarpley's guess is the financier oligarchy is not happy with its Bush-Cheney puppets, and wants them back on their leash before their mania for a war on Iran sinks the already deficit-drowning Anglo-American empire. (snip)

That is, a more intelligent faction within the elite is threatening to use 9/11 like Watergate tapes to take out the "president" - without touching its "invisible government" asset. Do not count on a free flow of information that 9/11 was fabricated by US military intelligence. This may only be a warning shot across the White House lawn.

That seems to be why CNN aired only 30 seconds of the 15 minutes they taped of Webster Tarpley. The Wednesday show had clips of Charlie Sheen and comments by spokesman Michael Berger, who remembered to mention the arch-smoking-gun collapse of WTC Building 7. The outgunned defender of orthodoxy was Nicole Rittermeyer of National Geographic. Tarpley says she worked for a production company owned by a Skull & Bones Bush Brother...
(emphasis added)
The rest of the piece is well-worth a read.
Bookmark and Share

Sunday, March 26, 2006

The CRAAAZY Conspiracy Theory

The great irony of my recent research on the second hit is that this is THE MOST CUT-AND-DRIED EVIDENCE telling us that something is SERIOUSLY WRONG with the official 9/11 story.

But most people will NOT even look at it much less take it seriously because it sounds so crazy.

This all goes to show the effectiveness of the BIG LIE technique-- and I'm sure this was a major factor the perps took into account when they set-up 9/11.

There is no doubt the mind control operation was in full force for the TV networks on 9/11.

How many times did CNN show the second plane hitting the south tower?

I know personally I had to turn the TV off after a couple of hours because I couldn't stand to watch it over and over again.

But that imagery was BURNED into the minds of everyone who watched TV that day.

And it was all a huge lie.
Bookmark and Share

Saturday, March 25, 2006

Still Doesn't make Sense!

I still don't truly understand the second hit on the WTC. The evidence simply doesn't fit together and make sense to me.

I can say the official 9/11 story is DEAD.

But the question is, was there a real plane or not???

On the side of a real plane hitting the south tower:

1) about 20 videos of the plane hitting the building from different angles and distances

2) a fair amount of eyewitnesses

3) large-scale damage to the building including a huge (putative jet fuel) fireball

4) a plane-shaped hole in the entry face

5) some apparent plane parts that apparently came out the other side

6) flight 175 seemed to have existed (in contrast to flight 11)

7) supposedly DNA was found in the rubble matching some flight 175 passengers

But there are MAJOR conflicts with the real plane scenario:

1) different videos show conflicting plane paths, conflicting timing with the explosion, conflicting plane speeds, and subtly conflicting entry sites

2) the plane enters without slowing, distorting or exploding-- looks unreal*

3) the plane looks distorted in many shots (the POD, port-wing anomaly, other anomalies)

4) the plane-shaped hole, suggesting the plane was indestructible, and subsequent disintegration of the plane defies physics*

5) the interior explosion doesn't make complete sense-- the plane hit only slightly off-center, yet all explosion was on one side of the building.

6) the speed of the plane (500-600 mph) was too fast for precise control by an amateur pilot, and the speed was also at the operational limits for a real plane

7) the plane wings should have broken off and exploded UPON IMPACTING the large steel outer columns and cement slabs of the WTC; the wings should NOT have sliced into the building and disappeared*

8) neither of the two black boxes from flight 175 were found in rubble of ground zero (officially)


What exactly happened to the tower, how many so videos could have been faked, how come so many people seem to have seen a plane, is a fascinating question and is still a subject of ongoing research.


*think of it this way--imagine the STEEL COLUMNS AND CEMENT FLOORS SLABS OF THE WTC GOING 500 mph then SLAMMING straight on into the nose of a Boeing 767 fixed stably on top of a large strong pole. Physically, this is the virtually the same as a Boeing 767 going 500 mph slamming into a stationary WTC.

Now, is the plane going to punch through the wall and leave its shape in the WTC wall? Or is the plane going to be CRUSHED?

Does anyone REALLY think the former????
Bookmark and Share

What Have We Done?

Good Lord:
The battle between Sunni and Shia Muslims for control of Baghdad has already started, say Iraqi political leaders who predict fierce street fighting will break out as each community takes over districts in which it is strongest. (snip) Already Baghdad resembles Beirut at the start of the Lebanese civil war in 1975, when Christians and Muslims fought each other for control of the city.
Bookmark and Share

Extra Weirdness

Following up on this post here on why the initial CNN footage of the second hit is suspicious, there is one other thing that makes the "live first hit" footage suspicious.

Specifically, RIGHT AFTER the plane is seen coming in, the shot cuts AWAY (!) to a close-up of the burning north tower, THEN the shot cuts BACK to the explosion from the south tower. Thus, there is no continuous live shot of the second plane coming in and then a fireball erupting.

It is disjointed footage during a particularly critical moment.

This means they didn't
even have to get the timing perfect, they could have added the plane image in live, using "blue-screen technology", right as they saw the explosion, and delayed the explosion clip for one or two extra seconds.

The way it is done is very clever, I must say. You would never suspect it unless you were looking for this kind of fakery.

Further, the timing of this video footage is especially curious in light of this mistimed footage that was found. The story of this footage is discussed in this post.
Bookmark and Share

Music, Then and Now, and the Order of Things

Bookmark and Share

Pissed Off Cabbie

Bookmark and Share

Friday, March 24, 2006

Activism Alert

George Washington speaks.

My own recommendation would be, rather than sending out a mass e-mail from the list he has, contact your local newspaper, using as many email contacts as you can find. The local touch always helps. Of course be polite and you have more credibility if you give your name and address.

This is my goal for this weekend: contacting my local daily on 9/11.

I have been meaning to do this for some time anyway...
Bookmark and Share

Out of Control

"Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement; In addendum to law, he says oversight rules are not binding."

This is insane.

Are Republicans really willing to let this man usurp extra powers and turn the presidency into a dictatorship?

If so, WHY???

Before George W. Bush came along, I never really knew Republicans were set on destroying the very basis of the American democratic system.

Constitutional crisis is not hyperbole at this point!

SOMEBODY better step up to the plate soon to stop this madness.
Bookmark and Share

And On The Lighter Side...

Bookmark and Share

Buffer Post

Because I need to put something between an incredibly sad story and the funniest thing I have ever seen...

Okay, now this is kind of disturbing. Yesterday Raw Story had a top headline about Charlie Sheen and 9/11, and now the story is wiped completely off the front page. Most odd, they don't even have it in their "recent stories" section. (Admittedly, Rawstory is not completely suppressing alternaitve 9/11 stories, as they still display an ad from 911-Revisited.)

Here is the story from yesterday still in their archives, found via a link from

That is on top of this story on Google censoring the Sheen story, which seems to have been reversed now.

But this is very encouraging:
No Longer The Minority: 82% Plus Support Charlie Sheen
Over four-fifths back his public stance on 9/11

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison | March 24 2006

Despite the best efforts of the now whimpering attack poodles of the mainstream media, an online CNN poll shows that over four-fifths, or 82 per cent, agree with actor Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks.

Every establishment media mouthpiece aside from CNN tried to hang Sheen on his own words but it simply didn't work because those same questions are firing the synapses in the heads of millions upon millions of other taxpaying American citizens.

We are now in the majority and the cynics are beginning to feel the breeze of fear as they desperately cling to ignorant dogmas spoon fed to them by an empire in descent, while in the back of their mind and in their soul knowing that they have sided with the wrong team and the wrong side of history.

As of Friday morning you can still vote in the poll and I encourage you to do so by clicking here. A.J. Hammer and CNN Showbiz Tonight need to be given their due as the only mainstream television news show to give balanced coverage of serious 9/11 questions.

This is a watershed moment in the struggle to create a powerful, educated and active contingent of individuals with no hierarchical structure but with a unified cause.

UPDATE: 3/24 Friday 10PM EST, Rawstory has the Sheen story back again (in the "blogs/media" story section).
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Extremely Sad News

The death of Michael Zebuhr:
Michael Zebuhr didn’t intervene when two men stole his mother’s purse, but one of the men shot him anyway. The 25-year-old Buckhannon resident and recent Davis & Elkins College died a day later.

According to reports, Zebuhr and his mother, Dr. Suzanne Strong of Virginia, were in Minneapolis visiting Zebuhr’s sister, a student at the University of Minnesota, when the shooting took place at about 9:55 p.m. Saturday.

Inspector Kris Arneson of the Minneapolis Police Department’s Fifth Precinct said the family trio and a friend were approached by two male subjects as they were returning to their vehicle following dinner at a restaurant in the Uptown area.

Reports indicate that the suspects demanded Strong’s pursue which she was turned over without resistance. One of the suspects then shot Zebuhr in the head for no apparent reason, officials said.

Zebuhr died at 11:30 p.m. Sunday in the Hennepin County Medical Center as a result of a gun shot wound to the head, according to the county medical examiner.

Zebuhr is a 1998 graduate of Buckhannon-Upshur High School and 2005 graduate of Davis & Elkins College with a bachelor of science degree in mathematics and chemistry. He was currently enrolled at Clemson University in South Carolina working on his doctorate degree in bioengineering.

“Mike Zebuhr was a young man of rare personal and intellectual qualities,” said D&E President Tom Mann. “His premature death, especially under such tragic circumstances, cannot help but haunt the Davis & Elkins College community. Our hearts go out to his family and loved ones. I hope there can be comfort for them in knowing that the deep loss they are feeling is echoed in the sense of loss felt by his many D&E friends, his faculty members and all of us who knew him. I trust there will be comfort for all of us in knowing that we are richer for the years he shared with us.”

While a D&E student, Zebuhr was listed frequently on the dean’s list and was included in Who’s Who in American Universities and Colleges in 2005. He received the Mathematics, Computer Science and Physics Department Award in 2004, the Chemistry Department Award in 2005 and the faculty’s Senior Award in 2005. This award is granted to a senior student, with at least a 3.8 grade point average, who has achieved excellence in a wide range of academic areas and in the quality of personal and intellectual leadership provided. During his junior year, Zebuhr was named a Distinguished Scholar by the Appalachian College Association and received an Appalachian College Association Scholarship.

He also earned The American Chemical Society’s Polymer Education Award in Organic Chemistry in 2004 and an undergraduate research internship at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida funded by the National Science Foundation in 2003. He was also a four-year member of the college’s ski team and was active in the Computer Club, Student Assembly, the Mountain Bike Club and Alpha Psi Omega, a theatre honorary. According to officials, a memorial service will be conducted on the D&E campus at a later date, pending arrangements with Zebuhr’s family.

“Mike was a hard working, dedicated, self motivated student,” said Dr. Lisa Benson, Zebuhr’s advisor at Clemson. “He appreciated every opportunity and took nothing for granted. That kind of student is a joy to work with.”

Benson, the education director at the Center for Advanced Engineering Fibers and Films and the research director professor at the Department of Bioengineering, said Zebuhr was highly respected by faculty, staff and students and was an extremely generous and compassionate person.

“Everyone here is in shock,” she said.

According to Benson, Zebuhr was interested in space flight and had spoken of becoming a university professor.

“Mike was in the process of developing hands-on projects for middle and high school students with intentions of sparking an interest in science and engineering,” Benson said. “He would have been a great mentor for kids.”

According to Benson, donations in Zebuhr’s memory may be made online at the Clemson University Foundation Web site at Checks may be made payable to Clemson University Foundation with a notation at the bottom stating “in memory of Michael Zebuhr” and mailed to: Clemson University Foundation, P.O. Box 1889, Clemson, S.C., 29633-1889; or by calling the Clemson University Foundation Gift Receiving at (864) 656-5666.

The university will create a holding account for the donations, and a decision will be made with Zebuhr’s family regarding a memorial service, she said.

“Mike was simply an outstanding students and a compassionate person,” Benson said. “We are all feeling this loss very deeply.”

He is the son of Strong and Richard Zebuhr of Buckhannon.

He was also a member of 9/11 Scholars for Truth:
Michael Zebuhr (SM)
Bioengineering, Clemson University

So... since when do two muggers hit on a group of four people, then randomly shoot one of the people in the head when the money is given and there is no resistance?

According to this story, he was shot twice in the forehead.

UPDATE:More on Zebuhr here.

Police have caught three suspects.
Bookmark and Share


Bookmark and Share

Why the Initial CNN Footage of the Second Hit is Suspicious

First, I HIGHLY recommend that everyone view the CNN footage from the morning of 9/11 captured here. No matter what you think of 9/11, it is quite interesting.

Okay, now here is why their coverage of the second hit is HIGHLY suspicious:

1) the first clip of the second plane is from a helicopter view. The helicopter is to the west of the WTC, and the pilot and/or cameraman should have seen the second plane coming from MILES away. Yet the plane just pops into the camera view (which was showing the burning north tower) as if it took them by surprise. The camera doesn't even budge to try to get more of the plane, it is as if the camera is robotically fixed on the tower. This makes no sense.

2) This first video is worst possible angle to see the plane hit the tower, one can't even see the south tower, and overall this kind of imagery could be very easy to fake-- they don't have to worry about HOW the plane hits the building.

3) This first video clip is from another network, so two networks relied on this one clip for the "live" shot of the second hit. Only one fake was needed.

4) Later on, around 9:10 am, a reporter on the street says that people are telling him that missiles hit the tower. But he is cut off and over-ridden by studio host who says, 'we saw the plane on the video'.

5) when the second hit is finally shown from a new camera angle, around 9:09 am -- no plane is visible, only the fireballs! Yet the studio host kindly tells us, 'there goes the plane right through the building...'

6) the third clip of the second hit, from a third angle, shows only the second view of the plane. In this clip, the plane is approaching the tower from a steep southwest diagonal. The problem with this video is that the plane is coming in at a completely different angle from what any other video shows.

And then they work with the two videos showing the second plane for a while, then something happens at the Pentagon/DC area, then the South tower collapses, back to the Pentagon/DC, then the north tower collapses, and no other clips of the second hit are shown for an hour, from 9:40am to 10:40am.
Bookmark and Share

Wings Can Slice Through Huge Steel Columns


"The aircraft overran the runway, and collided with an approach light tier, breaking the fuselage into three pieces."

That must have been one HELL of a light pole to cause the fuselage to break apart, not to mention break off both wings like that....
Bookmark and Share

CNN Showbiz Segment on Charlie Sheen and 9/11 Skepticism

Video here. Amazingly, the defense of the official story was fairly lukewarm, and they had three apparent skeptics (the host, Webster tarpley and Michael Berger) to one person putatively supporting the official story.
Bookmark and Share

Feingold on "The Daily Show"

Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

CNN: Second and Third Views of the South Tower Hit

The second shot of the south tower hit on CNN was at 9:09am.

This second view is VERY suspicious, as they show a view of the towers from the east, and there are fireballs coming out both the north and south sides of the South tower, and the host is talking about 'here we see the plane go right through'-- BUT WE CAN'T SEE ANY PLANE AS THE IMPACT REGION IS CUT OFF BY THE OVERSIZED CNN "BREAKING NEWS" BAR AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN!!!

At 9:10am is the third view of the second hit, but only the second view of the plane.

This video is very similar the second footage of the plane shown by CNN. The CNN footage was from further out and did not have verygood resolution of the plane.

Interestingly, at this same time, CNN had a reporter on the ground telling the studio host that people were saying the south tower was hit by missiles, and the host in the studio was overriding him, saying, we saw a plane on the video...
Bookmark and Share

Bringin' Freedom

Gee, I wonder why no reporter yesterday asked Bush about this:
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi police have accused American troops of executing 11 people, including a 75-year-old woman and a 6-month-old infant, in the aftermath of a raid last Wednesday on a house about 60 miles north of Baghdad.

The villagers were killed after American troops herded them into a single room of the house, according to a police document obtained by Knight Ridder Newspapers. The soldiers also burned three vehicles, killed the villagers' animals and blew up the house, the document said.
Oh, just unfounded allegations, I'm sure.

And oh yeah, no real surprise that Bush admitted the US is committed to staying in Iraq for several more years, AT MINIMUM.

The question is: will we ever leave?

Maybe when the oil runs out, I suppose.
Bookmark and Share

Live Animation?

This shot was apparently the only "live" shot of the second hit shown on network TV. The same video feed was shown on both ABC (not the ABC logo in the corner) and CNN (which was using the ABC feed).

The video is taken from a helicopter.

This footage is remarkable for a few reasons:

1) the angle of the shot, from the northwest, only shows the north tower. Thus, the south tower is hidden from view-- and therefore we cannot see the plane actually hit the south tower, we only see a plane going behind the north tower and then the south tower explode.

2) the "plane" is only seen briefly, a dark small object, with hardly any detail. This plane could easily be (and almost certainly is) animation.

3) Interestingly, the reporter on the scene, who was describing the north tower burning, never saw the plane. Only the people back in the studio talk about a plane. However, the reporter was not on the helicopter but was four blocks north of the WTC, presumably from some vantage point.

Notably, other footage of the second hit did not appear until significantly later in the morning.

My guess is the delay is because the fakers needed time to insert the proper digital (CGI) planes into the footage of the south tower exploding. As I have discussed extensively, there is abundant reason to think the second hit footage was faked in many cases, and probably all footage showing a plane hit the south tower is fake.

Interestingly, the ABC TV network is well-known for CIA connections, and was owned by a CIA-connected company, Capital Cities.

Also, interestingly, the "live shot" is the same as this weird fake here. The supposed story of this fake video is: "My brother works in the media, and just sent me this file via ICQ. He claims it's footage recently gained from some inside government source that his workplace has (I can't reveal his identity or where he works for a few reasons, mainly that I don't want him getting fired)." In fact, this story makes some sense, since I strongly think this first video is a fake. This badly timed "fake" was probably some out-take of the original fakery.
Bookmark and Share

Monday, March 20, 2006

A Few New Dots

for my "connecting the dots" piece:

BY ITSELF, the fact that videos of the second hit have different timings for when the plane goes in and the fireball comes out doesn't mean that no plane was used on 9/11. But if there was a real plane going into the building, why would the timing differ for different shots?

BY ITSELF, that the explosions that occur in the south tower right after the plane enter don't always line up the same as where the plane went in doesn't mean that no plane was used on 9/11. But, as above, if there was a real plane going into the building, why would this alignment differ for different videos?

BY ITSELF, the fact that the south tower fireball came out all on one side of the building, even though the plane hit straight on and just slightly off-center, does not conclusively tell us that no plane was used. But it sure is strange, particularly in comparison to the North tower hit, where explosions came out all sides of the building. Moreover, the port wing of the second plane should clearly have broken open on the core columns and sprayed fuel all out the center/west side of the tower, in an analogous fashion to what the starboard wing apparently did (giving rise to the huge famous fireball to the east)-- yet the port wing simply in the building disappeared without any analogous explosion. What happened to it?

Where are the raging fires on the middle and west side of the tower that should have occurred from the exploded port wing?
Bookmark and Share

Huge and Fairly Even-Handed Treatment of 9/11 "Conspiracy Theories" in New York Magazine


In a quick read, the piece looks relatively non-judgemental-- if not darn-right sympathetic to the idea that 9/11 was an inside job.
Bookmark and Share

More on Video Manipulation and What Hit the South Tower

Bookmark and Share

An Extremely Good Fake?

Although at first glance, the videos HERE (scroll down) appear to be high quality videos of the second strike taken by an apparent amateur, there are a few troubling things about these videos:

1) the video was taken from an extreme distance, probably 8-10 miles away, yet the guy has amazing close-ups of the plane and the explosions. It is a bit hard to believe.

2) the plane all of a sudden appears next to the south tower-- there is no footage of the plane flying from further out. Why not? In the longer video (on the lower right), you can see footage of the first burning tower, so he is set-up and taking video before the second plane appears. Yet he clips out the video of the plane flying in?

3) in the longer video (on the lower right), right when the second tower is hit, you can hear a woman in the background talking about a suicide bomber doing this. Who the heck is thinking about suicide bombers right as the second tower is struck? That is very fishy to me.

4) interestingly, the second plane even shows the flash as it strikes the tower, and overall the sequence is incredibly similalr to the famous ghostplane footage I have analyzed extensively here. I just find it hard to believe he got this footage from such a distance, particularly as a putative amateur.
Bookmark and Share

Sunday, March 19, 2006

Controlled Demolition

So how is THIS is different from happened to WTC7 on 9/11???

It looks virtually identical.

UPDATE: actually, the demolition of WTC7 was BETTER! WTC7 came straight down, whereas in this demolition, the tower comes down a little more on one side, or crookedly.
Bookmark and Share

Saturday, March 18, 2006

Who Really Took the Famous Carmen Taylor Photo of the Second Plane?

(Modified and updated 10/21/07; 7/1/09; 12/8/09; 12/29/09)

This one, which was distributed by AP:

Here's Carmen Taylor:

and here is her story:
Amateur Photographer Captures Attacks

By CAROLINE BYRNE, Associated Press Writer

Amateur photographer captures NYC attack. (AP Photo/Robert Bukaty) NEW YORK (AP) - Carmen Taylor had boarded the ferry to Ellis Island and was snapping photos of the Manhattan skyline Tuesday when the sky exploded.

"We thought it was fireworks," said Taylor, who had borrowed a Sony digital camera from her son for her five-day visit to New York from Ft. Smith, Ark.

Taylor, who works as an auditor in a nursing home, captured United Airlines Flight 175 as it shattered the south tower of the World Trade Center complex, just 18 minutes after American Airlines Flight 11 smashed into the north tower.

"I looked up again and this plane went by so I just put my camera back up. That's when the second explosion took place," she said.

"We were terrified. We were wondering if the Statue of Liberty was the next target and that's when people started streaming out of their buildings," Taylor said.

Taylor got off the ferry and showed her digital photos to the swarms of dazed office tower workers. One man suggested Taylor use his office nearby to e-mail her pictures to her local television station KHBS.

Two of her photos, one showing the scene just before the plane hit and the other immediately after, were distributed worldwide by The Associated Press.

Got that? She had just "boarded the ferry to Ellis Island and was snapping photos of the Manhattan skyline Tuesday when the sky exploded."

Recently, Ms. Taylor was interviewed and she said she took the picture from the ferry boat before it left.


Michael Hezerkhani, who supposedly took the famous CNN "Ghostplane" footage, must have been on the same boat. Did anyone else on this tour boat get videos or photos of the second hit?

However, Ms. Taylor is lying about at least one thing. In the interview, she says the boat never left the dock after the second hit.

But look at the picture in the camera she is holding above. The picture in her camera shows a much more distant perspective of the towers than the famous AP photo above-- notice how the WTC towers stand out more from the surrounding buildings. This shot could only have been taken from further out than the dock-- from away out on the water.

So what else is she lying about?

There are other problems with Taylor's story--
1) the plane photo is a very professional-looking shot to be taken by an amateur with a old fashioned and relatively low quality digital camera.
2) there is the famous "pod-like" bulge under the starboard wing, which casts doubt upon the authenticity of this plane
3) the coloring on the plane is completely wrong for a United Airlines Boeing 767-- while there is a gray stripe down the bottom, the lower sides are dark BLUE, not light gray/light blue.

So the question is, WHO did take these pictures?

Carmen Taylor, or some professional photographer operative who inserted a digital plane into the shot?

Or is Taylor the operative? Or is she just a good "witness from middle America" to the second hit who is being used by the perps?

Either way, there is little doubt that there is something very wrong with her story.

Here is the series she supposedly took:

Ms. Taylor says she was at the end of the boat, sitting on a container. How did that gray-haired person get in front of her in the last shot?

Considering that the old digital camera she says she used had a very long lag time (up to 10 seconds) between shots, there is some doubt that she was able to take this series.

Here are some other things about Carmen Taylor:
1) this article says she is from Lavaca, Arkansas, and gives another version of her story.

2) this article lists Carmen Taylor for an AP photo on a Post Office ceremony in 2001. Did she get a job with AP after 9/11? Or is it a different Carmen Taylor?

3) this article shows the plane photo and then very oddly credits both "Taylor, Carmen & Torrens, Jerry". Jerry Torrens is associated with a picture of WTC2 collapsing, seen in other articles but not here, why is he listed here? Did he help Taylor somehow? This is odd.

4) some further discussion about her here.

UPDATE 7/1/09: Sources are now saying the photo of Taylor above with the camera and the wrong shot in her camera has been altered. Here is a photo of Taylor with what appears to be the famous plane photo in her camera (from here):

Conceivably because the plane shot was copyrighted, people who used this shot altered the photo in her camera so as to avoid copyright issue if they showed this picture. But... that is still weird. Why use the picture with the wrong photo in the camera? Why use the picture at all? Why go through so much trouble to photoshop a new picture in her camera? Why not black out the camera viewfinder? And how did people who alter this picture take out the large AP watermark? I still think this story stinks.

Also, as described here, Taylor took yet one more picture of the South tower-- of the smoking hole.

Note the 33.

Extensive discussion on Taylor here at Pumpitout, with Taylor apparently asnswering questions. She seems amazingly honest and forthright with lots of details given. There seem to be some conflicts of her recollection with the official path of UA175. Some interesting discussion of the fly-by plane too. Lastly, she says other people on the ferry have very different recollections of the plane-- odd. Overall I hate to call her a liar-- but either she is telling the truth about her picture... or she isn't.

UPDATE 12/8/09:
Nice overview of the story here, with all her pictures from that day. Interesting that the shot with the plane has almost half the pixels as the other shots. Also note how that in the plane shot, the building in the foreground is darker than in the next shot with the fireball. Is this evidence of tampering?

UPDATE 12/29/09:
from Thomas Potter--

THE most propagandized image of 9/11 was a photograph purported to have been taken by Carmen Taylor of Lavaca, AR. (She recently sold her home on 12/3/2009 Parcel# 60100-0014-00000-00) The fabricated plot-line is that SHE took the photograph of United flight 175 frozen in time as it approached World Trade Center Two and met a kindly businessman in Battery Park by the name of Doug Haluza who offered to take her to his office so that she could transmit the photos to her home town television station.

As the fabricated plot-line continues, Carmen Taylor was flooded with offers for the rights to release her one-chance-in-a-million photo and she chose Associated Press who dispatched their photographer, Robert Bukaty, to her hotel room and he took a photograph of her holding her "borrowed" camera with the digital display turned on and facing the camera.

While searching the Internet Archive in late October of 2007, I located an Associated Press news item by Caroline Byrne entitled "Amateur Photographer Captures Attack" that was posted on 9/13/01 to the news section of a web site devoted to digital cameras. Robert Bukaty's photo of Carmen Taylor accompanied that article. Immediately my keen eye noticed that the image in the digital display of the "borrowed" camera that Carmen Taylor was holding was not United flight 175 frozen in time as it approached World Trade Center Two. The image was the smoking towers STILL STANDING from a HOBOKEN perspective. How could this be? The image found in the Internet Archive violated all official accounts. It would be IMPOSSIBLE for Carmen Taylor to have an image of the smoking towers still standing in the digital display of the "borrowed" camera she was holding when AP photographer Robert Bukaty took her photograph.

To resolve the conflict of the image in her "borrowed" camera's digital display I contacted a Canadian by the name of Jeff Hill who could legally record Carmen Taylor, Doug Haluza, and Robert Bukaty without their knowledge. As you can tell from listening to Jeff Hill's 11/01/07 interview of Doug Haluza, he CLEARLY STATES that Carmen Taylor was IN his office building when the towers collapsed so it would be IMPOSSIBLE for Carmen Taylor to have an image of the smoking towers still standing in the digital display of the camera she was holding when AP photographer Robert Bukaty took her photograph. In the Robert Bukaty interview, which was performed on the same day, Robert Bukaty CLEARLY STATES that the image in Carmen Taylor's camera was NOT United flight 175 frozen in time. It was an image of the SMOKING TOWERS STILL STANDING from a HOBOKEN perspective.

When Doug Haluza and Robert Bukaty were interviewed by Jeff Hill on November 1, 2007, ONLY Mr. Hill and myself knew of the original Carmen Taylor photo that was published in ERROR with the towers STILL STANDING in the display screen of her "borrowed" camera and not the AP edited image with United flight 175 frozen in time. This was WHY Mr. Hill called them. We had inside information that we wanted to verify. Doug Haluza and Robert Bukaty not only hung themselves with their own words but Carmen Taylor as well.

Doug Haluza/Jeff Hill November 1, 2007

Robert Bukaty/Jeff Hill November 1, 2007

If John Demjanjuk can be charged with accessory to murder for the death of 27,900 Jews as a guard at the Sobibor death camp, then Carmen Taylor, Doug Haluza, and Robert Bukaty can be charged with accessory to murder for the death of 2,605 innocent World Trade Center victims. There is no statute of limitation for accessory to murder and I have another 30 years to hunt down the fascists and their minions who created the 9/11 Holocaust with or without anyone's assistance.

The ball is now in your court. You can react to this information two ways. You can marginalize me, write me off as a kook, and ignore this letter or you can act on the information supplied. Unless you can predict future events, keep in mind that you will never know what administration will hold future power and what they will do with this information, whom it was supplied to, and when it was supplied. Would you want to risk being charged as an accessory to mass murder?
Bookmark and Share

Friday, March 17, 2006

Is Japan a Big New Site for 9/11 Skepticism?

Possibly... and once again our national media shows their complete lack of conscience regarding 9/11 (not really surprising since a) they were complicit in 9/11, and b) they have shown no conscience for anything else that has happened in this country).
Bookmark and Share

War Is Just a Political Football

Bookmark and Share

How Quaint

Saw a bumper sticker today that said "Wanted: Dead or Alive-- Osama bin Laden".
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, March 16, 2006

So, What DID Hit the WTC South Tower Anyway?

Here are all the possibilities I can think of for the south tower hit:

1) nothing flying, purely pre-planted charges
2) cluster of visible unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)(this could include a wide variety of flying objects including entomopters)
3) cluster of cloaked (invisible) UAVs
4) cloaked (invisible) missile
5) visible large missile (one or two)
6) hologram-projecting missile (showing a Boeing jet)
7) UA175
8) some other large Boeing, possibly modified

Numbers 2-6 in theory could be combined with pre-planted charges.

Because pictures of the south tower "entry" hole show columns knocked inward, I tend to favor possibilities where some flying object hits the tower.

Because videos show conflicting plane paths (and because of the strong evidence in general that the videos had artificial planes inserted in them), this suggests to me that the flying object was invisible, or only weakly visible (a blur, perhaps only seen from certain angles). That is, the videos were not simply inserting an image over some foreign flying object that was not a Boeing 767-- the videos were making up the flight path of the 767, and this varied from video to video.

All this basically leaves possibilities 3 and 4-- cluster of cloaked (invisible) UAVs
or a cloaked (invisible) missile. The problem with missiles is how did they create the wing-scars? This leaves the cloaked UAV idea as the strongest possibility, where the UAVs were able to chew up sections of the outer columns and knock columns inward, and assist in the propulsion of the explosion out the northeast corner of the south tower.

The other possibility is that somehow pre-planted charges were set-up that could specifically knock columns inwards, though this would presume extraordinary access to the building right before 9/11. Of course, there was a major power down of the top half of the south WTC tower the weekend before 9/11, with lots of workmen coming and going.
Bookmark and Share

What Are the Odds?

...that after the North tower was hit but before the South tower was hit, a large Boeing flew close by Manhattan?

The plane is going south to north, perhaps 1 mile west of the WTC.

I wonder if this is the plane that many eye-witness saw before the South tower was hit?
Bookmark and Share

Physics Question

Has anyone ever heard of any set of materials where at a slow speed, material A will tear up material B, while at a higher speed material A will be torn up by material B?

In other words, at low speeds, say 50 mph, surely large steel columns would rip apart lightly constructed aluminum wings.

Is it possible that at high speeds, say 500 mph, that aluminum wings would rip apart the steel columns? This would seem to defy physics to me. I would imagine that at high speeds, the steel columns would simply rip apart the aluminum wings FASTER.
Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Putting It All Together-- The "No Planes Theory" Is the Most Likely Explanation for What Really Happened on 9/11

(Updated/Expanded 3/15/06)(Updated/Expanded 3/20/06)

OF COURSE, at first blush, the idea that no real planes were used in 9/11 seems absurd.

But when ALL the evidence is taken into account, it is the only reasonable conclusion.

So let's go through it piece by piece---

BY ITSELF, videos that show conflicting plane paths for the second hit do not conclusively tell us that no plane was used on 9/11. Perhaps a network created footage because they were too cheap to buy footage, or wanted more dramatic footage than what was available. But clearly these videos show the south tower exploding. If planes were added in-- what happened to THE REAL PLANE in the video?

BY ITSELF, the fact that videos of the second hit have different timings for when the plane goes in and the fireball comes out doesn't mean that no plane was used on 9/11. But if there was a real plane going into the building, why would the timing differ for different shots?

BY ITSELF, that the explosions that occur in the south tower right after the plane enter don't always line up the same as where the plane went in doesn't mean that no plane was used on 9/11. But, as above, if there was a real plane going into the building, why would this alignment differ for different videos?

BY ITSELF, weird anomalies in photos and videos of the second hit do not conclusively tell us that no plane was used. Perhaps there was something strange in the air that day that made the plane look strange. But is this really a convincing explanation?

BY ITSELF, the fact that the second plane completely melted into the south tower, without slowing, or distorting or breaking or exploding upon impact does not conclusively tell us that no plane was used. Perhaps that is just the way a fast large bodied jetliner impacts a steel frame building-- even though it defies physics and examples of other plane crashes.

BY ITSELF, the fact that CNN footage of the second hit shows signs of editing and signs of sloppy bluescreen technology do not conclusively tell us that no plane was used. Perhaps CNN had good reason to alter the video, though it is not at all clear what these reasons might be.

BY ITSELF, the fact that the airplane wings and tail cut through large steel columns on the WTC wall do not conclusively tell us that no plane was used. But it sure is strange that the fuel carried in the wings was never ignited by the impact of the wings on these large columns. And it sure is strange the huge tail section, which breaks off quite easily in other plane crashes, slid into the building without a hitch.

BY ITSELF, the fact that the south tower fireball came out all on one side of the building, even though the plane hit straight on and just slightly off-center, does not conclusively tell us that no plane was used. But it sure is strange, particularly in comparison to the North tower hit, where explosions came out all sides of the building. Moreover, the port wing of the second plane should clearly have broken open on the core columns and sprayed fuel all out the west side of the tower, in an analogous fashion to what the starboard wing apparently did (giving rise to the huge famous fireball)-- yet the port wing simply in the building disappeared without any clear explosion. What happened to it?

BY ITSELF, the fact that very few airplane parts were found at any 9/11 crash site do not conclusively tell us that no plane was used. Sure, perhaps these were incredibly violent plane crashes that tore up the plane much more than in "normal" crashes-- but it still does make one wonder, since typically plane crashes are quite violent but still leave plenty of parts on the ground.

BY ITSELF, the fact that the few airplane parts were found at any 9/11 crash site were not verified to make sure they matched the plane that officially crashed at that site does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. After all, why does the government need to prove anything to anyone?

BY ITSELF, the fact that officially, no black boxes were found in the rubble at the WTC, does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. Even though these boxes are incredibly sturdy and meant to survive the worst plane crashes, the fact that FOUR of these boxes (two per plane) vanished at Ground Zero only shows how destructive the unusual collapses of the two towers was.*

BY ITSELF, the fact that the official flight path of the Pentagon crash is impossible does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. But it does make one wonder what really happened.

BY ITSELF, the fact that the official story of the crash of UA93 makes absolutely no sense does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. But it makes you wonder what the hell the government is lying about.

BY ITSELF, the fact that flights 11 and 77 were not scheduled to fly on 9/11 does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. But it sure tends to support that flights 11 and 77 were not involved in the attacks.

BY ITSELF, the fact the passenger lists for the four 9/11 planes are highly suspect, does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. But it makes you wonder why we can't have the truth.

BY ITSELF, the fact that it is highly doubtful terrorists training on small prop planes and flight simulators could have piloted the planes so effectively on 9/11 does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. Perhaps they got REALLY lucky.

BY ITSELF, the fact that terrorists armed at most with knives, boxcutters and fake bombs took over four large jets with not one of eight pilots notifying air traffic control of a hijacking by any standard means does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. Perhaps they got REALLY REALLY lucky. But how much luck can we reasonably expect for the terrorists on that day?

BY ITSELF, the fact that officially, forty minutes after two hijacked jets attacked New York City, a third hijacked plane flew hundreds of miles before penetrating Washington DC airspace to attack the Pentagon WITHOUT AIR FORCE INTERCEPTION-- this does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. Perhaps NORAD just had a REALLY REALLY BAD DAY. But when can we simply laugh at the absurdity of the official story?

BY ITSELF, the fact that the media lies about what the government does all the time, and covers for the government all the time, does not prove no plane was used on 9/11. But certainly the media is capable of covering up and disseminating such a huge lie.

BY ITSELF, the fact that 9/11 has all the features of a highly sophisticated covert operation that was years in the works and was an operation that clearly aided geopolitical goals of the US does not prove no plane was used on 9/11. But it would support the idea that the 9/11 planners would know how difficult and therefore risky it would be to control real hijackings and real aircraft.

So, indeed-- all these things BY THEMSELVES do not prove that 9/11 was carried out without real planes.

But together, all the evidence presented here points to the idea that-- NO REAL PLANES WERE USED IN 9/11.

What WAS used for the 9/11 attacks?

My current hypothesis is pre-planted bombs and missiles (possibly cloaked missiles). However, the whole POINT is that the whole operation rested on the idea of making it LOOK as though planes were used. Thus, a few plane parts were planted, videos were faked, "witnesses" were coached, hijacked plane paths were faked, hijackings were faked, cockpit radio transmissions were faked, plane passenger lists were created with fake IDs and passenger/crew phone calls were faked. Possibly a real Boeing jet flew near each 9/11 crash site to act as a decoy.** Some real passengers were likely killed on 9/11 or given new identities.

Doesn't the scale of this operation make it seem highly implausible?

Clearly 9/11 was a very large complicated operation, with many interconnecting parts. I think the whole thing could have been done with perhaps 50-100 key operatives who knew much of the plot. These people would be subject assassination if they spoke out. Some of them may have been killed on 9/11 itself. Other people would be involved but not know the whole story and might even think what they were doing was innocuous (FBI agents for instance).

Is my theory hard to believe?

Yes. Of course!

But what is even harder to believe is the official 9/11 story-- particularly in light of the evidence presented above.

*My theory is that the planes attacking the WTC meme was planted so effectively by TV imagery that there was no attempt to plant boxes at the WTC. Whereas at the Pentagon and Shanksville, there were more immediate doubts about whether a plane had crashed there, and so the black box story was fabricated for these two sites. Later, when some in the 9/11 skeptic movement started to doubt if normal planes hit the WTC, stories were planted in the underground media that black boxes WERE found but that their existence was kept secret by the FBI.

**Interestingly, the timing of the attacks were such that in theory ONE JET could have flown by the WTC north tower to mimic flight 11, then overflown Manhattan and turned around and came back to mimic flight 175, then this same jet could have hightailed it to Washington DC to fly over the Pentagon, then would still have had time to get to the Shanksville area to mimic flgiht 93. Researcher Woody Box has found that a Boeing 767 was "stolen" on 9/11, which could have been used for this purpose-- as well as to send radio transmissions from the "hijacked jets". Finally, this idea is supported by the fact that, as documented in the 9/11 commission report, air traffic controllers initially thought flight 11 continued flying after flying by Manhattan.
Bookmark and Share

Monday, March 13, 2006

Feingold was AWESOME

Listen to his speech HERE.

Man, that was a thing of beauty.

UPDATE: Russ rocks again:
Sen. Feingold said the following to Fox News’ Trish Turner: "I’m amazed at Democrats, cowering with this president’s numbers so low. The administration just has to raise the specter of the war and the Democrats run and hide. ... Too many Democrats are going to do the same thing they did in 2000 and 2004. In the face of this, they’ll say we’d better just focus on domestic issues. ... [Democrats shouldn’t] cower to the argument, that whatever you do, if you question the administration, you’re helping the terrorists."

UPDATE 2: a good piece on perhaps the last honest man in the Senate.

UPDATE 3: Great post by Digby on this issue. Kudos to Dinna Brazile!
Bookmark and Share

Proof of "Bluescreen Animation" for the CNN "Best Angle" Second Hit Video

Check out how the smoke never changes during the whole sequence.

NOW, will everyone accept that the second plane was a cartoon?

Odd-- the video version "A" has the same background the whole video while the video version "B" pans a bit over the background. But the smoke nor fire never seem to really change in either version.
Bookmark and Share

More Second Hit Video Weirdness

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, March 12, 2006

More Evidence That the CNN "Best Angle" Footage Is Faked

The plane's wing appears in FRONT of a foreground building when the wing should be behind the building (see frame 2). Oddly, in frame 3, the wing goes behind the building. WHOOPS.

Frames captured by Webfairy.

This picture shows the buildings in the foreground of the video. The foreground buildings are just to the southeast of the WTC (in the video they are just to the left of the WTC because of the angle of the shot):

Maps and satellite imagery show these foreground buildings are about half a mile from where the WTC was, and to the southeqast of the WTC, when in all videos the plane comes from a southwest-ish direction--so clearly the buildings should have been in front of the plane in the video.
Bookmark and Share

Can Fuel-Laden Wings Cut Through Steel Beams?

A computer model says they can, but not empty ones:
The new simulation has already shed light on one of the darker mysteries of the attacks: how the extremely light aluminum of the plane wings could have sliced through the heavier steel of the exterior columns like knives. Dr. Sadek finds that without the mass of fuel-laden tanks in the wings, they might not have been able to cut through and do such grievous damage inside.

In several of the computer runs, Dr. Sadek said, "we did not observe any fracture of the column in the case when the wing did not have any fuel."

Interesting. Let's hope Sadek was being honest and not trying to force the official result from his simulation. The computer models certainly SOUND detailed, but how are they verifying their models? If they fit the official story?

Certainly fuel in the wings will add more mass, and more impact force to the WTC outer columns. But the fuel will not make the wing stronger, just heavier.

I still maintain the wings would have split open on the outer columns, spewing the fuel, and igniting a huge fireball.

Which clearly did not happen for the South tower.

Is this because fuel-laden wings can cut through steel?

Or because no 767 smashed into the South tower wall?
Bookmark and Share

Moment of Truth for the Dems

If Feingold ever gets to bring his censure resolution to the floor, we'll see who the real Democrats are (as well as if there are any serious Republicans left).

That is, REAL Democrats and Republicans who care about the rule of law they used to think so higly of, should vote for censure. Any Dem who votes against censure is a worthless fake opposition Democrat.
Bookmark and Share

Friday, March 10, 2006

The Outer Columns of the WTC

Since the second plane sliced through the south tower wall so easily, there is some sense that the wall of this building was not very heavily constructed.

It is worth pointing out that the outer columns were each 18 inch square steel box columns. Each one of these had the girth of a large telephone pole. Even if the columns towards the top of the building were made of 1/4 inch thick steel , this is still a VERY strong column. The picture below shows columns from the lower part of the building which were similar in size to the columns on the upper floors but were made of thicker steel. All of the columns were spaced 3 feet apart (except on the first floor, where the columns merged together in threes (picture)). Sets of three columns were also connected by a substantial steel spandrel plate at each floor (the plate just above the flag in the picture).

Just the fuselage of a 767, being 5 meters in diameter, would at minimum, impact three of these columns and one floor slab (steel spandrel, steel trusses and concrete). At maximum the fuselage would hit up to five box columns and two floor slabs.

The WTC2 hole, overlaid with a 767, shows a fuselage hole of five columns wide and an impact on one and a half floors. The WTC1 hole, for what ever reason, shows a much larger gash than WTC2 corresponding to the fuselage.

There is no doubt these columns and the floor slabs would have done serious damage to the front of a passenger plane, which is NOT a battering ram but more of a long, lightweight bus with wings. High speed will exert more force on the wall from the plane, but conversely, the wall will exert more force back AT the plane at high speed.

Importantly, the point is NOT that a 767 couldn't penetrate the outer wall, but rather this wall was not some flimsy obstacle that a 767 could easily smash through without slowing.

Apart from the initial fuselage impact, one would expect the box columns and floor slabs to offer TREMENDOUS RESISTANCE to the wings and tail of the plane.

In fact, the wings should have broken apart, released their fuel, and exploded upon contact with the outer columns. And the HUGE tail structure simply should have never made it past the columns, much less as smoothly as it goes in in the video.

Again, it defies all reason.
Bookmark and Share

Clear Evidence the CNN "Best-View" Second Hit Video Was Altered

Video frames are from here.

Here is another source for the video that shows the same manipulation.

Frame 84: look at the small dust/explosive cloud (arrow)

Frame 85: Here the cloud grows a little

Frame 86: Here the cloud disappears!!

Frame 87: Here the cloud faintly reappears

Frame 88: The cloud disappears again!!!

Okay folks, dust clouds do not disappear in33 milliseconds and then reappear in another 33 milliseconds and then disappear again in 33 milliseconds. I am assuming this is a dust cloud or explosive cloud because, a) we would expect a dust/explosion cloud, b) a dust cloud appears a little later, and c) it really doesn't look like some sort of reflection off the plane.

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, March 09, 2006

"Ghost Gun" version 3.2

What a great piece of work.

It really seems to be all coming together now.

The plane attack on the south tower was a media hoax set-up with fake videos.
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Further Analysis on Whether the Speed of the Second Plane Decreased as It Impacted the South Tower

I previously determined that the second plane DID NOT change speeds as it entered the building. I went primarily by the number of frames it took to cross the building's outer wall versus the number of frames it took the plane to completely cross a certain point in air just before striking the building. Curiously, I found if anything, the plane moved FASTER as it entered the building.

Whether the plane's speed decreases upon impact or not has become a contentious issue with Morgan Reynold's new article. (This is also a contentious issue in a thread I started on this topic at DU).

Then today, I found this article, where the authors say the plane DID slow upon impact. They calculate an 18% loss of speed upon impact.

And heck, the analysis sure looks fancy. However, I did notice three significant problems with their analysis:
1) they stopped measuring before the plane was all the way in,
2) they didn't account for variation in the speed per frame-- for instance, they show a decrease in speed of the plane in just three frames compared to four frames before impact: how do we know the decrease was not due to random sampling errors? When I previously analyzed the CNN footage, I noticed there were significant variations from frame to frame in terms of how much the plane moved, and there wasn't a consistent trend towards slowing (more on this below).
3) they seem to miss several frames of the Fairbanks video (which they used for the speed measure) that show the plane entering the building. If you look at the video here, with Quicktime, you can click through the frames easily -- and I count 10 impact frames. So they are measuring only one third of the total data available.

So with the Fairbanks video, I took two sets of measurements.

A) pre-impact movement of the plane-- how many millimeters the plane moves from left to right before it impacts the building, per frame. There were 14 frames here. I got an average of 1.6 mm per frame +/- 0.5 mm (S.D., Standard Deviation).

B) post-impact movement of the plane-- how many millimeters the plane moves INTO the building, per frame. There were 10 frames here. I got an average of 1.5 mm per frame +/- 0.7 mm (S.D., Standard Deviation).

Right off, these numbers didn't look very different, but just to make sure, I did a Student's T test to determine probability, and got a value of P = 0.624. This means that the probability that these two sets of numbers were the same by chance is well over 50%. Generally, P < 0.05 is considered statistically significant. So, the Fairbanks footage didn't really support the idea that the plane slowed upon impact.

But to be thorough, I analyzed two other sets of impact footage.

The second one I ananlyzed was the CNN footage, broken into frames here.

For this analysis, I simply measured the amount the plane length changed as it entered the building. If the plane slows upon impact, the plane length should decrease much less after a few frames than the early frames.

As the plane impacts, starting at frame 2, I measured the decrease in plane length in millimeters (on the video).

Here is what I got starting with the decrease from frames 2 to 3, and ending with the decrease from frames 12 to 13:
2, 3, 4, 7, 4, 8, 3, 7, 5, 5, 10

So, although the numbers jump around a bit, if anything, the length of the plane decreases by GREATER amounts (not lesser amounts as expected for slowing) the more the plane goes in. Clearly there is NO SIGNIFICANT SLOWING following the initial impact in this video.

Next I looked a third set of frames of the second hit, from Scott Myers:

This one is a little trickier, because we never see the whole plane, and have to adjust our measuring reference points a couple of times. First, I measured how much the nose advanced into the frame, then how much the bright spot on the wing-fuselage advanced, and then finally how much the tail advances into the building. This analysis is also tricky because of the angle (apparently the southeast CORNER of the building), and so we can't see exactly when the plane impacts. But since there not very many frames, it is safe to say the plane has impacted by frame 8.

Again, I got two sets of measurements.

A) pre-impact movement of the plane-- how many millimeters the plane moves from left to right before it impacts the building, per frame. There were 6 frames here. I got an average of 8.7 mm per frame +/- 2.3 mm (S.D., Standard Deviation).

B) post-impact movement of the plane-- how many millimeters the plane moves INTO the building, per frame. There were 5 frames here. I got an average of 6.8 mm per frame +/- 0.8 mm (S.D., Standard Deviation).

The P value was 0.115.

So, there was a slight trend towards deceleration upon impact in this footage, but this is not statistically meaningful.


But heck, if you don't believe me, do the measurements yourself. And let me know if you get anything different.
Bookmark and Share

Analysis of CNN Coverage from the Morning of 9/11

and why it is disinfo.

Note: it may be hard to follow this piece if not familiar with the idea that the planes shown on TV were fake images. I would recommend reading Morgan Reynold's piece first.
Bookmark and Share

Depressing News Round-Up

Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Fakest Second Hit Image-- EVER

Found here.
Bookmark and Share

Mechanical Engineer Disputes That a Boeing 757 Hit the Pentagon

Bookmark and Share

Monday, March 06, 2006

Shooting Down the "Big Boeing Theory"

Bookmark and Share

Videotaping the Second Hit

In retrospect, it seems obvious LOTS of people would video the second hit. Heck, who wouldn't want to get video of one of the most famous scenes in all of history?

There are somewhere between 15 and 20 views of the second hit, from various angles and distances with greatly variable degrees of clarity.

But of course ONLY ONE video of the first hit.

There are of course MILLIONS of people living around new York, and the WTC was clearly an icon, visible to everyone living in the area.

But here's the thing. 8:46am Tuesday morning, 9/11/01, something flies in the north tower. A few hundred people probably witnessed this directly, but only one person was lucky enough to get film of it.

Thousands of people must have seen the north tower burning, casting a huge smoke cloud, by about 8:48am or so.

By about 8:50am, the story is going to be on the news, so many people will look up to the tower and see it burning. Millions more will know of it, by now.

But basically, at this point, it is an odd story of an airplane hitting the north tower and causing a fire.

In retrospect, it seems natural that people would get a video camera and start filming the burning tower, and thus capture the second hit. But in reality, was a large fire at the top of the WTC something that people would think they HAD to capture on videotape?

I think not.

Most people would think the fire is weird and go on their way (remember this is NYC!). It wasn't until the second tower was hit that people really knew this was an extraordinary event. Before the second tower was hit, there was much less urgency to the situation.

Now, this is rush hour, people going to work. Many people simply can't go and get a video camera, anyway. The majority of random citizens who might grab a camera and film the second hit live far away in New Jersey (to the west) or in Brooklyn (to the east) or in midtown Manhattan (to the north).

Another point is that the second hit occurred at 9:03am. The vast majority of people weren't aware of what was going on in the north tower until 8:50am or so. This leaves a very narrow window of time to grab a camera and be in position to film the second hit, even assuming you were inclined to film the north tower burning.

Now here's an extremely important point: the first hit was on the north face of the north tower. MOST cameras were going to focus ON THIS face, and would not capture the second hit at all since the south tower was hit from the south. These cameras cameras focused on the north tower's north face would only capture the south tower fireball at best. And there are videos that only show the north tower's burning north face and then have a quick pan to the south tower to view the fireball there-- and they never capture the plane at all.

Finally, even if you were on the south side of the WTC and you had a camera and you were filming the south tower at exactly 9:03am, you still might not have a good shot because there are so many large buildings in lower manhattan that could obstruct your total view of the tower as well as the approach path.

To sum, I think it is highly unlikely that random citizens and random newspeople would capture clear video of the second hit, and capture the plane.

Thus, I think almost all, if not ALL, videos (and photos*) of the second plane are potential fakes. In fact, in very few cases do we know where these videos came from, who was the cameraperson, and so forth. I therefore consider EVERY second hit video as supect. In the few cases where we know the cameraman, there are reasons to be supicious. Evan Fairbanks got an amazing video right below the second hit, showing the plane gliding in-- but his camera was handed to him by "someone" and Fairbanks had his original footage confiscated by the FBI! Scott Myers also got close-up footage of the second hit, and he works in computer graphics and for NIST (this is research from Nico Haupt and I don't have a good link).

IN FACT-- I think the angle of attack of the second hit was carefully designed precisely so it would be AWAY from where the first "plane" hit. Thus, news cameras and random citizens not in on the plot would primarily by focused on the north face of the north tower, where the first hit was. Most media in Manhattan is in mid-town, north of the WTC. The second plane officially came from the south, so there was minimal chance of random cameras taping it. Only people "in the know" would be set-up to view the south approaching hit.

Thus, I think currently there is no convincing reason to think a real plane hit the south tower.

*Most photos of the plane look as though they came from known videos. On this point, there is a clear lie going on here about the picture taken by Carmen Taylor, if you look here (2nd page) and here (scroll down).
Bookmark and Share

Powered by Blogger