Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths

[CB_Brooklyn]

Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths

by CB_Brooklyn


From the moment people thought that planes crashed in the World Trade Center, the brainwashing had begun.

The “official” account of Boeing 767s striking the North and South Towers, at 400+MPH and 500+MPH respectively, became glued in peoples’ minds as “fact” because of the “tee-vee”. Good ol’ tee-vee. We all trust the media.

Even in 1938, when Orson Welles directed a special Halloween radio broadcast of the novel “War of the Worlds”, millions of Americans believed Martians were invading earth. Everyone trusts the media! (As a side note, I’d like to advertise a new article by Andrew Johnson: “Mars Anomalies”)

It should come to no surprise how the media affects peoples’ minds and our culture, and the media’s reporting of 9/11 is no exception.

The 9/11 coverup perpetrators had their deceptive propaganda well planned. With their total control over the media they successfully conditioned most into believing their “19 boxcutter-wielding Muslims” story. People were overwhelmed; their brains saturated with the propaganda.

November 10, 2001 - George W Bush brainwashes the world into thinking the idea of “inside job” is crazy: ”Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty.”
President Bush Speaks to United Nations
YouTube - Bush Addresses the U.N. - tells the world no 911 discussions

But the propaganda didn’t stop there. The coverup perps, the experts they are, knew some people would see through their “boxcutter” deception, so they crafted an alternate propaganda… specifically targeting those already suspicious of the “official” story.

Lenin, the first Communist dictator after the takeover of Russia in 1917, is widely credited with the following quotation, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."
ts032603

This alternate propaganda is promoted by government plants within the “truth movement”, along with its fabricated evidence (such as molten metal). Of course, the media carefully publicize this “evidence” as a “wacky conspiracy theory”…

November 14, 2005 - Tucker Carlson brainwashes the world into thinking the idea of an “inside job” theory is offensive. Steven Jones promotes the “alternate propaganda”:
Questioning what happened on 9/11 - Tucker - MSNBC.com


Yet, the coverup perpetrators use ridicule to keep the “REAL” version hidden…

December 6, 2006 - Steven E Jones brainwashes the 9/11 “truth movement” into thinking the idea of directed energy weapons and no planes is “crazy disinfo”: “Of late, [Jim Fetzer] refers often to his association now with Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds. These two are noted for their no-planes-hit-the-Towers theories and for promoting the notion of ray-beams from space knocking down the Towers.”
December 6

Jones is one of many in and around the “truth movement” associated with Los Alamos where Directed Energy Weapons are researched. See here to learn how the 9/11 attacks, the 9/11 cover up, and the 9/11 "truth movement" were orchestrated by people associated with directed energy weapons and the media. Jones also suppressed free energy research in ways that mirror his 9/11 coverup:

9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline
By CB_Brooklyn
CheckTheEvidence.com - 9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline

Timeline of Events Involving Steve Jones, Crockett Grabbe and Steve Koonin
By Russ Gerst
CheckTheEvidence.com - Timeline of Events Involving Steve Jones, Crockett Grabbe and Steve Koonin


If no-planes/TV-Fakery were “crazy disinfo”, why didn’t the media use it to discredit the “truth movement”? Here’s a video of Dr Morgan Reynolds on FOX News: YouTube - Dr. Reynolds exposes 9/11 TV fakery on FoxNews

Certainly if no-planes/TV-Fakery were “crazy disinfo”, the media would have invited Dr Reynolds back. Why didn’t they?

On top of that, why didn’t the media report Reynolds’ or Wood’s court cases, represented by Attorney Jerry Leaphart?

Dr Morgan Reynolds, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that the Media broadcasted cartoons of an airplane hitting the South Tower.
Morgan Reynolds - No More Games • Net

Docket No. 1:07-cv-04612-GBD
Title: Dr. Morgan Reynolds ex rel. USA vs. Science Applications International Corp. et al.
Venue: United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Judge: George B. Daniels


Dr Judy Wood, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that Directed Energy Weapons were a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center.
Wood-Qui Tam Complaint

Docket No. 1:07-cv-03314-GBD
Title: Dr. Judy Wood ex rel. USA vs. Applied Research Associates, Inc. et al.
Venue: United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Judge: George B. Daniels

=================================================
UPDATE!!! While composing this article the author became aware of the following:

New York Times
“For Engineer, a Cloud of Litigation After 9/11”
By Jim Dwyer
February 23, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/nyregion/23about.htm


The relevant quote is as follows (emphasis added):

”… one man has sued on behalf of the United States, claiming that Mr. Gilsanz is part of a vast conspiracy to cover up the truth about 9/11, including the “so-called building failures.” The lawsuit maintains that exotic weaponry actually destroyed the buildings, and that the airplanes were mass psychological trickery.”


Wood and Reynolds have filed two separate lawsuits.

No mention of Wood/Reynolds/Leaphart’s names in the Times article.
=================================================


Let us review…

The media (i.e. MSNBC):
promote the “official” version as “the truth”
ridicule the “alternate” version as the “offensive wacky conspiracy theory”
shun the “REAL” version and court cases

Plants in the ”truth movement” (i.e. Steven Jones):
promote the “alternate” version as “the truth”
ridicule the “REAL” version as “offensive wacky conspiracy theory”



We can now understand why many “truthers” shy away from no-planes/TV-Fakery. Seems the 9/11 coverup perps tricked the “truth movement” with a well orchestrated plan of deception! Will these theories really “damage” the “truth movement”, or has the movement merely been tricked into thinking so?

Many “truthers” often wonder why the mainstream media hasn’t broken the “inside job” story yet. The reason is simple: The 9/11 perps have not been exposed. (Check the “Suppression Timeline” linked above.)

Only after the real 9/11 perpetrators are widely exposed with the media break!

Will “truthers” finally start promoting no-planes/TV-Fakery? If the “truth movement” can’t admit their mistakes, why should the average person? People will simply continue believing what they feel most comfortable with: the “boxcutter” story. They don’t care about the evidence. Why should they? After all, the “truth movement” doesn’t. Or do they???


How many “truthers” have looked at the no-planes/TV-Fakery evidence lately… evidence that anyone can understand?

Below you will find a ton of evidence. Look it through… you maybe surprised!

======================================================
======================================================


Article is continued at the following link.

Be sure to continue reading the article at the last link I posted.

Learn of the 1999 Washington Post article that details the military's hologram project.

Learn of the NYPD official who said the South Tower strike "looked like an evil magician's trick".

Learn that very few people reported seeing airplanes, and even fewer reported hearing them.

Also, watch the ABC video of Peter Jennings. He knew the airplane video was fake. Note his nervousness and word fumbling when ABC played the clip back in slow motion.

CheckTheEvidence.com - Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths

[Halofan48]

Ugh. Look. Thousands of people witnessed two planes collide with the towers. Millions more watched it on Live television. Since the people who saw it first hand say what was on TV actually happened, then it probably happened. Two planes collided with the building, damaging it enough to cause the above floors to collapse onto the floors below causing the building itself to collapse.

Why people might have trouble talking about it is because it could very possibly be very emotional about it.

[CB_Brooklyn]

I agree this is a very emotional subject, but it's going on 6.5 years and the status of the country and the world is just getting worse and worse. People need to start taking charge.

[Nono]

CB, we have had many-many threads on this subject. But what the hell, eh? Let's crank it up for another round.

What trouble exactly do you have with the idea that two large aircraft hit the WTC?

[CB_Brooklyn]

Nono,

I don't like believing things unless there is evidence to back it up. News articles don't constitute evidence in this case, since their "evidence" violates laws of physics. A careful examination of the information I provided in my article shows that planes did not crash at the WTC.

[Orangutan]

Millions more watched it on Live television.

False, the 1st aircraft was not shown live, only spotty footage gathered later, the 2nd impact was not shown on TV until the next day (which makes Bush a liar as he claimed to have watched it on TV that day).

However it is indeed pretty bloody obvious that planes hit the building. Some of the footage gathered for the first strike shows people looking up in surprise at the low-flying plane then gasping in shock at the impact. Any kind of 'hologram' would have to look like a plane, fly like a plane, sound like a plane and impact the building like a plane - why not just use a plane like they planned in Operation Northwoods? Easier, no?

They were using remote controlled airlliners as part of the "drills" that took place that day, hardly beyond the realms of imagination that they could control those planes if need be.

I'll look at the links, just for giggles and as I've only just posted that people should be more open-minded to such things - but Occam's razor suggests yes a conspiracy but no, not holograms or other such stuff.

As for molten steel being fake, nope, just too much evidence it was real. Heck you own link lists some evidence and offers nothing more than vague and rather silly questions.

Well I looked at the link and there's nothing convincing there. There just isn't.


O.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: CB_Brooklyn Nono, I don't like believing things unless there is evidence to back it up. News articles don't constitute evidence in this case, since their "evidence" violates laws of physics. A careful examination of the information I provided in my article shows that planes did not crash at the WTC.

Exactly what about two planes crashing into a building violates the laws of physics? Planes crash into buildings all the time - at least a couple per decade since the Wright Brothers invented heavier-than-air flight.

Your statement that you "don't like believing things unless there is evidence to back it up" is plainly ridiculous, since you believe in the most utterly nonsensical version of a group of conspiracy theories that are each more asinine than the next. Furthermore, you have provided no evidence as such. Your links are pure bull.

[Winter wind]

My boss saw a plane hit the buildings. My cousin saw the planes hit the buildings. The planes hit the buildings. (Unless they secretly work for the government as well...)

And to the argument that they were brainwashed. If they were, I would hear "At first I thought it was some kind of massive laser, but now I realize it must have been the planes." Instead I hear "I saw a plane fly right into the building."

However, I have no opinion on the concept that the United States had a hand in the attacks, though I find it unlikely that the United States government would have the guts.

[another day]

Isn't it fascinating how every pimply faced teenager suddenly becomes an expert on physics and engineering after watching Loose Change.

I'm tired of hearing ridiculous speculation about how such and such is not possible given the laws of physics. You'd have to be an EXPERT in many fields to make such a judgement. Any sort of rudimentary "formulas" you've cooked up to prove that it's physically impossible are undoubtedly missing dozens of little intricacies that factor into such a huge and complicated event.

I for one am not entirely convinced there wasn't a conspiracy of sorts. But why all this ridiculous speculation about holograms and missiles and jet planes when it's completely unnecessary for your argument? If the government wanted those two towers to come down in a terrorist attack that appeared to be planes crashing into buildings, they would have just crashed the planes into the buildings. Straightforward.

If anything I think the government may have had a hand in aiding an already motivated terrorist cell to commit this, without said terrorist cell having knowledge that they were being directly aided by the us government (which would probably dissuade them from "helping").

[Winter wind]

Quote by: another day Isn't it fascinating how every pimply faced teenager suddenly becomes an expert on physics and engineering after watching Loose Change.

kids these days, with the hair and the cloths...

No, the reason I have doubts is because my college friend dragged me to a physics lecture at a University where a physics professor explained in great detail how 9/11 was impossible (at least in the way described to us by the usa government).

Doesn't mean it is fact, it means I have doubts.

[Jaaaman]

CB Brooklyn is a perpetual forum spammer... admins, you would do this forum a favor by banning this loser.

[Winter wind]

CB Brooklyn is a perpetual forum spammer... admins, you would do this forum a favor by banning this loser.

he hasn't done anything objectionable so far.

[Jaaaman]

Spamming is not objectionable?

Ok.

[Chaossaber314]

I'm more inclined to believe the "Single magic plane" theory than a no plane theory.

New Oliver Stone 9/11 Film Introduces 'Single Plane' Theory | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[Winter wind]

Spamming is not objectionable? Ok.

no no. I mean, I can't see where he spammed.

[GHook93]

Quote by: CB_Brooklyn Nono, I don't like believing things unless there is evidence to back it up. News articles don't constitute evidence in this case, since their "evidence" violates laws of physics. A careful examination of the information I provided in my article shows that planes did not crash at the WTC.

LOLOL, you don't believe things unless there is evidence to back it up?
Yet you choose to believe the craziest and most unlikely theories that have no proof and can be debunked by every account. I remember seeing a History channel special that debunked all the major conspiracy theories, maybe you should check it out sometime!

[GHook93]

<Mods please delete>

[Winter wind]

Quote by: ghook LOLOL, you don't believe things unless there is evidence to back it up? Yet you choose to believe the craziest and most unlikely theories that have no proof and can be debunked by every account. I remember seeing a History channel special that debunked all the major conspiracy theories, maybe you should check it out sometime!

Or we could do it right now. Can you present evidence to counter him? (I already have)

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: another day Isn't it fascinating how every pimply faced teenager suddenly becomes an expert on physics and engineering after watching Loose Change.

Pimply-faced teenager and middle-age high-school-diploma-only SWM living with his parents.

I'm tired of hearing ridiculous speculation about how such and such is not possible given the laws of physics. You'd have to be an EXPERT in many fields to make such a judgement. Any sort of rudimentary "formulas" you've cooked up to prove that it's physically impossible are undoubtedly missing dozens of little intricacies that factor into such a huge and complicated event.

Even more irrational in my view are the CT that look at the generally accepted account of events and say "it would have to be a one in a million shot for it to work out like this!!!!" Yes, precisely, which is why it has only happened once.

I for one am not entirely convinced there wasn't a conspiracy of sorts. But why all this ridiculous speculation about holograms and missiles and jet planes when it's completely unnecessary for your argument? If the government wanted those two towers to come down in a terrorist attack that appeared to be planes crashing into buildings, they would have just crashed the planes into the buildings. Straightforward.

It's an "even if" situation.

Even if you don't accept the generally accepted and true account of events - that the attacks were perpetuated by "a bunch of pissed-off Muslims" (to use the South Park vernacular) - Ockham's Razor says that the NEXT most likely theory is something close to that, i.e. that government officials or some such nonsense flew planes into buildings.

Plain and simple, the more layers of complexity you add to a theory, the less likely it is to be true.

If anything I think the government may have had a hand in aiding an already motivated terrorist cell to commit this, without said terrorist cell having knowledge that they were being directly aided by the us government (which would probably dissuade them from "helping").

While I see your point, I find there to be no evidence for the preposterous suggestion that many American citizens participated in such a heinous act and in 7 years not one has stepped forward to admit it.

Quote by: Winter wind Or we could do it right now. Can you present evidence to counter him? (I already have)

Well, to be sure, the OP has presented zero evidence of his "theory". Most of his links are simply to news stories where people state the true account of events. The ones that even insinuate the CT he is pushing are all pages written by him with no outside support (The "checktheevidence.com" links, etc).

[GHook93]

Quote by: Winter wind Or we could do it right now. Can you present evidence to counter him? (I already have)

I refuse to debate 9/11 (or the Holocaust) it brings up to many emotions and I get too nasty. You end up arguing with trolls who will never believe in reality!

I am staying out of this one!