9-11 update# matrix TV no-planes realization

7.20: pol/purges/gemini/911neocons/matrix tv


23: the update:
. in my prior theory of 9/11,
I had assumed that military drones hit the Towers;
but I drew that conclusion from a CNN video
that showed a large plane poofing into the building,
and then causing an explosion .
. recently it was pointed out to me
that the resulting video was a fraud,
a creation of layered video editing .
. reading Andrew's book, we are pointed to
Dr.Reynold's no-planes theory
that points out that the 9-11 planes video
must be a fabrication (matrix TV).
. Reynolds didn't explain how the planes
showed up on national tv channels;
but, Andrew had another link to
September Clues,
and this video was an eye-opener .

. it was not easy to follow
because the narration didn't use layered arrows
to show what part of the video
they were talking about;
but once they planted the idea that a
handful of national networks could conspire
to digitally add jets to slightly delayed live feeds,
I was convinced of it myself simply because
there was no alternative theory,
after seeing the evidence of Dr.Reynolds .

. if that video seems too complicated for you too,
just use Dr.Reynold's evidence that
the resulting hole in the Towers
doesn't fit the theory of a Boeing collision;
and, also use Andrew's Johnson's
collection of eye witness accounts
showing that very few of the eye witnesses
claim to see a large jet .
. some claim to see a small plane or rocket
consistent with a military drone
that could have penetrated the building
and caused a fireball within it .

. matrix TV shows an aluminum jet
just melting through steel-reinforced building
with a small puff of smoke .
. it makes a hole like the jet shape;
but, Dr.Reynolds shows us
why that must be a cartoon .
. not all of the jet could have entered,
so parts would have been rejected,
bouncing back into the street below .
. some wing area threw heavy engines,
which could have made holes as shown;
but, the rest of the wing holes
shouldn't even be there;
because steel beams will shred aluminum
without being cut by them;
so the result is consistent with
a demolition's linear shaped cutter charges,
or another application of beam weapons
(a variety of which caused the dustification
of the entire building in a matter of 10seconds).

. the fireball starting from inside the Towers
was meant to look like jet fuel exploding;
but since it should have happened on the outside,
it likely came from either a planted explosive,
or a strike by a small military drone attack
like the one that hit the Pentagon .

. moreover, Boeing impacts should have
splattered jet fuel all over the
outside of the building,
thereby placing more of the resulting fireball
on the outside of the building;
having all the fireball come from inside,
is suggestive of planted charges, or a rocket attack .
(Andrew Johnson's video pointed that out).

. the reason for this elaborate conspiracy
was that the conspirators had to make it obvious
that all the jet fuel got in the building
in order to support the Pancake Collapse theory .

23: September Clues:
. the important part about September Clues
is that it has many recurring shots of 9/11,
not just showing how video can be faked,
but also showing one undeniable fact:
the hole made by the alleged Boeing impact
appears to cut steel beams with jet wings .
. the September Clues video made claims
that I wasn't sure they were proving,
and their link to references was dead;
but, the aluminum wings of a Boeing jet
cannot possibly cut steel beams!
. that hole sure would look good to
a public that is not paying attention;
but, once it's pointed out to us,
it becomes obvious that cutter charges
were deliberately set to make a hole
that looked like a Boeing shape .

23: intro:

. there's been a religious war for 1500 years
between Christianity and Islam;
(Muslims claim that Christians are idol worshippers,
because they say Jesus, a man, was also a god;
ie, he is said to be born of a virgin,
exactly to support the theory that
his father was literally g-d).
. this war had chilled for a few centuries
until WWI, when the Christians
took the Holy lands from the Muslims
for use as a homeland for the Jewish people:
Muslim Palestine was turned by invaders
into a Jewish Israel .

. Christians and Jews were then the targets of
a lot of Islamic or Arabic terrorism;
so, in 2001,
with USA's elite being a Christian nation
they decided to reopen the war with Islam
by creating a 9/11 story about
being attacked by an Islamic conspiracy
where terrorists were hijacking jets
and bringing down World Trade Towers .

. the story was very convincing;
because, national TV showed the jets
slicing into the building and causing a fire,
that we could easily imagine
were the cause of a Pancake Collapse .
. what actually happened is that
the towers were hit either by
planted charges or USA military drones
(looking like small planes or rockets
according to some eye witnesses)
which caused the explosion
that looked like a jet fuel fire;
and then to make it look like
a large jet hit the building
they had cutter charges planted in the walls
to make the hole have a shape that would
fit that of a Boeing jet .
. the dustification of the Towers
was caused by the application of beam weapons:
it may have involved the Hutchison effect
which may use Tesla (longitudinal) waves
within in an electrostatic field
(like exists near a thunderstorm)
to produce a sort of cold fission
that breaks down all chemical bonds
and also some nuclear bonds,
all without heat, by unlocking bonds
rather than breaking them apart .

. this apparently involved a conspiracy
between the National press, the FBI,
and the CIA's secret military wing .
. the local communications were locked out,
and the national networks that covered it
were all owned by Christian zionist elites
who conspired to use computers to alter
the "live" video (it was not actually live,
rather it was using a 15-second delay
to filter out obcenities
or, in this case, to inject images).
. the injected images made it appear as if
the towers were hit by large planes
instead of small drones or planted charges .

. since the initial release of the
government's version of the 9/11 story,
there have been a lot of complaints
from professional architects, engineers, and pilots
that the 9/11 story can't possibly be true,
for many reasons, not the least of which is that
a 3rd tower, that was not even hit by a jet,
also suffered a "pancake collapse"
(it was an obvious controlled demolition)
yet USA officials maintained
it was a collapse of "low probability" .

. well, the truth is of little use;
because, the deception was justified by
the USA's reason for the public message:
they were rallying support for zionism
(pro-Jewish, pro-Christian, pro-"democracy")
and against the anti-zionist terrorists
-- who truly were retaliating against zionism .
. anybody who wants to question the 9/11 story
would not be a follower of the very Jesus
who said "the Truth shall set your free";
they would only be against Christians
and zionism (Jewish control of the Holy lands).

. now, granted, it was not a pretty sight
seeing a massive forced relocation of Arabs;
but the Jewish people have had it hard
(mostly from Christians not Muslims)
and they deserved their land back
(even if was taken over 2000 years ago,
and even if America's First Natives
don't deserve their land back,
is that not true, USA?).

. just remember what America stands for:
democracy, liberty, freedom of the press;
the secret service stands for that too
(except for the "free" press they bought off
so that they could bring you matrix TV,
the message that lied about 9/11
to inspire a new generation of proud zionists
and Christian soldiers
-- gives new meaning to "free" press).

. so what if they lied to us?
and so what if they exposed us to a beam weapon,
which gave us many strange cancers?
. we should stick together
to fight this anti-zionism threat;
after we evicted Muslims from the Holy land
we will been in for the fight of our life;
so, we can't afford not to trust our government
(even our Christian secret military police state
who lied to us, and p0wns our TV content ).
. we are already in too deep
to back out of zionism now;
and anyway,
isn't that secret police state unstoppable?

. well, we do have a working democracy
that could put a leash on USA's
Christian Zionist secret military service;
so you might want to consider
that the dog that bites you once,
could bite you again -- in a big way
(WWIII is when USA enters Iran to protect Israel,
and the communists insist that is illegal;
and then both of these superpowers
use the same beam weapons seen on 9/11
to determine who the world leader will be
-- the leader of the New World Order's
One World Governance ).

. but before you consider pulling out of
protecting Israel from Muslim retaliation;
consider how to keep Israel's people safe;
why do they have to own the Beautiful Mountain
-- this Jerusalem in Israel?
why can't they be content with
a homeland in the USA ?
a sovereign reservation among Christians
who love them, and want the best for them?
. why not give Israel's land back to Muslims,
or at least buy it from them?
wouldn't that be fair-trade capitalism?

. well, what if Israel doesn't want to move?
that is what WWIII will answer for us,
if we don't care to discuss options .
. and trust the elite for once:
they want nothing more than to
clear this jungle of overpopulation,
and, Israel is the perfect excuse .
. the elite also want to put some restraints on
godless private parenting, and crime breeding;
religious cults that promote hyperbreeding
to advance their own culture,
even at the expense of homeland security .
. the New World Order really demands
a pervasive surveillance state;
and, WWIII will be the event that
allows them to bring in that Order .

25: 9-11 was for Iran:
. another thing to keep in mind
when you judge the 9/11 story,
is that people being asked to cooperate
are intensly aware of
how much trouble Iran has been:
their attacks on embassies and peacekeepers
were not just an attack on Israel:
these were definitely humiliating the USA;
and that was in 1979, and 1983
-- not that long ago .
. whether or not you think terrorism is real,
those catastrophes definitely were
either Iran or their proxies attacking USA .
. therefore, zionists become patriots;
and, the only way to challenge such a patriot
is to remind them of Jesus' teachings:
if Iran wants your coat,
give them your shirt too:
. if Iran wants us out of the Holy land,
we should offer the Jewish people
a sovereign nation in America .
. alas, nobody really wants Holy land;
what they want is WWIII,
to decide who rules the whole world .

30: the mechanics of an Iran assault:
. the purpose of the 9/11 attack conspiracy
was to fabricate an excuse to attack
the 2 places on either side of Iran:
# Iraq (to the left of Iran)
# Afghanistan (to the right of Iran)
-- all for a better grip on Iran itself
as part of securing zionist control of Israel;
it is expected to draw a reaction from communists
and that is expected to lead to WWIII,
where it is intended that the winner
will then rule the entire world
-- the New World Order (if the New World wins).

the voice of Jesus:
. here is how zionists are the voice of Jesus:
Israel leads to the final war
that brings a one-world government;
and, and by having no competing governments,
there can be an end to war;
but only with a population control
that can ensure resource availability,
reduce crime, and keep welfare on a budget .
. that will allow full sharing of wealth,
and thereby ensure that every child
is born into middle-class wealth .
. as soon as the elite get full control
they can institute that population control,
and the pervasive surveillance state
that can end terrorism and crime .
. Free Energy secrets can be revealled
because there will be no more terrorists
lurking to abuse free energy for beam weapons .
. there will be no impediments to our progress
in making a heaven within this eternal universe
as we survive even galaxy death,
by using Free Energy to space travel vast distances .

my path to the matrix TV update:

7.18: news: Andrew Johnson 2011.7`
9/11: Finding the Truth (3rd ed)
A Compilation of Articles Focused around
the research and evidence compiled by Dr. Judy Wood
... I read the article
by Morgan Reynolds and Rick Rajter
“We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories”
which, in an evidence-based manner,
raises serious questions about
what really hit the WTC buildings.
I had already read the heated debates on our UK forum
about the so-called “No-planes” issue
and I hadn’t really studied the evidence
before reading the Reynolds/Rajter article,
therefore hadn’t come to any conclusions
other than “well, I find it really hard to believe
that big jets didn’t hit the WTC!!”
I couldn’t ignore Morgan Reynolds [with his]
highly significant credentials,
nor those of Rick Rajter
– a Materials Science graduate.
18: SEPTEMBER CLUES Definitive Edition 2008:
. a commenter on one of Dr.Reynold's articles
suggested we see this: SEPTEMBER CLUES:
reposted by TheRangersLegend·
the original is by Simon Shack
-- Uploaded on Sep 29, 2011;
see also septemberclues.info .

. ah, now I get it:
a matrix tv conspiracy:
what was apparently a large plane
was actually just video editing .

19, 24:
. the next section is presenting
the thread of articles by Dr.Reynolds,
which are leading up to his article entitled
“We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories” .
. I'm just including the parts that deal with
support of my matrix TV no-planes theory .

Dr.Reynolds 2005.6.9`
Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?
These huge airliners weigh 82 tons empty
and have a maximum takeoff weight of up to 193 tons.

The WTC 1 and Pentagon holes were
not alone in being too small.
Photos show that the hole in WTC 2
also was too small to have been
caused by the crash of a Boeing 767.
In fact, the South Tower hole is substantially smaller
than the North Tower hole.
. there would have had to have been
some wreckage falling to the street;
instead they claim everything fit
through these very small holes .]

Jim Hoffman critques Dr.Reynolds:
[ Hoffman has a good critique of Dr.Reynolds;
because Dr.Reynolds started off with mistakes,
and then improved his presentation in later articles .
. I'm taking the consistent parts of all these articles,
to build my own theory;
I'm not summarizing the debate here .]
The article "Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?"
published on the libertarian-oriented website "LewRockwell.com",
has garnered considerable attention.

It makes the case for the controlled demolition
of the Twin Towers and Building 7
with much the same eloquence as David Ray Griffin,
whom it cites.
Its author, Morgan Reynolds,
brings unprecedented credentials
to the community of skeptics of the official story:
He is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University,
former director of the Criminal Justice Center
at the National Center for Policy Analysis,
and former chief economist for the
US Labor Department during 2001-2002.
Reynolds proposes that the North Tower impact hole
 was created by shaped charges
rather than a plane impact .
High-speed collisions with formidable barriers
reduce aircraft largely to confetti.
This fact was graphically demonstrated by
a crash test in which an F-4
was driven into a concrete barrier at 480 mph.
[ picture half a jet turned to confetti;
we don't see what happens to the other half,
which will have decelerated and therefore
may have shattered instead of confetti'd .]
The aircraft was reduced entirely to confetti.
--[ but we are not shown that;
and besides,
this only helps Reynolds' case:
if jets are turned into confetti,
why did the jets' wings cut through steel beams?
the only viable explanation is that they
weren't cut by the plane's wings
but by cutting charges,
or perhaps with some exotic technology
-- the same beam weaponry that
later dustified the entire towers --
but also possibly with military thermate or
some conventional cutter technology .]
Each argument Reynolds advances for the
no-jetliner theory is flawed.
He confuses aluminum cladding for steel columns
 in North Tower crash photographs ...
[. there can be no confusion,
as the pictures clearly show,
both the cladding and the steel columns
were ripped apart by what?
steel can't be ripped by an aluminum plane .]

Dr.Reynolds 2005.7.12`
Revisiting the WTC Building Collapses, Part I:

[. this article is a response to Jim Hoffman
who was responding to Reynolds'
Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?.]
The popularity of the official collapse theory
stems from that fact that
people want things to make sense,
and it’s human to embrace the
first plausible explanation we find.
The government relied on this predictable response
and exploited it by positing the first plausible theory.
The scientific mind must strongly resist this tendency,
especially when this “plausible” theory
comes from an interested party.
Scientific research requires a theory
to demonstrate its superiority
in accounting for the facts over rival theories.
I tried to just look at the physical evidence
with a fresh eye, putting aside
much that “we already know about 9-11” .
I wanted to see what was in the photos
and related scientific evidence.
On the more speculative issue of the impact holes,
it’s still unclear, at least to me.
I never reached a firm conclusion,
and so I never explicitly asserted
there were no jetliners.
Instead, I raised questions about the airliners ...
... the relatively small, “neat” outline nature
of the impact holes,
lack of recovered black boxes,
lack of major wreckage
and many other facts bother me.
So, my June 9 essay was basically saying,
“Show me the facts that implicate Boeing 767s
beyond a reasonable doubt
(and put notoriously problematic eyewitness testimony
and [corruptible] videos aside for the moment).”
That’s Missouri-style reasoning,
the inchworm mind and all.
Certainly I’m not buying anything the
bald-faced liars in government say
without independent confirmation.
Dr.Reynolds 2006.3.5`
We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories:

[ Dr.Reynolds' article builds a powerful case
against the entire official 9/11 story;
right now I'm just using parts of it
to bolster my theory about the Towers,
and what happend to create the hole .]
A commuter plane, specially prepared aircraft,
military planes, missiles or drones
as some eyewitnesses reported
or nothing at all
may have hit the towers from outside.
I do not have enough evidence yet to say.
My present purpose is not to posit
what really happened
but demonstrate what did not happen:
the official Big Boeing theory
about 767 and 757 crashes
is full of holes.
Physical facts at every turn
refute the official story about what
gashed the towers, Pentagon and Pennsylvania
that morning.
Some readers might object that
critical examination of the official airplane stories
is silly because everybody saw
a plane hit the WTC south tower that morning.
But that was only one of four events
and seeing is not believing
in a world of special effects.
The media are not so much “embedded”
with the U.S. government and military
as “in bed” with them.
. there is no doubt that the technology exists
to insert prepared images into pixels in real time
and make the images prepared in advance
look (mostly) real.
Some analysts argue that
the WTC crashes were little more than
Tuesday-morning cartoons.

Whether or not such a conclusion is warranted,
any proposed theory of what happened
must be consistent with physical evidence
and conform to the principles of physics,
the official conspiracy theory included.
We should put aside preconceptions based on pixels
and evaluate the physical evidence anew.
Videos are discussed again toward the end of the article.
Tower walls were composed of
high-strength steel beams
approximately 14 inches square
on one-meter centers (39.37”)
surrounding windows with each column beam
secured to others by steel spandrel plates
about 52 inches x 10 feet
forming a belt around each floor (see p. 8 pdf).
Steel beam thicknesses varied from 4" at the base
and tapered depending on impact zone:
# WTC 1: from 5/8" to 1/4"
# WTC 2: from 13/16” to 1/4" .
a 140-ton airplane flying at over 400 mph
could inflict local damage
without damaging the structure globally.
In particular, the engines themselves
thrusting along full throttle at approximately 450-550 mph
obviously could penetrate a steel tower, even fly through it.

A fuselage, with only minor hyperbole,
could be termed a hollow aluminum tube.
Among large jetliner components,
only engines and landing gear would retain
serious structural integrity in a collision
although small parts like actuators would remain intact too.
Higher speeds increase kinetic energy by the square of speed
and a frontal area of under 25 square meters
would create local damage.
Yet planes running into mountains, construction equipment,
concrete barriers, and steel buildings
fare very poorly,
just as speeding automobiles hitting a
guardrail, telephone pole or tree do.

[see Boeings crash into mountain .]

Hoffman believes that the mass of the two 767s
remained inside the WTC towers, stopped by each core.
Supposedly high speeds reduced the planes to confetti,
shredding them into small pieces, ...
[ see Hoffman's jet hitting a brick wall ]
Hoffman offers the example of a test plane
crashed into a thick concrete barrier,
although he does not show
the “shredded” pieces after the collision,
so we cannot examine how much was “confetti”
versus identifiable aircraft parts.
Gee, I wonder if the plane left a nice
cartoon outline of itself too,
so that the folks could know what it was?
We need more photos of the aftermath of this
not-very-relevant experiment to evaluate it further.
. the confetti depends upon resistance;
a brick wall converts all enertia
into a ripping force upon the jet,
but, as was seen in the Tower's holes,
there was much less resistance given
except at the steel beams:
the aluminum cladding would have helped to
more slowly decelerate the jet pieces .
. Hoffman's model of the shredding,
includes fuel spattering and catching fire
before it's even half-way confetti'd;
now, in the case of 9/11 he claims that
fuel was completely thrown inside:
none at all was splattered on the exterior;
but think how likely that is:
an aluminum balloon filled with fuel
is going to decellerate into plates,
then navigate through now-hot steel beams,
without lighting up a fireball on impact?
. and anyway,
who can trust the penetration video?
looking only at the high-definition
aftermath video of the resulting hole,
that hole is consistent only with
a rocket attack or some internal explosives .]
A plane flying into a WTC tower
should break up, shatter
and scatter [large] pieces everywhere
[ not just confetti-sized pieces .]

[see Boeings crash into mountain .]

A key question:
Would wing tips and tail
break off against each steel wall
or disappear entirely inside each building?
Ordinarily the answer would be that
wing tips and tail would shear off on impact
and bounce to the ground below.
Wing tips have enormous forward momentum at impact
but begin to decelerate as the
nose and fuselage collides with a steel wall,
five floors of steel-truss-steel-reinforced-concrete,
and a steel inner core.
This would wreak complete havoc on the plane,
although the plane in the south tower videos
looks like an invincible hot knife
going through a soft butter tower.
Localized force applied by the wing tips
was insufficient to fragment
steel columns or spandrel plates
and we should have seen video footage of the
repelled wreckage bounce to the ground.
There are no reports of such wreckage that I can find.
A decelerating tail section would
slow down and break off too,
yet we saw no trace of it.

[ see bird vs plane vs Tower ]

In plainer terms, the hollow sections of the wings
may damage steel columns
but not fragment them (complete failure).
Instead, the dense steel exterior of each tower
would “reject” or “bounce back”
so-called empty aluminum wings,
especially wing tips, the outer sections.

Wing tips and tail allegedly shredded
instead of fracturing and shearing off.
All the confetti then supposedly was
[thrown] inside the towers.
This is an absurd proposition.
Most steel beams and
belt sections around the floors
did not fail. Consequently,
the wall repelled wing tips and tail
because the gash is seriously undersized.

Major aircraft debris rejected by each tower
would be knocked to the ground below the gashes.
Hoffman offers no evidence for his
“shred/wrap around” theory
nor does he cite precedent from previous air crashes.

. another physical problem for the official WTC theory
is that the maximum spread across the
north tower hole is 126 feet
and the south tower spread is only 103 feet,
openings insufficient to accommodate
a [Boeing]767 wingspan of 156 feet.
And wings with momentum do not “fold back onto themselves”
in order to slip through an undersized hole
along with the fuselage.
Momentum breaks wings off in a forward motion
and they torque inward during deceleration
but there is no evidence that this happened.
[see Computer Simulation of a Boeing 747 Passenger Jet
Crashing into a Reinforced Concrete Wall ]

Engine thrust near maximum power
makes wings “folding back” doubly impossible.

The official theory must be
that wing roots and engines
break through columns and spandrel plates
following penetration of the
“powerful” nose and fuselage,
while wings stay intact to burst subsequent
columns, floors and spandrel plates
further away from the fuselage.
The only way for tips to reach into the building
and enter the “Hoffman shredding stage”
is for the wings to remain intact
and plow or “saw” through the steel columns and floors
like an angled carpenters cut
in the progressive fragmentation process
(thanks to Gerard Holmgren for this point).
Science is nothing but refined common sense
and this “sawing” theory is contrary to common sense.

[ see jet profile superimposed on damaged area ]
(some of the gashes were cut by wings not engines
according to the official Big Boeing story).

Hoffman and like-minded defenders of the 767 theory
want their cake and eat it too:
supposedly powerful 767s easily penetrated
steel walls and floors
yet identically crumbled within a fraction of a second
and vanished inside
despite huge fuselage length and
wingspan 3/4 the length of a tower wall.

. in the videos,
The south tower plane should have decelerated
and plane parts like wing tips
should have bounced off the wall
and many of the 626,000 parts
should have been visible in the gashes.
We did not see that.
The official/Hoffman theory is impossible to accept
unless the plane was rigged to explode or
disintegrate upon contact with the wall,
enabling its thorough destruction inside.
That might restore
some plausibility to the 767 story
but it is certainly not the government story.
Such explosives would add considerable
complexity for the perpetrators
in an already-complex crime package,
violating the KISS rule.
The basic problem remains that
a large commercial jetliner
could not punch a clean, debris-free hole
into a steel tower wall to begin with.
The plane would need help,
explosive help of its own and/or
explosives from inside the building.

Sorting out theories of “what really happened”
awaits another day
but note that nothing I have written above
constitutes an endorsement of a
particular alternative theory
to the official 757/767 BBT lies.
To reassure a few people out there,
I want to state my skepticism about
the most controversial, “holograms,”
based on the implausibility of
successfully projecting 3-D holograms
of large commercial aircraft
flying at high speed on a sunlit morning.
the best argument against the hologram theory
is that the witnesses were so divergent
about what they saw .
. for the ones who saw nothing,
that could be due to distraction,
but the ones who saw a small plane or rocket
are contradicting the ones who were
likely planted false witnesses,
since anyone who saw the Big Boeing story
would have had to have seen
a lot of debris bouncing off the building,
and there was nobody seeing that .]
The author wishes to thank Rick Rajter,
a materials science and engineering graduate student at MIT,
whose contributions warranted co-authorship.
He declined the offer, [but he did proofread ].
7.28: which vids originate from which networks?
"CNN video" of the South Tower impact:
the smoke from the North Tower is static,
implying that the footage is faked
either by blue screen or computer graphic manipulation.
[. that same vid of a large drone entering the tower
was shown, if not produced, by ABC .]

24: Dr.Reynolds 2006.9.13`
No Planes: Media One and Done:
On September 13, 2006, I[Dr.Reynolds]
appeared on Fox News Channel as a guest
to discuss 9/11. [and his "no planes" theory ...]
[ here is a partial transcript of that interview:]
I don't say there were no planes hitting on 9/11,
what I say is that there were no big Boeing crashes;
no significant wreckage, for example .
". well, did you see the video tape
that the rest of us saw?"
. sure, and I encourage everybody to do a
frame-by-frame penetration of the South Tower
and what you will see is a fake,
a cartoon display;
because, an aluminium plane can't go through
a [steel] building like the South Tower was
as if it were thin air -- glides right through .
. "so you're suggesting there's some kind of
cartoon animation there;
then you're suggesting that the news media
was a part of this" .
. yes I am;
there was only one so-called "real time" film
and we don't really understand how they did that;
there are video experts in the disbeliever movement
but most of those [news videos shown on TV]
were subsequent [non-live] tapes
and they are contrived .
Dr.Reynolds 2008.2.28` The Original No Planers:
Most Witnesses at the WTC Heard And Saw No Planes:
. the only systematic study of eyewitness testimony
[Andrew Johnson`Listening to Those Who Were There]
found surprisingly few among the
501 first responders interviewed
who claimed to see and hear planes,
much less see and hear them crash into the twin towers.

The insurmountable problems for the
official conspiracy theory
include the evidence that aluminum wide-body 767s
did not seem to “crash” into the towers
but instead,
as portrayed in pictures and videos,
slipped silently into and disappeared inside
said steel-framed towers from nose to tail,
wing tip to wing tip,
with an apparent silhouette of
passage of an airplane outline
mysteriously appearing some unknown time
after the explosion,
undersized though these gashes in the buildings were,
without slowing, without degrading, without crumpling,
without deforming, without breaking off
wings or wing tips, flaps, panels,
actuators, fuselage or tail section,
without fuel spillage, without burned fuel
spilled down the face of either impact wall;
without a visible wake vortex in the (delayed) explosions
or sound of a jetliner
and without evidence of any airplane pieces
visible in the tower holes or below the impact zones
despite the combined weight of 166 tons of airplane parts
or 332,000 pounds, 6.2 million aircraft parts
according to Boeing,
plus cargo and fuel weighing some 230,000 pounds,
and no known air crash investigation
with confirmation of parts
unique to each commercial airliner
matched to maintenance logs;
the explosion fireball was remarkably gray
in contrast to real explosions of
large jets with charcoal and black fireballs; ... .
any scientist must note the following
regarding witnesses on 9/11 at the Trade Center:
• Purported witness testimony that contradicts the
laws of physics and physical facts
is worse than useless.
• A solid majority of witnesses
saw and heard no plane.
• Psy-op planners not only planted physical evidence
and manipulated videos
but also hired actors and paid people to lie.
[ Fox News, and ABC, are named as
participating in fraud .]
Quite independent of the claims of witnesses,
the official airliner tales are proven hogwash,
as repeatedly demonstrated by scientific analysis.
[see Dr.Reynolds 2006.3.5`
We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories]
The twin tower “crashes” are impossible as depicted
no matter what a minority of witnesses say.

And uniform testimony, not surprisingly,
is missing from WTC testimony,
especially a surprising lack of near uniform testimony
about deafening noise.
No planers at the WTC outnumbered plane huggers
by 2:1 or better,
producing a preponderance of evidence
for no planers.
Therefore, witness testimony cannot offset the
physical evidence and scientific arguments
against plane crashes at the WTC.
24: discussion:
. if there is a witness view that does
mirror the video of the big drone hitting the tower
so what ? witnesses contradict each other,
and, there is agreement on the remaining hole .
for the witness who claims it was like the video
( that it melted into the building),
if that witness is honest,
then you could raise the case for a hologram?
it's more likely that witness is halucinating !
. anything else?
suppose the drone has an explosive potential
that could duplicate cutter charges;
eg, if that was a real drone,
and that thing on the belly of it
was a target-sensing bomb detector
it could have charges in its wings go off?
. but the video showed the plane
first melting into the building;
the charges for making that gash
should have gone off well before
the wings fully entered the building .
. go back to how the drone
gets into the building:
it needs high-impact explosives at the entrance,
instead it shows melting, very minor confetti,
and then a fireball inside .
. that entrance is not consistent with
the long gash that resulted .
. many of the witnesses neither heard nor saw
any planes approaching .
. some saw something consistent with
a small plane or rocket
that could make the main explosion,
and then this could trip off cutter charges
to simulate wing damage;
needed because otherwise, the resulting hole
would appear to be made by a rocket,
rather than a Boeing .