TV Fakery

Firefighter speaks truth on the Alex Jones Show (12/13/2007)

At around the 2:38 mark in Alex 3-hour show, a caller talks about the destruction of the WTC bldgs. He says roughly… they showed cartoons to us (talking about the planes hitting the buildings on 9/11).

This is huge. Alex chooses not to take the caller up on this part of his statement.

Blum is as Dense (or Duplicitous) as Chomsky

clipped from

The Anti-Empire

Read this or George
W. Bush will be president the rest of your life

December 11, 2007
by William

Finally, there’s September 11, 2001. Amongst those in the “9/11 Truth Movement”
I am a sinner because I don’t champion the idea that it was an “inside job”.
I think it more likely that some individuals in the Bush administration knew
that something was about to happen involving airplanes — perhaps an old
fashioned hijacking with political demands — and they let it happen, to
make use of it politically, as they certainly have. But I do wish you guys
in the 9/11 Truth Movement luck; if you succeed in proving that it was an
inside job, that would do more to topple the empire than anything I have
ever written.

  blog it

Pat at SLC Blog is Almost Thoughtful and Evenhanded

This discussion leaves quite a bit to be desired. It’s more insightful, however, than most of what is posted at

via Screw Loose Change by Pat on 12/9/07

One of the more amusing debates within the Troofer community involves the “No Planes” theories. The “No-Planers” are commonly considered by the “Plane-Huggers” to be disinfo operatives planted inside the movement by the government to discredit the “legitimate Truthers”.

That’s wrong, and the reason why it’s wrong reveals a lot about the nature of conspiracy theories and how they’re constructed. Suppose you’re “Truther No.1”, the very first 9-11 conspiracy theorist, on the morning of 9-11. You say to your friend, “The US government did it!” And he promptly punches you in the snoot.

But suppose he’s a conspiracy theorist himself, so he doesn’t smack you. He says, “That’s interesting, but I don’t see how they pulled it off. Who, other than radical Muslim fanatics would commit suicide by flying a plane into a building?”

So you start brainstorming with him. Maybe commandos hijacked the planes, gassed all the passengers, and set the autopilots to crash the airliners into the buildings before parachuting to safety. Or maybe they already had remote control on the planes and so the cooperation (or elimination) of the pilots was not necessary. Maybe they were other planes, drones without passengers.

When you get right down to it, the planes are terribly inconvenient for the conspiracy theories. And as a result, almost all the MIHOP people attempt to wish them away either implicitly, or explicitly.

Examples? We get told all the time that Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled for that day. That’s a “No-Planer”. We get told that the tail numbers for some of the planes were not retired. That’s a “No-Planer”. Dylan Avery says in Loose Change II that Flight 93 actually landed in Cleveland. That’s a “No-Planer”. We get told constantly that the actual planes that crashed into the World Trade Center were 767-200 refueling planes. That’s a “No-Planer”. We get told that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon. That’s a “No-Planer”. Dylan Avery said in an interview that he’d like to believe the planes are still out there, flying around. That’s a “No-Planer”. We see references to “alleged” Flight 11. That’s a “No-Planer”. We see mentions that Todd Beamer isn’t on the Social Security Death Index. That’s a “No-Planer”. We hear that 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 of the hijackers are still alive. That’s a “No-Planer”.

Almost all the 9-11 conspiracy theorists are “No-Planers”, when you get right down to it. So the notion that the “TV Fakery” people are the “No-Planers” is absurd, and the notion that the supposedly mainstream Troofers are “Plane-Huggers” is equally a lie. The only Troofers who actually accept the planes are LIHOPers and that somewhat rare category of “LIHOP plus Controlled Demolition”.

Things you can do from here:

737s not 767s used in Twin Towers Attacks

via Suzie-Q by anthony on 12/7/07

anthony @ 17:35 GMT, updated 14:27 GMT, December 7, 2007

The planes which flew into the Twin Towers on 9/11 could not possibly have been Boeing 767s, as we have been led to believe.

In the first place, the planes which hit the Twin Towers were estimated to be doing more than 500 miles per hour, an impossible speed for Boeing 767s to be flying at at an altitude of 700 ft (they would simply disintegrate at that speed because of the density of the air), a fact established by Joseph Keith and confirmed by Boeing spokeswoman Leslie Hazzard and Boeing engineer Lori Bechtold in this video.

That immediately rules out flights 11 and 175 which were both Boeing 767s.

Secondly, the planes which hit the Twin Towers were seen to penetrate the wall of the buildings leaving a huge gaping hole. This, a Boeing 767, which is constructed of aluminium, could not do unaided by some other agency. I earlier speculated whether some kind of laser weapon like the one mounted on the 747 was used, but I think we can discount this possibility in the light of Jaclyn Cady’s comments. It would appear, then, that some more conventional weapon mounted on the plane’s fusilage was used. It is interesting in this respect in that videos of the planes hitting the Twin Towers show a bright flash just before the moment of impact.

Thirdly, eyewitnesses reported that both planes did not have commercial markings and did not have windows.

Fourthly, the aircraft engine found at the site of the South Tower was a CMF-56, which does not have enough power to lift a Boeing 767 off the ground!

Lastly, Flight 93, the plane purportedly shot down over Pennsylvania was spotted at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport on April 10, 2003, and according to the FAA, Flights 93 and 175 are still valid.

As to the kind of plane used in the 9/11 Twin Tower attacks, the most likely culprit would seem to be the Boeing 737. Compare this video of the South Tower aircraft and pictures of the South Tower plane below with the pictures of a Boeing 737 plane above and a Boeing 767 further below:

Look especially at the engines on the South Tower plane and how on the 737 they are on pods below the wings whereas on the 767 they are integrated with the wing.

And BTW, what engine does a Boeing 737 use? Yes, you’ve guessed it, a CMF-56!

Things you can do from here:

Resolved, 9/11 Truth: The Initiation of Explosions / Collapse of WTC 1 Did Not Begin at the Location of the "Plane" Hit

Update 12/9/07

Update 12/5/07

Update 11/10/07

Keith Seffen’s WTC Collapse Folly: Not Even Wrong

Okay, I’ve read the paper. If I was a referee for this paper, I would write even less than I wrote about the last paper discussed above. This paper is, as Wolfgang Pauli once said, “not even wrong.” (An apparently scientific argument is said to be not even wrong if it is based on assumptions that are known to be incorrect, or alternatively theories which cannot possibly be falsified or used to predict anything. ) That’s probably what I would say in a referee report. But my wife wants me to tell you, the reader, why I say this.

blog it


clipped from

Air America/Thom Hartman 9/11 Truth Debate: Kevin Ryan vs. Michael Shermer MP3…

In case you have trouble downloading it from there (as opposed to just listening to it) you can get the full 41.38 MB MP3 file at the following (somewhat slow) link:…

Also, mirrored for QUICK download here.

blog it

Exhibit 1.
Slide Show of 1st Hit Damage:

Choose the Option at target web page: “The Attack Begins”

Screen shot from that video is shown below:

Exhibit 2.
Video Which Includes the Initiation of Collapse

Based on these videos, I would suggest the following:

1. The initiation of the explosions starting the collapse, based on the orange hot spots and then a moment later a horizontal row of explosions are roughly as high up as the plane stuck WTC 1.

2. For those who think that the idea that this a “top-down” collapse, (not a bottom up as is usual for other video specimens of CDs), you are omitting the details of clear instantaneous events which do happen to commence near the top of WTC 1. However, whatever one attributes the collapse with the idea that the “plane” crash damage, and ensuing fires, and loss of structural integrity, it is a complete nonstarter. Look at the evidence: there is no way to negate the idea that detonations of some type are underway.

The following screen snaps are presented in sequence:
(this snaps occur at the time stamp of about 1:31 remaining in the video as shown by the video player at the target web page)

clipped from

Top Down Demolition

One of the main arguments defenders of the official story have made against the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers is that demolitions never start at the top of the building. In other words, they claim that demolitions always start at the bottom and proceed upwards.

Moreover, there were numerous reports of huge explosions in the basement and other locations well below the collapse zones in the Twin Towers. For example, a stationary engineer who worked in the basement of one of the towers testified that an entire below-level garage and a 50-ton hydraulic press were demolished long before the tower collapsed.

However, a new video shows an example of a top-down demolition of another building:

blog it

A scholarly, civilized exchange between Prof. Mark Vorobej and Barrie Zwicker

Update 12/3/07

9/11 Truth and the WTC Destruction Debate

via 911 Truth Movement on 11/15/07

The pair of Letters added today to the Journal of 9/11 Studies illustrates how a civil discussion can take place, even when one party is critiquing another’s work.

Prof. Mark Vorobej sent a Letter to the Journal of 9/11 Studies which included a critique of some material in Barrie Zwicker’s book, “Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11.” Of course, the editors allowed Barrie to reply — a courtesy we extend in all such cases. That is, if one finds his work criticized by another, then he or she has a standing invitation to respond. This invitation stands to all authors who find their work critiqued by another research. And most journals extend the same courtesy — hence the importance of responding to such authors as Bazant and Seffen… But I digress…

Barrie Zwicker offers a gentlemanly, exemplary response to, and comments upon,
the paper “Cumulative Arguments and Smoking Guns” by Mark Vorobej. He writes:

Vote Result

Score: 10.0, Votes: 8

read more

Things you can do from here:

TABOO: Link to Latest (video)

Channel Icon


Joined: 1 year ago
Videos: 238

Get Ready for the Surprise of your Life

[Direct Link to Media File]

blog it