911 WTC Planes Videos Proven To Be Fake

(Please wait for page to load)

Scroll down below to see and can download the still pictures from the video

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvXGyhGHfOc

Original post

http://danieltowsey.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/911-wtc-planes-videos-proven-to-be-fake/

written by A Truth Soldier

Here are my other 911 articles

http://danieltowsey.wordpress.com/2007/05/09/the-gray-plane-that-no-one-saw/
http://danieltowsey.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/halifax-nova-scotias-connection-to-911/
http://danieltowsey.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/the-911-pentagon-light-pole-props-for-the-big-show/
http://danieltowsey.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/911-wtc-planes-videos-proven-to-be-fake/

http://danieltowsey.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/how-to-rip-off-your-lease-and-make-billions/

http://911justicecanada.ca/

No Plane Shadow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJL91tfFJ9Q

Uploaded on 3 Sep 2008by XES119

http://www.youtube.com/RasgaSaias
http://www.youtube.com/CNN911Fakes
http://www.youtube.com/SimonShack

More proof of faked wtc 911 plane videos (Censored by Youtube)

This video was censored by being tasmpered with by Youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLGAjZpe46E

I reuploaded a new version of this video here
“Proof That WTC 911 Plane Videos Were Faked By Media”

http://youtu.be/avZwbWzVUx8

The video below and pictures will explain how the videos shown on television were faked

First watch the video and then run the slideshow of the images below. You will be amazed at what you

did not notice when you look at the stills from the video. Then I am sure you will want to watch

the video again and see the obvious things you did not notice the first time.

If you scroll way down, you will see stills from another video shows the missile painted as a commercial

aircraft used for the Pentagon 911 show.

Check these pages out too.

VIDEOS of five different planes hitting WTC 2

http://911justicehalifax.wordpress.com/many-different-airplanes-hit-second-wtc-building/

Scroll down for still images from the video

Further down below the pictures you will find the full original video.

Previously published related article.

http://danieltowsey.wordpress.com/2007/05/09/the-gray-plane-that-no-one-saw/

and do not miss these two 911 articles.

http://danieltowsey.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/how-to-rip-off-your-lease-and-make-billions/  

http://danieltowsey.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/the-911-pentagon-light-pole-props-for-the-big-show/

Phone Call to Dimitri- 911 Nuclear Demolitions – Re-edited

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHRBrYd_u90

4:502012 (MUST SEE) Military Plane – Undeniable new 9-11 WTC DRONE PLANE PROOF (NOT UA 175)

Before you watch this check the other information about the fake wtc 911 plane videos produced by corporate media.

This video is damage control because of all the proof on the internet about the 911 wtc videos being faked by corporate media.

by FacelesswithEyesOpen 1,605,039 views

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgM6hjNedE0

The Complete No Planes on 9/11 Timeline

http://www.oilempire.us/no-plane-timeline.html

note: this timeline does not list every twist and turn of the “no plane” story, just some of the most important pieces of the puzzle

 1998

Sandia National Laboratories, part of the U.S. Department of Energy, conducts a test where a F-4 fighter plane is flown into a reinforced concrete structure to test the impact of a plane crash into a nuclear power station containment dome. Video of the test shows that planes that fly at full speed into concrete shatter into countless small parts.

September 2000

The Project for a New American Century, a neo-conservative think tank, publishes “Rebuilding America’s Defenses.” This report advocates global military dominance by the United States, but observes that a “new Pearl Harbor” was a necessary prerequisite for this goal to be implemented. Most of the supporters of PNAC wind up in the Bush / Cheney administration after they steal the 2000 election. One of the authors of this report was military industry official Dov Zakheim, whose System Planning Corporation developed remote control transmitter systems for planes (among other products). Mr. Zakhem was appointed Comptroller of the Pentagon (in charge of the money) in 2001 and served through 2004.

March 4, 2001

Fox Television broadcasts the pilot episode of the Lone Gunmen, a sequel to the X-Files show. The Lone Gunmen’s plot concerns a group of computer hackers who try to stop a terrorist attack upon a domestic airliner that is perpetrated by a small faction in the US government under the cover of a war game exercise. The attack, in the story, involves remote control hijacking of a plane and flying it into the World Trade Center in order to boost military spending. Most of the acting in this show was atrocious, which served to associate the concepts of an inside-job terror attack using war games and remote control with a bad science fiction television show.

Spring 2001

The National Energy Policy Development Group (Cheney Energy Task Force) meets to plan energy policy for the Cheney / Bush administration. While the full details of the discussions remain secret, some of the information from the task force has been disclosed — and it includes lists of oil fields and corporations active in the Persian Gulf region. Journalist Michael Ruppert hypothesized in his book “Crossing the Rubicon” that the deepest secrets of 9/11 lie in this group’s records, since it seems obvious that they were discussing the imminence of Peak Oil, who had the remaining oil, who needed to be bought or invaded in order to control the oil. (9/11 was allowed to happen in order to create the pretext to grab that oil.) One of the task force’s participants was investment banker (and friend of George W. Bush) Matthew Simmons, who has become a prominent voice urging Corporate America to pay attention to the implications of Peak Oil.

September 10, 2001

War Secretary Donald Rumsfeld holds a press conference to admit that $2.3 trillion (not billion) is missing from the Pentagon’s financial system. This received mainstream media coverage (it is still mentioned on CBS’s website) but events the next day superceded this astonishing revelation. The Republican media experts are skilled at burying damaging news behind other stories, or releasing inconvenient truths in ways that they do not get the attention they deserve.

September 11, 2001

35 minutes after the second WTC tower was hit – removing any doubt or excuse anywhere in federal military / intelligence bureaucracy about what was going on – Flight 77 flies into the Pentagon. The plane makes a complicated three quarter turn spiral dive and crashes into the sector undergoing renovation to strengthen it against terrorist attack, killing 125 people on the ground plus everyone on the doomed plane. Some of the victims included 34 of the 65 staff of Resource Services Washington, an Army office of civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. Military officials tell the media in the coming days that they are relieved the other, less reinforced, fully staffed parts of the Pentagon were not hit instead.

October 2, 2001

USA Today publishes an Associated Press article about remote control Boeing planes, Remote piloting: Solution or disaster-in-the-making? The article notes that

“technology that could prevent hijackers turning a commercial jet into a weapon — could soon be feasible. Whether it’s a good idea or not is another question. Raytheon is one of several companies looking to use new satellite technology that could someday allow jets to be landed by people on the ground, in much the same way that hobbyists bring in their model airplanes by remote control. The company announced Monday that its technology had guided a Federal Express 727 to a safe landing on a New Mexico Air Force base in August — all without the need of a pilot. Raytheon says the technology, primarily designed to help navigation, could be useful in a remote landing system.”

October 7, 2001

French political activist Thierry Meyssan posts a webpage claiming that no plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11. His initial claim was that the attack involved a truck bomb, not a plane, and the no-plane claim started off his book The Horrible Fraud (published as 9/11 The Big Lie in English). The Horrible Fraud was an instant best-seller in Franch in early 2002, and its success led to a sequel later in 2002, Le Pentagate. These two books were translated into 28 languages, ensuring maximum distribution around the world. (Few books manage to be translated into more than a couple of languages.) Meyssan uses photos taken between the impact and the collapse of the facade to base his “no plane” claims – but the photos on his website are carefully selected, with most of the damage to the building obscured by firefighting foam and smoke. While it is true that the fuselage made a fuselage sized hole on the second floor of the building, the wings and engines made a much wider hole on the ground floor (and the wingtips caused damage but not a complete hole at the very end). Photos show that the damage was the size and shape of a 757, thus refuting all of the no plane variations: no plane, other plane, Global Hawk, cruise missile, plane plus missile. Most revealing is the fact that Le Pentagate’s cover highlights a photo from the inside of the Pentagon that includes obvious plane debris, an indicator the “no plane” claim is just a mean joke.

October 12, 2001

War Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in an interview with Parade Magazine, uses the word “missile” to describe what hit the Pentagon. This was probably a deliberate intent to mislead gullible researchers. In military parlance a missile can be anything from a bullet, to an airliner striking a building, to a real missile. The first dictionary definition listed for missile states, “An object or weapon that is fired, thrown, dropped, or otherwise projected at a target; a projectile.” Thus the airliners were used as missiles and Rumsfeld’s choice of words was literally correct. How could anyone who understands the rudiments of evidence consider that as proof of anything? The same interviewer for Parade highlighted the “missile” mis-quote in a September 2004 article that debunked the no-plane claim, suggesting that the whole episode was just a carefully planted piece of bait.

Fall 2001

Remotely piloted drones – unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV’s) are deployed in Afghanistan and receive lots of mainstream press. There are also several mainstream articles about remote control technologies that could be used in the future to override hijackers, but those articles avoid the more delicate suggestion that it might have been used on 9/11 to steer the planes. A couple fringe websites publish stories claiming the use of remote control, but with fanciful parallel claims that the planes were flown to deserted military bases where the passengers were supposedly killed.

November 2, 2001

Michael Ruppert publishes timeline of 9/11 attacks, turning up early evidence of U.S. complicity by focusing on actions by individuals, agencies, and corporations as evidenced in public media, legal proceedings, and government documents. His publication From the Wilderness publishes many of the best early analyses showing full foreknowledge of the attacks. This timeline, published as “Oh Lucy! – You Gotta Lotta ‘Splainin To Do” generates a lot of controversy but its detractors avoid the evidence that allied governments provided very specific warnings to the U.S. government that the attacks were imminent. This timeline is later expanded by the Center for Cooperative Research into the Complete 9/11 Timeline (an enormous database of over 1,000 mainstream media articles) and a book, “The Terror Timeline: Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by Minute.”

November 25, 2001

At an annual meeting of the Coalition on Political Assassinations, John Judge and T. Carter make a presentation regarding 9/11 in which Carter, an AA flight attendant, claims to have recovered from Pentagon wreckage the bracelet of a colleague killed in the crash of AA77.

November 28, 2001

Michael Ruppert makes his first speech about 9/11 at Portland State University in Oregon before a crowd of about 1,000. He started his presentation with a showing of the “Zapruder film” which showed that President Kennedy was shot from the front (and therefore not by Lee Harvey Oswald) yet this piece of “physical evidence” did not succeed in making political change over the past four decades. This speech is the basis for the film “The Truth and Lies of 9/11,” which becomes an underground sensation. The points highlighted in the film have not been substantially challenged, despite a non-stop barrage of smear attacks from left gatekeepers and hardcore conspiracy theorists.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

January and February, 2002

Vision TV in Toronto, Ontario airs a six-piece commentary “The Great Deception” by journalist Barrie Zwicker. This was the first documentary to show the now famous footage of George W. Bush reading “The Pet Goat” to second graders after being told the second plane had crashed into the WTC South Tower.

May 20 through June 5, 2002

Unknown News publishes a series “The 9/11 Evidence Which May Hang George Bush” by Cheryl Seal — a comprehensive survey of the evidence for the use of remote control on 9/11.

Spring 2002

The Pentagon releases five frames from a surveillance camera which purport to show the crash of Flight 77. Despite the presence of countless cameras in and near the Pentagon complex, this is the only video that is made public, and many observers note that the sole frame that shows the plane looks like it is really a missile, complete with an exhaust trail that is not indicative of a Boeing. A few observers note that the Pentagon is not to be trusted and the date stamp on the video of “September 12″ suggests that the images have been altered to boost the “no plane” meme.
Monsieur Meyssan revises his Pentagon theory in the wake of this release and starts promoting Rumsfeld’s “missile” theory.

October 23, 2002

John Judge publishes Flight of Fantasy: Flight 77 Didn’t Hit the Pentagon, which warned that

“There is no question that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Remaining agnostic on this point also gives ammunition to the perpetrators of the stand-down and serves to discredit the other good work that continues to be done about the reality of what happened that day. It is my feeling that this thesis was actually part of an intentional disinformation campaign that spreads red herrings to discredit the real findings.”

October 2002

The first edition of the “Deception Dollar” is published with a 10,000 copy print run. They are quickly distributed at a large peace rally in San Francisco. Over six million Deception Dollars were printed between 2002 and 2005, but virtually no media dare to mention this campaign. The Deception Dollars are extremely popular and easy to distribute at large crowds, especially peace events, music festivals and other “alternative” type gatherings. Most of the best websites on 9/11 complicity are included on the Deception Dollars, although a few websites promoting the no plane claim were included on each edition.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2003

Eric Hufschmid produces a movie Painful Deceptions, which claims a Global Hawk robot plane hit the Pentagon. The facts that hundreds of people saw the plane and that tons of plane parts were recovered were not mentioned in the film. Absolutely no one saw a Global Hawk in the vicinity of the Pentagon that day, and the debris did not match of Global Hawk, but that did not prevent the film from developing a substantial following in the 9/11 truth movement. His website also promotes the idea that the moon landing(s) did not happen, in 2006, expressed support for Holocaust denial.
Ironically, this film helped persuade this author that the “no plane” claim was wrong, since the film highlights Thierry Meyssan’s original “truck bomb” claim that is obvious disinformation.

2003?

A website called “webfairy” floats the idea that a plane did not hit the WTC North Tower, probably in response to growing popularity of the Pentagon no-plane theories. This website offers a science fiction story that a missile really hit the WTC while masked by a giant hologram of a plane. The fact that a lot of people saw and heard the plane (even if only one low-quality video of it exists) is irrelevant to the campaign. While few people claim to accept this idea, it does serve to portray 9/11 skeptics as delusional hallucinators.

Summer 2003

At least two websites (in England and Spain) float the idea that Flight 175, which hit the South Tower, had an anomaly under the plane that they called a “pod.” This “pod” claim is supposedly proof of plane substitution in mid-flight and therefore 9/11 was an inside job. Few people notice that this claim exists, at least for a few months.

November 26, 2003

Michael Ruppert publishes “The Kennedys, Physical Evidence, and 9/11,” an essay that attempts to warn the 9/11 Truth Movement not to over-invest its energies and its credibility in questions of physical evidence which invite sabotage by U.S. counterintelligence programs (COINTELPRO).

March 26 to 28, 2004

The International Inquiry into 9/11 is held at the Herbst Theater in San Francisco. By most accounts, this event was a success, with most of the leaders of the 9/11 truth movement gathered into one spot to hear the best speakers and authors. In a surreal coincidence, the partial revelations of Richard Clarke dominate the media during the weekend of the conference. The organization 911truth.org evolved from a strategy session held after the conference in a nearby suburb. If government agents were monitoring the event, they probably noticed a growing consolidation and sophistication to the 9/11 skeptics, which could have made it difficult for the Republican Party apparatus to steal the 2004 Presidential election.

Spring 2004

The “pod” claim gets a big boost shortly after the San Francisco conference with promotion from a new, heavily promoted website (letsroll911) that has a video clip purporting to show the “pod” under the plane firing a missile at the South Tower a split second before impact. In reality, the “pod” was merely a shaded photo of the “fairing” bulge that connects the wing to the fuselage, nothing more than that.
Some of the “no plane” promoters begin to promote the idea that claiming 9/11 was perpetrated to provide an excuse to seize the Middle East and Central Asia oil fields as the world reaches Peak Oil is somehow oil company propaganda. Many of these voices echo theories developed before the understanding of plate tectonics that petroleum is supposedly abiotic (not the result of fossilized ancient plants) and therefore virtually unlimited.
It is likely that these twin memes (no planes on 9/11 and abiotic oil) were promoted heavily to distract dissident opinion as the Presidential election grew closer.

May 25 to 30, 2004

International Citizens Inquiry into 9/11 held in Toronto, Canada. No Plane theorist Thierry Meyssan is scheduled to speak, but fails to show up. Rumors circulate through the audience that he was supposedly missing, but later in the week participants are told that he’s fine, at home in France. More importantly, at the conclusion of the Inquiry, Michael Ruppert gives a keynote speech where he unveils some of his new, original research on the role of the wargames in paralyzing the air defenses on 9/11. The conference was in some ways a success, with lots of good speakers (and a few not-so-good presentations pushing “no planes” and “no phone calls”). However, publicity for the event was apparently inadequate, since a very large auditorium (over 1,000 seats) was rented but only slightly more than 100 people attended the final plenary sessions. This resulted in the organizers being deeply in debt and vulnerable to those offering money to promote the no-plane claims.

May 26, 2004

Democracy Now! holds a debate between David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor, and professional anti-conspiracist Chip Berlet. Griffin began his presentation focusing on several compelling claims for complicity, but Berlet and host Amy Goodman steered the discussion toward the no-plane and demolition claims, placing Griffin on the defensive. The issues of the warnings and the Air Force non-response got drowned out by this shift in focus, and the war games information was completely ignored.

July 2004

A website for the film In Plane Site is posted by the Power Hour, a right wing fundamentalist internet radio show in Missouri. OilEmpire.US posts a rebuttal to some of the claims on that website and is attacked “for not having seen the film.” The primary thesis of the website and the film is the discredited “pod” claim, but the film also promotes “Pentagon Missile” and a video montage claiming a dust cloud from the South Tower collapse was really a large explosion at the base of the towers (among other false claims). The only 9/11 “truth” website mentioned in the film is LetsRoll911.
The front cover of the film includes a photo posted to the 9/11 Truth Alliance e-mail discussion list in May 2004 debunking the “pod” claim as merely a photo of the normal “fairing” under the fuselage connecting the wings to the plane’s body — suggesting that the film’s makers were subtly indicating that the film is disinformation, a bad joke hidden in plain sight.

late summer 2004

A short video Pentagon Strike is published on the internet. It is only a few minutes long and focuses solely on the no-plane claims, avoiding the more controversial and absurd pod nonsense (which never was as popular as the Pentagon missile claim). It was a very successful piece of propaganda and supposedly has millions of viewers around the world. Pentagon Strike quotes eyewitnesses out of context to imply they saw a missile (when all of them actually reported seeing a twin engine jet). Even more outrageous, it superimposes some of this text over pictures of the impact zone, making it impossible to see the ground floor damage that was the width of the plane.

September 4, 2004

Parade Magazine runs an article attacking 9/11 conspiracy theories, claiming they are based solely on a transcription error in Parade’s October 2001 interview of Donald Rumsfeld (which suggests Parade’s alleged misquote of Rumsfeld was used deliberately to help create the no plane hoax).

September 9, 2004

The Citizens Commission on 9/11 holds a hearing in New York City. This event is chaired by Representative Cynthia McKinney, and includes Michael Ruppert, Paul Thompson, John Judge, Indira Singh, Jenna Orkin, Kyle Hence, Barrie Zwicker, Nicholas Levis and others. Each of the presenters were at their very best, and the program included some of the most compelling testimoney to date while avoiding the various no plane hoaxes. (Those speakers who still believe in “no Pentagon plane” did not mention this belief during their presentations.)
This event was turned into a DVD that received virtually no promotion by the 9/11 Truth Movement or even by the speakers who made their presentations.
In 2005, the sponsors of the In Plane Site film created a booklet called Citizens Commission on 9/11 that promoted the no plane claim but did not mention this event, making it even more difficult for 9/11 skeptics to learn that this event happened.

September 11, 2004

Millionaire Jimmy Walter sponsors “Confronting the Evidence” in New York City. This event includes authors and investigators who have done excellent work documenting the lies in the official story, but also includes the narrator of In Plane Site. At that event, Walter reportedly told a mainstream media editor who attended the event (who had come to think that there was truth to the 9/11 truth movement) that the twin towers were destroyed by nuclear explosives – and this editor declined to further investigate the issues after hearing this assertion. Walter claims to have distributed hundreds of thousands of free DVDs of this event. No one has offered to make similar quantities of the Citizens Commission on 9/11 DVD, perhaps because the no-plane claims were absent from that footage.

September 13, 2004

CIA veteran Robert Baer reviews David Ray Griffin’s “New Pearl Harbor” for The Nation and focuses on “no plane” claim to discredit the entire topic of inquiry.

September 17, 2004

The white-supremacist publication American Free Press writes an article claiming the plane crash in Pennsylvania did not happen (which ignores the fact that a lot of people saw the plane and debris from the plane was scattered over eight miles, implying that it was actually shot down). With this article all four plane crashes have campaigns to deny that they happened.
Around this time, the American Free Press’s sibling publication Barnes Review, which is more focused on Holocaust denial, publishes an editorial that Hitler supposedly deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. Most of the blatant neo-Nazi propaganda is “segregated” to the Barnes publication, but American Free Press and Barnes are the same operation, sharing staff and office space. These efforts work closely, by their own admission, with KKK leader David Duke and other hard core racists.

October 1, 2004

New Society Publishers releases Michael C. Ruppert’s Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil. This book is the most complete, early, logical and legally actionable case against American authorities – chiefly Dick Cheney – for complicity in the 9/11 attacks. It made almost no reference to the physical evidence issues, precisely because they are so easily distorted. The book quickly becomes an underground best seller even though no mainstream newspaper, magazine, radio show or television talk show dares to cover it. While many mainstream media organizations order copies, none mention it, not even to attack its allegations.

October 7, 2004

In response to the growing popularity of 9/11 truth and the book “New Pearl Harbor” in particular, the CIA-linked Washington Post publishes “Conspiracy Theories Flourish on the Internet.” This article “sandwiches” a book review of New Pearl Harbor in-between the authors of Pentagon Strike, who are a group of people who who claim to talk to alien beings in other dimensions from their European palace. The article does not mention that there are any other claims in New Pearl Harbor beyond “no plane hit the Pentagon.” New Pearl Harbor was the first “9/11 Truth” book to receive critical acclaim from liberal voices who had previously avoided these topics (such as historian Howard Zinn), so the Post felt it necessary to discredit it just before the alleged Presidential election.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

March 2005

Popular Mechanics, a division of the Hearst Corporation, published “9/11 Lies,” a cover story claiming to debunk 9/11 skepticism. The article leads with the “pod” claim, promotes In Plane Site and LetsRoll911, highlights the “no-plane” straw man. The article failed to mention Crossing the Rubicon or the Complete 9/11 Timeline, and ignored the issues of the war games and the motivations (to create a pretext to grab Middle East oil fields).

2005

Morgan Reynolds, chief economist for the Labor Department in 2001 and 2002, publishes an article on LewRockwell.com claiming that none of the plane crashes happened on 9/11 and offering a series of strong points and nonsense in support of the demolition theory. The only media institution that picks up this story is the Rev. Moon media empire (Washington Times and UPI), but it becomes widely spread on the internet (“Bush official says 9/11 was an inside job” was a compelling meme to many, despite the absurdities sprinkled throughout his article). Eventually the Boulder Weekly runs a follow-up story about Reynolds’ claims, but ignores the wargames and does not mention the flaws in the no plane claims.

Spring 2005

Jimmy Walter has a tour of several European countries with 9/11 truth activists, a mix of those who’ve done excellent research and writing but also Monsieur Meyssan and the lead journalist for the American Free Press (the largest Holocaust Denial publication in the United States). A 9/11 truth activist who complained about the presence of a white supremacist publication was dis-invited from the tour.

July 2005

The US State Department posts “Identifying Misinformation,” a guide to 9/11 claims that promotes the no plane claim while ignoring the issues of the warnings and the wargames.

summer 2005

The first edition of the movie Loose Change is released. It promotes “Flight 77 did not hit Pentagon” and the WTC “pod” plane. The second edition, released a few months later drops the pod claim but adds the “no plane crash in Pennsylvania” hoax.

November 2005

Professor Steven Jones of Brigham Young University self-publishes a technical paper examining arguments for demolition of the twin towers and concludes they have validity. Separately, Jones states that In Plane Site alienated him from looking at the issues of 9/11 complicity and does not believe the no plane claims.
In response, James Fetzer, a philosophy professor and conspiracist in Minnesota creates a group called Scholars for Truth about 9/11, which ostensibly has Jones as a co-chair. The “Scholars” website promotes the least scholarly claims and avoids mention of websites, books and movies that stress the best evidence. Jones reports that he has no control over the material on the website and gets abuse from prominent no-plane supporters who berate him for disagreement with their claims.

December 27, 2005

From the Wilderness publishes contributing writer Mark Robinowitz article “‘Identifying Misinformation’: The State Department’s Rosetta Stone for understanding 9/11 disinformation promotes 9/11 conspiracy hoaxes while ignoring Crossing the Rubicon and other authentic investigations.” This article focuses on the reverse psychology used by the State Department and other defenders of the official story who highlight the false claims (no planes) and ignore the best evidence.

January 2006

The group 911truth.org publishes a statement that claims people saw a missile hit the Pentagon while waiting for a train in the Pentagon metro station. However, this train station is underground, something that is immediately obvious to anyone with experience with the DC Metro system (which presumably does not include the editors who screen statements for posting to 911truth.org).

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

February 21, 2006

The Village Voice profiles the 9/11 Truth Movement in a negative article focused on the “no-plane” story. Again, there is no mention of Crossing the Rubicon even though the Village Voice is known to have obtained at least one copy. In 2004, the Village Voice wrote a sympathetic profile of the Complete 9/11 Timeline, but in 2006 the paper was bought by more conservative publishers.

March 20, 2006

In an interview by radio host Alex Jones, Charlie Sheen disputes the 9/11 Commission Report on grounds that include the no-plane hypothesis.

March 25, 2006

Sheen makes similar claims on CNN Headline News’ “Showbiz Tonight.”

March 29, 2006

San Francisco Chronicle columnist Mark Morford writes about 9/11 skepticism, promoting the Loose Change film the day before David Ray Griffin gives a presentation in Oakland to a large audience. Morford’s sly pseudo-support for the issue does not mention that Griffin is going to give a presentation. A previous Morford column on 9/11 before the 2004 election also purported to support the inquiries yet directed readers to websites that promote the no plane hoax and other discredited assertions while avoiding the best websites stressing provable evidence.

April 21, 2006

Divorce court proceedings appear in the news, accusing Sheen of dangerous mental instability and an addiction to pornographic images of “very young girls.” The stories about Sheen proliferate through the major media for several days.

April 29, 2006

USA Today reviews “no-plane” based film “Loose Change,” which its supporters think is a breakthrough accomplishment for the 9/11 truth movement. In reality, several USA Today reporters and editors saw Flight 77 while they were commuting to work on 9/11 (the USA Today building is not far from the Pentagon) and they presumably know that Loose Change is promoting fake claims (and some real ones). The article began by profiling a somewhat rude participant in the “truth” movement in the San Francisco area, which suggests that the media is watching the truth movement closely in order to highlight its weakest points.

May 16, 2006

The Pentagon releases images which it claims are proof that a Boeing 757 did indeed hit the Pentagon, discrediting the large portion of the 9/11 Truth Movement that had embraced the “no-plane” hypothesis.

May 19, 2006

From the Wilderness publishes “It’s the Timing, Not the Film: New Frames from Pentagon Crash Video Show Langley Embarrassing the 9/11 Truth Movement.”

June 5, 2006

The New York Times publishes a long profile of the 911truth.org conference in Chicago that promotes Loose Change and ignores the issues of the warnings and wargames.

July 2006

C-Span runs film of the June 2006 Alex Jones “Scholars” event in Los Angeles that was yet another mix of real evidence and nonsense. C-Span has not run video of the Citizens Commission on 9/11 nor the June 2002 Unanswered Questions press conference at the National Press Club. It is unlikely they will show footage of anyone stressing the issues of the warnings and wargames who avoid”no planes.”

August 9, 2006

National Public Radio Morning Edition profiles Loose Change plus a professional anti-conspiracist. NPR’s webpage for this story links to Loose Change, the State Department and Popular Mechanics – no mention that many 9/11 truth activists understand that most of Loose Change is not real

September 11, 2006

For the fifth anniversary, a massive onslaught against 9/11 truth was spread throughout many media mouthpieces. Time, The Washington Post, MSNBC, Democracy Now!, San Francisco Chronicle, the London Guardian, Telegraph (UK) and others ran profiles of the 9/11 truth movement that all focused on the “no plane” hoaxes and demolition theories while avoiding serious examination of the military and intelligence wargames, suppressed warnings from allies, suppressed FBI agents who tried to stop the attacks, the Peak Oil and police state motivations to allow the attacks, and the subsequent anthrax attacks on the Democratic leadership and the media.

Theory of Ghostplane

Uploaded by CollinAlexander on Jul 25, 2008

http://psy-opera.com “9/11 – The Great American Psy-Opera” is the Ultimate 9/11 Truth movie, and it has begun.

http://twitter.com/#!/psyopera

New – $100,000 Amateur Video Challenge.

http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2009/04/100000-amateur-video-challenge.html

For a scholarly treatise on the 9/11 video compositing, please visit:

http://911composites.wiki-site.com/

A demonstration of the compositing techniques used in the CNN “airplane” footage, and the other non-live shots. Here’s my blog entry:

http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/07/theory-of-edited-non-live-911-airplane.html

For the theory of the live shots, please see:

http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/05/theory-of-live-911-airplane-composites.html

No-Plane Theory FAQ

Q. How does this video prove there were no planes?

A. It doesn’t. This is merely a demonstration of the technique. For the proof, please see “9/11 Airplane Video Composites”, linked above.

Q. What about all the (hundreds, thousands, millions) of eyewitnesses?

A. If a real plane flew into the South Tower, there would indeed be thousands, if not 10′s of thousands of eyewitnesses. But there are astonishingly few people who actually claimed to have seen and heard a plane. The extreme LACK of eyewitnesses speaks in favor of no planes.

There are a number of eyewitnesses, like David Handschuh, who were looking at the tower, and swear they didn’t see a plane.

The few eyewitnesses that do exist are either (a) lying or (b) mistaken. The govern-media has trillions of dollars, and a hundred thousand secret agents. Manufacturing “eyewitnesses” is no problem. And let’s not discount false memory. Many studies have conclusively shown that fake video alters eyewitness accounts.

Q. Wouldn’t it have been easier to just use real airplanes?

A. No. There are insurmountable problems with that. A real plane would mostly explode against the side of the much stronger building, they needed the plane to appear to completely penetrate. A real plane might miss the target. A real plane would leave real evidence, and it would be the wrong evidence, which might be seen by the wrong people. A fake plane leaves no evidence, unless you make a mistake, such as allowing the nose of the airplane to pop out the back of a layer mask (see Chopper 5).

Q. What happened to the passengers and airplanes?

A. The real planes took off as advertised, and were hijacked by special ops. The planes were landed at Stewart Air Force Base, and replaced on radar by false blips. The passengers and crew were executed, blood and body samples taken. These samples were then planted at the “crash” locations, “found”, and then legitimate DNA testing was done.

Q. But I saw an airplane crashing into the tower on live TV!

A. No you didn’t. On live TV, you were shown “Chopper 5″ and “Chopper 7″. Both of these video show a plane passing behind the edge of the tower, not hitting it. The videos that show the plane penetrating the building came later, after there was plenty of time to edit them. They look fake, because they are fake.

Q. How could they create a fake airplane from so many different angles, and have them all match?

A. Easy. First a 3D model of a single plane flight is modeled in a program like Lightwave or Maya. That flightpath can then be rendered from any virtual camera position.
Q. What about the airplane parts that were found on the street?

A. No parts were found BELOW the “impact” area, or in the gashes. The few parts that were found, were located BEYOND the tower, as if they made it all the way through and out the other side. I believe they shot an airplane part out of a cannon on the 80th floor of WTC2. That’s what it looks like on the video. This would explain why the molten metal was seen pouring out of that location before the demolition. They had to melt down the cannon, lest it be blown clear during the demolition.

Q. What about the phone calls?

A. What phone calls? The only recording of any phone call is Betty Ong, early in AA11. That probably was a real phone call, after the real hijackers had taken over the plane, and before they landed it at Stewart AFB. As to the rest of the alleged phone calls, they don’t exist. A “transcript” means nothing. What phone calls?

Q. If there was no plane crash, then what hit the WTC?

A. Nothing. It exploded from within.

Q. What program did you use to create this, and was that available in 2001?

A. I did this in Apple Motion. Various programs like Adobe After Effects have the same and better features, and have been available since the late 1990′s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXmgF2yAEc

Here is another video that proves what was used at WTC was not an airplane.

THIS IS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON 9/11!!! 100% TRUTH

Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN5g5cKPxa4

PART 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSnkRol5ghQ

911 CrashPhysics. Steel vs Planes. Deceived again 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P2EfH_EBRs

SEPTEMBER CLUES : Definitive Edition | 2008 (FULL VERSION)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWl8mUSDIwU

ACARS Confirmed – 9/11 Aircraft Airborne Long After Crash 

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1448/244/NL/ACARS_Confirmed_-_9_11_Aircraft_Airborne_Long_After_Crash.html 

CLICK ON FIRST IMAGE for slideshow

 

I highly recommend you watch this video and follow the links to all the evidence of Nuclear Devices ( suitcase nukes) used to bring down the three WTC Buildings

Dimitri Khalezov 911 video – the most prohibited item on the web

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_UsC6GvKf0

This is the intro to the most censored video on the web.
and the powers that be DO NOT want you to watch this

If you want answers to the 911 mystery watch -

” Dimitri Khalezov – WTC Nuclear demolition ” here

http://911justicehalifax.wordpress.com/nuclear-devices-used-at-wtc/

——————————————————
Support Evidence for Dimitri’s Testimony
http://ac31.blogspot.com/2011/09/support-ing-evidence-for-dimitri.html

——————————————————

2011 Undeniable new 9/11 WTC DRONE PLANE PROOF (NOT UA 175) MILITARY PLANE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHHghW4Pg5k

9/11 Fake: Media Make Believe (bee-lie-live)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFqCU4VdFqo

PROOF ‘PLANE’ WAS HOLOGRAM THAT HIT 9/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek-Q0T9wK2g 

911 is a lie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOX-sVyPu54 

9/11 WTC – Biggest Gold Heist in History: ~ $300 Billion in Gold Bars

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIs9gtRBd20

Gold Of Nova Scotia Discovered At WTC 10/31/01

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2Uv0C3Q6BM

This picture is at WTC showing the small cruise missile engine on the ground.

2012 – NEWEST 9/11 DOCUMENTARY -

PROOF 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB.mp4

Uploaded by Construuct on Jan 4, 2012

Thanks to “Xendrius” for another Outstanding Documentary !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jazdG3-ZETM

Totally fake! But you would still believe it!

Yes you would!

1. Planes are made of light materials like aluminum and fiberglass. Think of them as long beer cans. Even birds can give planes problems.
(If you don’t believe me, see the video “9/11 Fake: Aluminum, Fiberglass & Birds”.)

2. There were many steel core columns supporting both of the Twin Towers. No plane could enter such a structure without being completely destroyed.

3. Two planes were depicted as being inside and intact the Twin Towers, a pair of buildings made with 200,000 tons of steel each.

4. Eyewitnesses: Very few people in New York’s business district actually had a decent view of the South Tower of the WTC. Only a few thousand people at most would have been able to see the South Tower explode. The author of this website has interviewed people who do not believe that they saw a plane strike the South Tower.

Meanwhile, it was a simple matter for the TV networks to keep the eyewitnesses who didn’t see a plane off the air.

5. Both Boeing 767s (i.e., Flights 11 and 175, which supposedly struck the North and South Towers respectively) have 165 foot wingspans. Meanwhile, both the North and South Towers were 210 feet wide. We’re supposed to believe that both planes were entirely inside the tower they hit, with no pieces showing, with only 45 feet of room to spare!

6. United Airlines Flight 175 was shown entering the South Tower like a ghost. When the tip of the plane’s fuselage hits the steel exterior of the South Tower the fuselage should be breaking up. That would cause the wings to break off.

7. Newton’s Third Law of Motion states that “To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”. Let’s apply Newton’s Third Law to Flight 175. In the 9/11/01 story, Flight 175 strikes the the South Tower at 450 m.p.h.

Now imagine that the South Tower moved at 450 m.p.h. and struck a stationary Flight 175. We would not expect that Flight 175 would be undamaged. We would not expect that it would simply disappear into the South Tower.

8. There was no audio of ‘Flight 175′ striking the South Tower. This is true even though there were about a dozen videos of the event said to be obtained from lucky amateurs.

9. There are innumerable contradictions with the news reports of planes striking the WTC. (The author’s writing is here.) Just a cursory examination of the 911 news reports can reveal dramatic inconsistencies.

10. There has been massive censorship of the 911 Hoax. Dozens of media sources have exercized a zero tolerance policy for any suggestion that no planes struck the WTC before it was vaporized from exotic weaponry and nuclear weapons.

Why would CBS, The New York Times, The History Channel, Indmedia.org and YouTube.com be censoring the idea so aggressively if real planes hit the Twin Towers?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i5v_vioaMU

How NOT to fake WTC Plane Crash

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PueexS5PR4Y

Believe Your Own Eyes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDgyhIfTbkU

Uploaded by sv3rige on Feb 10, 2012

A follow-up to The Destruction + other stuff about 9/11.

NEW 9/11 Video and Radar Analysis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTSzHmHnR78

Thoughts on Blue-Beam and holograms of 9-11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HrdPl5C_cc

911 Taboo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_Y4zfl8yy4

Download this video here for higher quality
https://rapidshare.com/files/1053435265/Believe_Your_Own_Eyes.wmv

Songs taken from:
http://www.sv3rige.com/2011/05/sv3rige-mix-13.html
http://www.sv3rige.com/2011/07/ultraviolet-sparkling-joyride-mega-mix.html
http://www.sv3rige.com/2011/08/sv3rige-down-vivid-path-of-no-traction.html

Readers Comments

simonshack says

Very well done and explained, Daniel. Allow me to provide a couple of links to my own analyses. I have been dissecting all of the existing 9/11 stills & videos for this last half decade – and have concluded that the hoax relied pretty much entirely on computer generated imagery:

Link to a series of 9/11 imagery analyses on my website:

http://septemberclues.info/imagery_analyses.htm

Exactly what sort of techniques/software-packages were employed? This cannot reasonably be our onus to establish. Most likely, numerous deception techniques were used – as the 9/11 hoax was certainly not meant to be exposed in as little as 6 years (September Clues version 1.0 was released in july 2007)… We may, however, apply a series of empirical and deductive processes in order to rule out that the 9/11 imagery is real photography. To this end, a host of data has been reviewed, compared and cross-analyzed. The aberrations which have emerged are not confined to the photographic domain: what is observable in the 9/11 TV broadcasts defies the very laws of physics, aerodynamics, trigonometry, optics, perspectives and, ultimately, plain common sense. It is the sum of these considerations which allow us to conclude – beyond any reasonable doubt – that virtually none of the 9/11 images are real: they are but a series of fabrications designed to replace the real-life events that unfolded in Manhattan on the morning of September 11, 2001.

More proof of faked wtc 911 plane videos (Censored by Youtube)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLGAjZpe46E

I reuploaded this video can be viewed here

http://youtu.be/avZwbWzVUx8

THE AIRPLANE ANIMATIONS credited to “AMATEURS”

With the “LIVE SHOTS” out of the way, we are left to analyze the alleged “AMATEUR” shots which emerged only later: some within 12 hours of the event – and some as late as 2008! The sheer amount of “amateur” shots (around 45) is ludicrous in itself : we are asked to believe that 45 amateur videographers were able to get a clear panshot of the “550mph airplane”… The purpose of this ‘overkill’ is all too evident : by flooding the public with huge numbers of alleged “amateur” videoclips, the 9/11 plotters hoped to raise a wall of ‘undeniability’. This has miserably backfired; simulating such a complex, real-life event involves a vast number of variables – all of which are difficult enough to reproduce realistically from two/three different angles – let alone 45! By contrast, only 1 video exists showing the first event at 8:46AM (“Flight 11 impacting WTC1″). Let us first have a look at this most “iconic” videoclip of 9/11. Barely two frames are needed to expose it – incontrovertibly – for the fraud that it is.

Link to playlist of my further video analyses:

http://septemberclues.info/further_analyses.htm

FolkPhotographer in reply to simonshack

Thanks Simon..I am familiar with your great works… your awesome

• TheOccupywallstreet says

• My website is my gathered research into all the conspiracies, but I don’t get into the UFO or Bigfoot thing! My aim is exposing our government and everything they cover up, and my website isn’t even close to complete!

  FolkPhotographer in reply to TheOccupywallstreet

• it will never be complete..there is no end to the Zionist insanity and crimes..

• TheOccupywallstreet says

• @SablePhoenixBlu1 I’m already with the Jersey Girls, the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, who fought for the initial investigation into 9/11. I know exactly who We Are Change, Building What Dot Org, 9/11 Press For Truth, etc…etc… are! You don’t need to tell me a thing and I don’t need your disinfo! They already had “The International Hearings on 9/11″ at the Ryerson University in Toronto, Ontario. I’ve researched everyday for the past 7 years! Dah! theteapartytrutherdotcom

FolkPhotographer in reply to TheOccupywallstreet

Your know it all attitude shows your stupidity.

• SablePhoenixBlu1 says

• Radio hosts often say ‘globalists’ ‘bankers’ or ‘the government’ were those involved in some high profile events and never talk about companies that sell; manufacturing; produce; promote ‘war’ related goods and services.

• This is terror. Continuing to use various ways to keep people reminded of the story. 9-1-1 emergency #; folding a $20 bill that show image of both NYC & Pentagon, is not a coincidence.

  Fake news story’s, Gabriella Gifford shooting, girl victim born Sept 11th. All actors. Take care

• HEY FOLK,I LEFT A COMMENT WHICH WAS ‘FLAGGED AS SPAM, I had been writing to Theoccupywallst commenter here is part of whath I posted:T.V.,news is fake; sorry for the culture-shock. Even newspapers that run with these stories.Re: Sept 11th. A silent jet, no noise right? 110′ wide, magically shrinking down to about 10′ when it hits.This is terror. Continuing to use various ways to keep people reminded of the story.
• People who work on airport run ways, wear ear protection for a reason. It’s very loud & there not even as close as someone would had to be that day to a landing, yet it was silent, lol. there was no vibration either on the ground.
• It’s a relief to know people like you are around; publically, I’ve found them walking around, still believing the fake story. Nothing shown on the news was how things actually were (as you would know) there was no fire ball, the smoke was not so vast; the building did not fall at ‘free fall speed’; it came apart a piece at a time. There was absestos sited by the City of NY & repair to remove would’ve had to been done.

• Passing thru; I can’t say if it’s true society argues about this jet thing or not; there’s no freedom of the press so one cannot know for sure; but instead of arguing all these other points; which I’m sure some group finds pretty entertaining, a jet’s wider than the structure; so the video shows a ten foot plane soaring around.

  A real jet would’ve dwarfed the tower.

• I wanted to compliment you upon your video.

  Your presentation was interesting and used gave good examples which would make it understandable to various sorts of viewers.

  So, good work; and I think you have talent to be in this sort of industry too.

• FolkPhotographer in reply to SablePhoenixBlu1
• Thank you…
• SablePhoenixBlu1 in reply to FolkPhotographer
• You’re welcomed
• TheOccupywallstreet says
• Some of your points are interesting though.
• Oh, my handle? I infiltrate! If our government is going to infiltrate like they did with The Tea Party, then so am I! lol
• There was also amateur film footage taken of the plane! Still good that you are looking into it though! 9/11 Was Definitely an inside job from all I’ve seen and all the videos I’ve collected over the years!

FolkPhotographer in reply to TheOccupywallstreet

really.. can you provide some of that so called amateur footage.. it has never been seen by me or anyone else.. all the videos on line are faked..there was NO live videos on 911

please go to my 911Justice link and have a look at he page or article about five different planes hitting wtc 2..

• SablePhoenixBlu1 in reply to TheOccupywallstreet

• T.V.,news is fake; sorry for the culture-shock. Even newspapers that run with these stories.

  Re: Sept 11th. A silent jet, no noise right? 110′ wide, magically shrinking down to about 10′ when it hits.

  This is terror. Continuing to use various ways to keep people reminded of the story. 9-1-1 emergency #; folding a $20 bill that show image of both NYC & Pentagon, is not a coincidence.

  Fake news story’s, Gabriella Gifford shooting, girl victim born Sept 11th. All actors. Take care.

• SablePhoenixBlu1 in reply to TheOccupywallstreet

• WeAreChange are not who you think they are. You seem like a decent person; I think you’d be angry if you knew. Anyway, anything on T.V. was not like it happened, those so-called amateurs were involved with photoshopping.

  Real people were not seen nor their films on the T.V.

• garfield6767 says
• Thank you , its nice to see someone else in N.S. is awake (check out dallasgoldbug on youtube) quite interesting.!

SablePhoenixBlu1 says

It’s a relief to know people like you are around; publically, I’ve found them walking around, still believing the fake story. Nothing shown on the news was how things actually were (as you would know) there was no fire ball, the smoke was not so vast; the building did not fall at ‘free fall speed’; it came apart a piece at a time. There was absestos sited by the City of NY & repair to remove would’ve had to been done. (