911 WTC Planes Videos Proven To Be Fake

(Please wait for huge page to load)Scroll down below to see complete photo gallery that you can download the still pictures from the video

My three different video uploads of the video below are being censored on Youtube by sabotage so the videos will not play and can not be heard..

Please scroll down for frame by frame photos of fake plane impact..

written by A Truth Soldier

Here are my other 911 articles

https://911justicehalifax.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/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/

COMMENTS.

FolkPhotographer

Thank you for your video. Aluminium (planes) can not cut through structural steel and especially no way can there have been not one piece of aluminium plane fall to the ground upon collision.

9/11 Crash Test 2016

Published on Jun 2, 2016

HI I’m Steve De’ak, a few years ago I began a peace project I call 9/11 Crash Test. In the spirit of the popular Mythbusters show, the project plan is to raise money to rent a rocket sled test facility to answer the question once and for all whether or not it is possible for an aluminum Boeing 767 to cut through a steel skyscraper. I don’t think it is and I think I can prove it. I am what at you might call a 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist, but what I call a Concerned Grandpa. I’m tired of war without end and I want to do something to stop it.
Will a test center in the USA to allow us to conduct a test that may prove the USA was involved in 9/11? Help us raise $35,000 and we’ll find out together.
Mythbusters has been allowed to crush a car and their spinoff Myth Revolution was allowed to cut a car in half at the same test center. Our money is as good as theirs so if they can do it so can we.
The project plan is simple. Taking a section of wing from a scrapped 767, attach it to a rocket sled. Reseal the fuel tank and fill it with fuel, and at the other end of the track, fabricate some box-columns built to the specifications of the World Trade Center, and collide them together at 550 MPH, filming the results with high-speed cameras.
Our engineering team will produce a detailed analysis of how we expect the impacting bodies to behave when they are collided together at 550 MPH. This finite element analysis will be the centerpiece of the presentation we will use to formally request the use of their facilities.
This project will be conducted in two stages. This stage is to collect $35K to produce the finite element analysis. Boeing isn’t going to just give us the wing specifications for a 767 so we will need to travel to an aircraft graveyard to collect these details ourselves, the cost for a wing section from the outside of the engine to the wing tip, is estimated to be $15-20K. The task of dismantling and taking accurate measurements of the wing section will cost thousands more.
The specifications for a steel wall panel of the world trade center are in the public domain, so once we have the wing specifications our engineers will then create digital models of a wing and a wall column and present them to our engineering firm to produce the finite element analysis. The firm is sympathetic to our cause and is giving us a substantial discount of about $4K for this analysis. Our goal of $35K is to cover the costs of food, travel, lodging, licenses fees and other miscellaneous expenses.
This project will prove whether or not an aluminum jet’s wing can cut through a steel skyscraper as shown on 9/11. Whatever it proves it will be in a controlled laboratory environment that can reproduce the conditions as seen on that fateful Tuesday. If you believe the war on terror is justified, then this is the test for you. Your donation will go towards putting an end to the 9/11 conspiracies and finally the whole world will be able to work together to fight the war on terrorism. If you are a like me and you don’t want to leave your grandchildren a world where they won’t be sent to war believing impossible lies then this is the project for you. Your donation will help stop the wars and a burgeoning global police state.
If the wing section slices through the steel like a hot knife through butter as shown on 9/11, then the USA will be vindicated and all the worlds’ doubters can shut up and go home, but if the wing gets shredded by the sharp steel columns, then all the troops can come home and someone will have some explaining to do.
This project has it all – conspiracy, intrigue, suspense, physics, rockets, explosions, war and peace. Please join us at 9/11 Crash Test dot org and together we’ll launch a rocket powered revolution of awareness. Thank you.

SEPTEMBER CLUES 9/11

Uploaded on Sep 29, 2011

SEPTEMBER CLUES – the website http://www.septemberclues.info
This is the original version of September Clues – made by yours truly (and by me only – I am a totally independent researcher with NO connections to anyone whatsoever – and have pursued this endeavor with NO outside counsel or financial help – at all).

Our research forum: http://cluesforum.info

The 9/11 broadcasts were nothing but a prefabricated, made-for-TV-movie. In order to make up your mind about this, please watch all of my ADDITIONAL 9/11 RESEARCH:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=…

The so-called ‘terror-attack’ of 9/11 was nothing but a psyop or, in other words, a gigantic make-believe simulation. It was pulled off with the active support of the mainstream news media – and their complicity continues to this day. The entire World Trade Center complex – 9 buildings in all – was of course demolished (in bright daylight – yet hidden behind a military-grade smokescreen ) but what we saw on TV was nothing but a prefabricated ‘Hollywood’ movie.

No planes were involved (thus no passengers died) – and no people were killed in the (empty) twin towers. For the perpetrators to kill 3000 white collar workers in New York City would have been the silliest self-inflicted aggravation imaginable. All of this will of course come as a shock to many people. However, the evidence gathered over the years is now overwhelming and has been consolidated by the steady efforts of independent researchers from all over the world – who have nothing to gain from spreading false information. Ultimately, it is up to every open-minded individual to look at the available evidence for him/herself. Please know that most ‘conspiracy theories’ you may have bumped into (such as Michael Moore’s blockbuster “Fahrenheit 9/11” and the internet blockbuster “Loose Change”) were created to uphold our illusion of living in a world graced with freedom of speech.

For any questions you may have, you are welcome to contact me through my Youtube channel. For those seriously interested in media fakery (such as 9/11 and other newsmedia-backed psyops), you are welcome to join our ongoing discussion forum:

THE CLUESFORUM http://www.cluesforum.info

May reason prevail

Simon Shack

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

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.

911 WTC Planes Videos Proven To Be Fake

Original post

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

https://911justicehalifax.wordpress.com/9-11-fake-eyewitnesses-videos/

Click on any image for full size

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

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

https://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

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

PROOF ‘PLANE’ WAS HOLOGRAM THAT HIT 9/11

911 is a lie

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

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

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 !

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?

9/11 False Flag Conspiracy – Finally Solved (Names, Connections, Motives)

This report was good until they talked about the planes that were proven to be faked with video manipulations..
Starting at 36:30 seconds they speak and show about the planes that were used to create the faked planes videos.. very interesting connection.Now we know why they looked like military planes…

THE 9/11 SPECIAL EFFECTS THAT MADE IT LOOK REAL

Published on Jan 11, 2016

The so-called amateur video-footage of the “planes” smashing (cartoon-like slicing) into the buildings was “taped” by actual professionals in CGI

How NOT to fake WTC Plane Crash

Believe Your Own Eyes

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

Thoughts on Blue-Beam and holograms of 9-11

911 Taboo

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.

Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony That No Planes Hit The Twin Towers

Monday, March 3, 2014 6:12

http://beforeitsnews.com/eu/2014/03/ex-cia-pilot-gives-sworn-testimony-that-no-planes-hit-the-twin-towers-2552498.html

(Before It’s News)

US Will Have To Rebut Or Accept Statement As Truth

By: Ron Baitley-Simens

on 3rd March 2014 @ 9.21am

A former CIA and civilian pilot has sworn an affidavit, stating that no planes flew into the Twin Towers as it would have been physically impossible.

John Lear, the son of Learjet inventor, Bill Lear, has given his expert evidence that it would have been physically impossible for Boeing 767s, like Flights AA11 and UA175 to have hit the Twin Towers on 9/11, particularly when flown by inexperienced pilots:

‘No Boeing 767 airliners hit the Twin Towers as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors’, he stated in the affidavit.

‘Such crashes did not occur because they are physically impossible as depicted, for the following reasons: in the case of UAL 175 going into the south tower, a real Boeing 767 would have begun ‘telescoping’ when the nose hit the 14 inch steel columns which are 39 inches on center.

‘The vertical and horizontal tail would have instantaneously separated from the aircraft, hit the steel box columns and fallen to the ground.

‘The engines when impacting the steel columns would have maintained their general shape and either fallen to the ground or been recovered in the debris of the collapsed building.

‘No Boeing 767 could attain a speed of 540 mph at 1000 feet above sea level ‘parasite drag doubles with velocity’ and ‘parasite power’ cubes with velocity.

The fan portion of the engine is not designed to accept the volume of dense air at that altitude and speed.
The piece of alleged external fuselage containing 3 or 4 window cutouts is inconsistent with an airplane that hit 14 inch steel box columns, placed at over 500 mph. It would have crumpled.
No significant part of the Boeing 767 or engine could have penetrated the 14 inch steel columns and 37 feet beyond the massive core of the tower without part of it falling to the ground.

‘The debris of the collapse should have contained massive sections of the Boeing 767, including 3 engine cores weighing approximately 9000 pounds apiece which could not have been hidden. Yet there is no evidence of any of these massive structural components from either 767 at the WTC. Such complete disappearance of 767s is impossible.

The affidavit, dated 28th January 2014 is part of a law suit being pursued byMorgan Reynolds in the United States District Court, Southern District, New York.

In March 2007, Reynolds, a former chief economist under the George W Bush administration filed a Request For Correction with the US National Institute of Science and Technology citing his belief that real commercial jets (Boeings) did not hit the WTC towers.

Although the 9/11 Truth movement initially rejected the ‘no-planes’ theory as too outlandish, after scientific and rational analysis, it has become a widely accepted explanation of the evidence collected.

Unlike any other form of statement, an affidavit becomes truth in law, if it is not rebutted. It will now be up to critics of the theory to present their evidence and analysis to rebut the statement point by point. If they do not – or cannot – then the US government will be obliged to admit that the account given by the 9/11 Commission is wrong.

The 65 year old retired airline captain and former CIA pilot – who has over 19,000 hours of flight time — also drew attention to the inexperience of the pilots who allegedly flew the planes:

‘The alleged ‘controlled’ descent into New York on a relatively straight course by a novice pilot in unlikely in the extreme because of the difficulty of controlling heading, descent rate and descent speed within the parameters of ‘controlled’ flight.

‘It takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret the “EFIS” (Electronic Flight Instrument Display) display, with which none of the hijacker pilots would have been familiar or received training on, and use his controls, including the ailerons, rudder, elevators, spoilers and throttles to effect, control and maintain a descent.

Lear has, according to his sworn statement, flown over 100 different types of planes during his 40 years of flying and holds more FAA airman certificates than any other FAA certificated airman. He flew secret missions for the CIA in Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa between 1967 and 1983 then spent 17 years working for several passenger and cargo airlines as Captain, Check Airman and Instructor.

He is a member of Pilotfor911truth.org, which has consistently shown that it was impossible for jet airliners to have hit the Twin Towers in the way the 9/11 Commission has suggested.

Above Top Secret 20 MB SCAN of 9/11 FOIA NIST Release: solo investigation of 9 11

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

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. (

Cesar Agustus says.
The only thing real about the airplane is your belief in it .

They did indeed fire a cruse missal dressed like a airliner but that’s it . There were no airplane strikes that day . See Pilots for 911 truth .

I’ve talked in depth with a Coast Guard FULL BIRD COLONEL who flew both 757 and 767 models . He said if they can’t fly faster than maybe 250 at sea level the engines would act like brakes 9impossible speed)

Next he said they tried to hit the twin towers making the same maneuver and it’s impossible for real pilots to do . He said the best they could do is wingtip strikes and that it would be impossible because the sticks are shaking so bad .

Next he said the planes CAN’T HOLD UP TO THAT MANY G’s He said if they moved like that at that altitude (speed /dive bomber shot) the wings would break right off .

Also he pointed out that the pentacon was done because the people looking for the 2.3 TRILLION they stole from us we’re in that office and that ended the investigation .

Just like #7 hit all the ENRON DOKUMENTS and ended that investigation ! (wow those ,evil muslims were smart ! )

Finally we know it was just to get stupid people fired up for wars .

We knew on 911 the buildings were imploded and wondered how they got all the explosives in . Then again we’re REALLY SMART so don’t feel too bad .

see this video.

911 Aerodynamics Impossible Speed, Air Density, Drag, Air Resistance, Aeronautics & Nazi Templars

Published on Jun 29, 2014

9/11 CONSPIRACY: THE BALL NEXT TO TOWER 2

Published on May 6, 2012

9/11 FAKE PLANES … WITH EXPERT RETIRED PILOT JOHN LEAR

Published on Jul 13, 2014

Planes Were Fake !!!
Impossible Speed / No Wreckage / Impossible Physics .
With Expert Retired Pilot John Lear / Richard D Hall / Bill Cooper
Go to Richard D Hall’s website RICHPLANET.NET http://www.richplanet.net/starship.php
Go to PROJECT CAMELOT http://projectcamelot.org
“Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.”

§ 107.Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phone or records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and size of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Dr. Morgan Reynolds – The Fake Planes of 9/11

Published on May 20, 2014

No Planes: Media One and Done
http://nomoregames.net/2012/01/14/no-planes-media-one-and-done/

We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories
http://nomoregames.net/2006/03/05/we-have-some-holes-in-the-plane-stories/

WTC South Tower to Plane: So You Think You Can Take Me?
http://nomoregames.net/2013/07/17/wtc-south-tower-to-plane-so-you-think-you-can-take-me/

What 9/11 Should Have Looked Like
http://nomoregames.net/2012/01/19/what-911-should-have-looked-like/

Conclusive Evidence the 9/11 Planes were NOT REAL

Published on Jun 1, 2013

http://911planeshoax.com

Were there really passengers on any flights associated with the plot of 9/11? Dean T. Hartwell, author of “Planes without Passengers: the Faked Hijackings of 9/11” makes a convincing argument that there were none.

He says that two planes (United 175 and 93) actually flew to Ohio that day without anyone on board, to be hidden from the public that thought these planes had crashed as part of a “terrorist” plot. All reasonable evidence points toward a hoax.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/180649232/The-9-11-No-Passenger-Theory

Planes Without Passengers: The Faked Hijackings of 9/11
This is the second edition of Planes without Passengers: the Faked Hijackings of 9/11.

It is written by one of the leading researchers on the issue of planes and passengers, Dean T. Hartwell.

This edition confirms the conclusion of the first book that no hijackings took place that day and puts together a more complete theory: Only two planes of the four planes alleged to be connected with the 9/11 plot actually flew on that day. And the passengers were not people who paid a ticket to go from one place to another.

They were instead agents connected to the plot who were chosen to help cover up the crime.

This theory is based primarily upon two facts: (1) the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), which maintains information on all commercial flights in the United States, in its original form stated clearly that while United 175 and United 93 were scheduled and flew, American 11 and American 77 did not and (2) ACARS, a system much like electronic mail and GPS, shows that United 175 and United 93 were flying over the Midwestern part of the United States long after their supposed “crashes” on the east coast.

Agents pretending to be passengers were seen at the Cleveland Hopkins Airport late that morning.

They walked toward A NASA building to make calls to the media to straighten out an impression many had that the Internet reported that United 93 had landed in Cleveland.

History should not be a lie agreed upon by the media, the politicians and others of influence. History must give us the most likely events based on the available information.

This book aims to be a part of history we may not want to believe, but we should believe because it weighs the facts in an objective manner.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/45819758/planes-without-passengers-the-faked-hijackings-of-9-11-preface
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0096R1GLA

9/11 WTC 2nd plane slow motion – New York City, NY

Flight 175 (rare video) Slow Motion

Published on Sep 11, 2013

http://www.truthin7minutes.com/alert?PC=YT-description-flight-175

This video demonstrates how the news media faked the 9/11 terror plot…

Update: Many commenters on this video have (rightly) pointed out that this video has a whopper of an error…

… I detail this here:

http://www.truthin7minutes.com/flight-175-rare-video

Many commenters on this video have (rightly) pointed out that this video has a whopper of an error…

The two buildings that appear look like they’re next to (or even behind) the Twin Towers:

9/11 Military Drone Aircraft With Video And Audio Proof

Published on Apr 24, 2012

Case closed. It wasn’t UA175. It was some type of modified Boeing KC767 drone aircraft specially designed for the attacks. The first plane was probably a similar device.

9/11 Fake: As Seen On TV!

Uploaded on Oct 4, 2010

Have you ever played physics games, like any Burnout games, Little Big Planet, Armadillo Run or whatever…?

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.

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

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.

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?

9/11 Truth’s Forbidden Photo Evidence Most Covered up Photo in History CIA Drone

Uploaded on Dec 15, 2010

Leaked 9/11 photos and Video shows NYPD Helicopters close to impact #2 and Leaked 9/11 Video shows them filming the towers then where is the photos and film of flight 175?

Why is the FAA REGISTRY Canceling Date of Flight 175 on 09/28/2005 tail number was N612UA?
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=612UA&x=19&y=17

Leaked 9 11 Video Shot From NYPD Helicopter shows them filming

But this video starts AFTER “Flight 175” hits the south tower.

What happen to BEFORE and DURING?

Why was ALL the Flight 175 photos pulled in the 3,160 file NIST Release?

Why does jumpers magnified 14000% Look like drones?

Why is NYPD Helicopters flying close with 9/11 Drones?

9/11 Flight 175 Still Flying on National News

9/11 NYPD helicopter Right in the face of Flight 175 Caroline Dries

Additional Details
ALL the PHOTO and FILM evidence are ORIGINALLY FROM NIST not YOUTUBE you morons!!

also NIST states that it witholds another 3,370 files (including some input and ALL results files of ANSYS analysis), because “The NIST Director determined that the release of these data might jeopardize public safety” more like cause riots

13 minutes ago
Leaked” meaning “Pissed all over by experts???”

Experts NEED JOBS and CASH and telling the truth will get fired and or killed.
Youtube videos can’t be altered?

These are public domain photos and videos which all reviewers have the SAME COPY and thousands
of copies exist if not millions around the globe.

If any PHOTO or Video was altered all the other of millions of COPIES would show this alteration.
If you had half a brain, you would ask yourself why am I so quick to buy into crazy conspiracy crap?

This is what I found while searching the NIST releases. NO conspiracy theorist has any idea about any of this issues nor will they ever. Why? Because people are sheeple and are unable to think for themselves. Followers. Lemmings. Those with no cognitive ablilities of their own.

http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/5823597/911_FOIA_Release_of_3_160_Electronic_Records_of_The_WTC_Collapse.5823597.TPB.torrent

But in reality, these buildings (at both 17 Battery Place and 28 Washington Street) are indeed WAY in front of the viewing area as we see in this view from Battery Park:

Also, the perspective of the view makes those two buildings appear to be taller than the Twin Towers (even though they’re less than half the height).

In addition, coming out of the Battery Tunnel (next to Battery Park where this video is alleged to have been taken) looks nothing like what is shown in this video… you’d have to be in the middle of a bunch of trees in the park. It’s an impossible shot from on the ground.

Finally, the biggest smoking-gun evidence that this video is 100% CGI created is the lack of any blur… if this plane is going over 500 miles per hour, there’s NO way an amateur photographer is going to capture this airplane without any blur.

Believe Your Own Eyes – 9/11 – No “Planes” Were Ever Used

Published on Aug 7, 2012

ATTENTION: Government shills pretending to be real users are trying their very hardest to make the “No Plane” researchers look like crazy lunatics. Do not fall into their trap. If you are a “real” Youtube user looking for the truth, this is it. ALUMINUM PLANES CANNOT PENETRATE DOUBLE REINFORCED STEEL WALLS WITH A TOTAL OF 10 INCHES THICKNESS. ****IT IS NOT POSSIBLE**** NO PLANES WERE USED ON 9/11. PERIOD.A big thanks to “sv3rige” for an amazing & very eye opening documentary !!!
http://www.youtube.com/user/sv3rige Most of us who have the spent the time to research the details of 9/11 already know that there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon and there was none at Shanksville either. So the question remains… If the Government did not use planes for the Pentagon or shanksville… WHY ON EARTH WOULD THEY RISK USING THEM ON THE WTC ? HOW IS IT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE FOR AN ALUMINUM PLANE TO SO EASILY BE “ABSORBED” INTO A STEEL STRUCTURE ? The answer is… it cannot.

Conclusive Evidence the 9/11 Planes were NOT REAL

Published on Jun 1, 2013

06 – What Planes?

This video is being blocked from showing on wordpress.. Click link above to view it

PROOF NO REAL PLANES WERE USED ON 9/11
http://planet.infowars.com/science/proof-no-planes-were-used-on-911

The holographic projector displays a three-dimensional visual image in a desired location, removed from the display generator. The projector can be used for psychological operations and strategic perception management. It is also useful for optical deception and cloaking, providing a momentary distraction when engaging an unsophisticated adversary.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume4/chap03/b5_6.htm

US Military Weaponization of Space
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?us_military_general_topic_areas=us_military_weaponizationOfSpace&timeline=us_military_tmln

LASERS IN SPACE : TECHNOLOGICAL OPTIONS FOR ENHANCING US MILITARY
CAPABILITIES by Mark E. Rogers, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF
November 1997
Occasional Paper No. 2
Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama

“Without question, space-based lasers could be fielded in 10 to 20 years that can destroy targets in space as well as on or near the earth’s surface. The challenges involve engineering and cost, rather than the fundamental laws of physics.”

Spacecast 2020 includes holographic projection from space, planetary defense weapons, and weather modification systems that would involve lasers in space in ways or at power levels that stagger the imagination.

Holographic Projector
Operational Concept. This concept, which would fall into the force enhancement mission area, was considered in the Spacecast 2020 study, and as a truly novel idea provides evidence that the strategic studies did consider “out of the box” ideas. However, the concept ignores the fundamental physics of generating holograms.

The concept is a “system that could project holograms from space onto the ground, in the sky, or on the ocean anywhere in the theater of conflict for special operations deception missions.

This system would be composed of either orbiting holographic projectors or relay satellites that would pass data and instructions to a remotely piloted vehicle or aircraft that would then generate and project the holographic image.” The apparent intention is to generate three-dimensional images of sufficient quality to make the observer believe an actual object is being seen.

There have even been suggestions by anonymous sources that these holographic images could be made to produce speech as well, which is theoretically possible using the photo-acoustic effect in air. This effect has been proposed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for a laser-based emergency broadcast system.

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/occppr02.htm

This technology was reported in the media before 9/11 pertaining to military psychological operations (PSYOPS).

Washington Post
“When Seeing and Hearing Isn’t Believing”
By William M. Arkin
February 1, 1999

A few notable quotes (emphasis added):

According to a military physicist given the task of looking into the hologram idea, the feasibility had been established of projecting large, three-dimensional objects that appeared to float in the air.

washingtonpost.com has learned that a super secret program was established in 1994 to pursue the very technology for PSYOPS application. The “Holographic Projector” is described in a classified Air Force document as a system to “project information power from space … for special operations deception missions.”

“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

2013 WTC Drone/Military Plane Attack Proof (Illuminati false flag) New Witnesses

BREAKING NEW 9/11 FOOTAGE released March 2013

Published on Sep 14, 2012

Once again our government has been caught red handed in a LIE and much much more. The following link,,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSod8QAnRow&list=PL4FT2q1bKC4pczjrm7iPmpaCZnq0LpsCC&index=1

was just released as of 3/2013 and it proves beyond all and any doubt that there was most certainly NO PLANE that crashed into the Pentagon or anywhere else. We all seen holograms (Project Blue Beam), preplanned explosives (thermite and other), and a media that it is controlled and operated by the same lunatic satanic assholes who killed all those people on 9/11, 2001!

The LINK below pretty much explains why the criminals have allowed this condemning footage to be released.. The timing meant everything. Click to see how…

Retired Expert Pilot John Lear – No Planes Hit the Towers on 9/11

Published on Sep 11, 2013

9/11 Affidavit By John Lear, Son Of Learjet Inventor
I am 65 years of age, a retired airline captain and former CIA pilot with over 19,000 hours of flight time, over 11,000 of which are in command of 3 or 4 engine jet transports, have flown over 100 different types of aircraft in 60 different countries around the world. I retired in 2001 after 40 years of flying….
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/03/911-affidavit-by-john-lear-son-of.html
A former CIA and civilian pilot has sworn an affidavit, stating that no planes flew into the Twin Towers as it would have been physically impossible.
http://neonnettle.com/news/211-ex-cia-pilot-gives-sworn-testimony-that-no-planes-hit-the-twin-towers

The Holographic Projector
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?us_military_general_topic_areas=us_military_weaponizationOfSpace&timeline=us_military_tmln

LASERS IN SPACE : TECHNOLOGICAL OPTIONS FOR ENHANCING US MILITARY
CAPABILITIES by Mark E. Rogers, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF
November 1997
Occasional Paper No. 2
Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama

The concept is a “system that could project holograms from space onto the ground, in the sky, or on the ocean anywhere in the theater of conflict for special operations deception missions. This system would be composed of either orbiting holographic projectors or relay satellites that would pass data and instructions to a remotely piloted vehicle or aircraft that would then generate and project the holographic image.” The apparent intention is to generate three-dimensional images of sufficient quality to make the observer believe an actual object is being seen.

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/occppr02.htm

This technology was reported in the media before 9/11 pertaining to military psychological operations (PSYOPS).

Washington Post
“When Seeing and Hearing Isn’t Believing”
By William M. Arkin
February 1, 1999

A few notable quotes (emphasis added):

…

…washingtonpost.com has learned that a super secret program was established in 1994 to pursue the very technology for PSYOPS application. The “Holographic Projector” is described in a classified Air Force document as a system to “project information power from space … for special operations deception missions.”

9/11 No Plane Manifesto – 100% Proof – Part1

Uploaded on May 16, 2008

The facts of the No Plane Theory – how stuff works:

All claims are stolen from videos like “september clues” or “9-11 amateur”. This manifesto shows the nonsense behind these claims and clues. It’s a parody. In the past some people believed it anyway. Use your brain and don’t believe anything!

9/11 No Plane Manifesto – 100% Proof – Part2

Uploaded on May 16, 2008

The facts of the No Plane Theory – how stuff works:

9/11 No Plane Manifesto – 100% Proof – Part3

Uploaded on May 16, 2008

The facts of the No Plane Theory – how stuff works: It’s just a parody! Some people believed it anyway. Good Night and Good Luck!

no planes

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 tampered with by Youtube

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

Video removed go to this link to see many.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Proof+That+WTC+911+Plane+Videos+Were+Faked+By+Media

9/11 To see NO PLANE hit the WTC in the live broadcast

Uploaded on Jul 5, 2011

To see NO airplanes in the live broadcast.

To see in at least 2 camera attitudes that first of all live were, are to be seen no airplanes. That were inserted first later per computer. Seen therefrom that it absolutely impossibly is, that airplanes fly through through steel and concrete without damaging the outside facade, in order to explode then inside in the building first, has met one here for all skeptics that absolutely 100% proof.

Check these pages out too.

VIDEOS of five different planes hitting WTC 2

https://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

2012 (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

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.

TV Fakery test runs minutes before live 2nd WTC hit?

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.