Previous Update: April 12 - 14

Updates Index

(if there are any to speak of)
April 12 - 16, 2014

The Tampered Hole in the North Trade Tower
The Wings Can't Do That

It doesn't look like America is ready for the tribulation period, because the Federal government isn't strong enough yet: Nevada Cattle Rancher Wins 'Range War' With Feds Even in the tribulation, if it indeed comes to the West, the government will need to tread somewhat softly so as not to appear cruel. That's why it's important not to shoot at the government officials at that time. They will seek to slander us anyway, aside from that. If these ranchers had become violent during the cattle theft, there would have been another outcome.

While writing the last update, I learned that there is no spot on the north tower that has damage where the left-side engine was required to strike. It's been a day since making that discovery as I write here, and still I can't see what I might be doing wrong [the next update finds what looks like the problem, suggesting my claim is wrong, but for the time being, I'll leave this update as it is]. It seems unbelievable that I've never read it from anyone, or that all the pilots whom have studied the crash sites, to test for authenticity, have not, after nearly 13 years, noticed this problem. It's making me ask why the finding is not spread throughout the truther sites as of several years ago.

Look at this problem yourself at this photo:

The entire line of the left wing could not have struck the building at any other place but where you see the columns sliced through. The engine of the plane model that struck the building is at the webpage below for witnessing that the engine housing hangs down BELOW the wing for up to nine feet. The engine is predicted to strike the concrete floor dead on. While there is some damage below the right-wing line, at the location where the engine is predicted to have hit, there may not be enough damage, as would be expected if an engine struck the concrete floor dead on. Judging from the information in the hole image above, the engine should strike the concrete dead on, with the housing striking a few feet below the grey line that looks like the concrete floor.

Lest the picture of the north tower disappears completely from online, please save it to your files and make it available if you have a website. I contacted over 30 websites yesterday with this news, including high-level people both in my area and abroad. News stations were contacted. Please feel free to do the same at blogging sites and by emailing this message to people you feel you can trust. You don't need to tell them about it as though you were on a crusade; you just need to ask their opinion. In the most dangerous of situations, you might want to say that many know about this already so that no one will target you as though they've got to "get you" before word gets out.

There is not much use in arguing the fine details of the Trade-tower crash sites any longer, for without engine damage, it's clear to anyone that there were no 767s involved. It no longer matters if different types of plane struck, for the perpetrators had committed themselves to 767s. In my opinion, it's game over for them when this news spreads.

Mr. Silverstein, the owner of the building at the time of the event, who collected the insurance for the disaster, is in a heap of trouble with the insurance company alone, when word gets out. But wait. How possibly could it be that the insurance company did not notice that the engines created no damage? I'm perplexed, and yet there can be no trick played on the eye here; the engine damage simply is not there.

How Did they Make the Holes?

Near the start of the video below, the column design and floor connection to columns is shown in some detail. The welded ends of all columns are midway between floors, and the joints, from one column section to the next, are staggered.

Look at how most of the cutting along the left-side wing line is about knee to breast level, an easy / convenient height for working.

I realize the difficulty of cutting the white concrete slabs (the outer face) from the inside, for that makes considerable noise. But, last I heard, making noise in a construction zone is legal, and it actually happens all the time. I read that the city of New York had practically condemned these buildings, requiring reinforcement / repairs at the columns (sounds ridiculous, like an excuse) that would cost enormously to repair. I tend to think that this was the city of New York playing along with the perpetrators in order to give them their excuse to evict tenants (temporarily, at least) in order to work and make noise at the exterior walls. This way, anyone questioning the work could be given a pat answer.

Mr. Silverstein knew that this work was going on. He protected the crew, and for his part, the perpetrators likely got him an insurance company that was part of the plot, no questions asked.

The white slabs were, not merely blasted, but cut at the wing tips, by the looks of it, to give the impression of wing strikes. The slabs would not have been cut clean through to the outside, but to within a half inch or less. A small bit of explosives material on the back of the cut slab sections would have sent them flying. For the larger slabbing that went missing, the workers could have drilled into the slabs -- between them and the columns -- and inserted explosives materials into the bores. In my opinion, not enough slab material has been removed to correctly feign what would crumble and shake off in a jetliner strike.

From the Bush-Nazi chapter:

In the video below of a simulated plane entry, the line from wing tip to wing tip is near-perfect straight, as it should have been. I'd say that the people on the inside, faking the line of the wings, screwed up. It might have been a complication for various reasons to get a wing line straight when working it through multiple floors. One can see that the left-side wing is almost wholly on one floor alone (possibly to minimize work; possibly because they couldn't clear the floor above of its people).

Now look at south-tower-plane model in flight, for example, with most of the plane's weight supported by the wings, and yet the wings are nearly horizontally across, as they are when the plane is sitting on a runway. Therefore, look at the north-tower wing line and ask why it's not anywhere near horizontal from tip to tip. What kind of idiots would not do their homework by instead providing the wing line with an exaggerated V-shape? Silverstein's friends, obviously.

I do not think it can be argued that wings change their wing lines in flight by any visible amount. The Boeing spars below are for a 767 and a 777 respectively. If there are two such spars per wing (there is perhaps a small third one to help keep the system from twisting), imagine how much force would be required to bend them in the vertical direction. I don't thing the spars are made to bend in the vertical direction. Therefore, how do we explain the large V-shape in the feigned north-tower hole? In my opinion, that V-shape is three or more times more pronounced than it should be.

Now, look at a frame-by-frame view of the plane entry into the south tower. Do you see any aluminum flying off the wall? When the tail is almost inside, do you see anything flying off the wall? How could groups in the United States see this, and yet not pool their resources for a court battle? It doesn't need to be a long battle; just enough the show a judge these small pieces of evidence, and to ask for justice? Who provided the video of this plane entering the building? Why didn't the plane create the engine holes in the expected locations? The provider of this video is easily made a fraud in a court case.

I cannot understand how the idiots could be this sloppy/negligent, and, worse, how they could get away with this while being that sloppy/negligent. It's in large part thanks to those who fail to see/admit the reality, who go about the webpages ridiculing those who see it.

There is one frame of the plane entry where the wings are almost fully entered. Judging by the distance between wing tips and tail still visible, it is easily gleaned that the wings have not bent back as expected. The very tips are supposedly slicing through the columns, therefore. What engineering ninny could believe that? But if the wings are entering without bending back, the hole in the wall MUST show the slice CLEAN THROUGH the columns to the very last inches of the wing tips. There is no wiggle room here for the provider of this video to escape. Are the groups in charge of revealing this scam afraid to bring the owner of this video to court??? Is there a lack of engineers in the United States for to tell the courts that wings can't do that?

The same applies to the French company that supposedly took the only video of the plane entering the north tower. Guilty! Short of a threatened / corrupt judge or jury, there's no chance of escaping a guilty verdict if the engine holes are not showing in photos / videos of the walls. Make hay, America. Save yourselves. The worms are deep into your skin as it is, nearing the vital organs. At any time, God could make them fall flat on their faces over a Popsicle stick, right at your feet, in the midst of their attacking you to keep you from exposing them.

In the frame where only the nose has entered the building, see the white puff of smoke on the wall. That is a well-known puff of smoke, very visible in straight-on views of the same event. Why do you think there is a puff of smoke coming from the wall several feet away from the nose, before any fuel enters the building? The puff is visible in other frames as well, and can be seen under the wing as it is in the process of entering. Silverstein knew that someone had planted explosives in the wall where the plane entered, right? Yes, and this wall was set off long before the other explosives were set off, the ones that brought the building down.

You may have seen the south-tower crash wherein two objects shot out the other side of the building. I didn't know at first why that had to happen. I've since learned that they planted a few things in the direction of this ejected debris, which, as far as I'm concerned, indicates that the shooting debris was itself a photo-shop procedure. The entire explosion may have been faked, therefore, exaggerated from the real explosion for mental affect upon us. Why not? The plane that crashed was inserted into the scene? Why not also the objects that were absolutely required to explain the planted debris? The story below has details:

In the story, there is a very good point made for those who think the writer's math and distance figures might be incorrect: the engine would need to hop one or more tall buildings in order to get from where the falling debris landed to where they planted the fake engine. I didn't know until now that they had a piece of fuselage planted on the roof of Building 5 of the Trade Center. It credits the idiots for doing more than merely rewarding false witnesses and creating cartoonish videos. The problem is, the piece of fuselage is on the wrong side of the building, opposite the side of the crash. If this were one piece amongst many, where most were fallen on the side of the crash, it would at least be believable. But this is the only piece of fuselage that I've read about.

Enlarge the picture of the engine sitting on the sidewalk. If I'm not mistaken, I see a hole in the concrete of the sidewalk where the engine supposedly landed, but this hole is, amazingly, right beside the engine. In fact, part of the engine is still standing over part of the hole. Are we to believe that the engine fell on an arc from such a great height, and over such a great distance from the tower, and yet remained exactly where it landed rather than bouncing away? Such a laugh. The idiots were truly idiots, over-confident in getting away with this over the short term, not concerning themselves for the long-term damage.

You can bet that, when they get together over a beer, or in serious meetings to discuss progress of the hoax, some of them ask such questions as, "So, they know, but what are they going to do about it?" They feel that they, as an entire lot, are so entrenched in the power system that there is no hope for the other side to do anything about it, and the other side probably tends to agree with this. Yet, they have been weakened severely for trying such a hoax again, and this can go a long way in protecting Christians from fiends seeking their demise with brutality. At this point, they would be very happy simply to get away with it this time, never mind trying another anytime soon.

When they did the Boston marathon, it was another disaster for them. They "got away" with it only due to being entrenched. But more people had eyes opened at that time, and some of them are predicted to have become truthers in relation to 9-11. High-level people are silently becoming truthers. The silent ones lurk as their worst enemies to confound them, like the Edward Snowdens of the world. These silent types are all over their map, hiding, waiting for their moment...which is why the NSA has needed to build bigger, more beastly computers to record everything we say, and to design better programs for weeding them out. The idiots neglect to include the silent God who lurks against them.

As the columns were 40 inches apart and at least ten inches wide, there was at most 26 inches of gap between columns. It would be a fat chance that this engine, that we see on the street, could have gotten through a 26-inch gap. But they may have used this too-small engine, said by many to be from a smaller plane than a 767, for making it more credible that the engine passed by the columns. This engine looks about 40 inches wide at the sidewalk, and taller still. The article repeats what other websites say: "...the engine [on the sidewalk] was not clearly the right type for a 767 and was certainly never identified as a 767 engine by the government." I agree wholly, for a reason to be seen below.

The engine of flight 175 was supposedly of the plane's left side.

Blogger: "'I am an A&P mechanic for a major airline. I overhaul 767's. The engines [the type on the sidewalk] are NOT from a 767. No 767 in existence uses CFM56's. Not enough power to lift a '67.'" Then, we hear from a respondent: "My first question would be why do you think these conspirators would intentionally plant an engine that wasn't from a Boeing 767 in the streets in order to fake evidence that a Boeing 767 crashed .... especially when they know people will take pictures of it and then someone could just stand up and say that it couldn't be from that plane?" The respondent's point is well taken, his attitude is wanting. Unfortunately, the respondent and others continued to show their childishness rather than to address the mechanic's claim. The idea was to hijack the claim and make ridicule, as always, perhaps hoping that no one will read further lest the claim is substantiated.

The respondent could have said something intelligent, such as: why don't we find out from Boeing exactly what particular engine Flight 175 was carrying? Boeing, is anybody home over there at Boeing? Nope. Nobody there. Looks guilty, in bed with the plotters. Shouldn't Boeing have given a statement as to whether the engine on the sidewalk was possibly from flight 175? Of course, and one can force an answer by simply taking Boeing to court. It doesn't need to be a long court case, just long enough to ask that question. Last I heard, assisting mass murderers is subject to imprisonment.

The respondent doesn't realize what idiots feigned this attack, first off, but there are good reasons for not lugging the proper engine to this sidewalk site. The reason above, too large to get through the columns, is like the second reason: too heavy to handle at a street curb while keeping anyone from seeing the operation. Or, perhaps they had to change, at the last moment, which flight they would use for the hoax. (I've read that Flight 175 did NOT take off on that day, a claim made even by Pilots for 9/11 Truth.). Or, the aircraft scrap yards simply didn't have the right-type engine for use. The idiots used the wrong type knowing that they are entrenched deep enough in power to "get away" with it where it matters.

Ultimately, there is no way to comment further until we see what engine was in Flight 175. The one on the street looks too small for a 767 based on Wikipedia's article on 767's, where there is a list of the different engines used by 767s. For example, the GE CF6-80A model, the smallest of the GE series used by Boeing 767's, has a fan diameter of 86.4 inches, and, judging from this drawing of a CF6-6 (same fan diameter of the model above), the engine length is greater than the fan diameter. The one on the street does not match the size of this engine, therefore. The other engines listed for the Boeing 767's use larger fan diameters yet.

Admittedly, one thing I'm learning here is that much of the diameter of the engine housing is merely for the fan section. The widest part of the GE engine above is only about half as much as its fan diameter. This means that, where engines strike the building, columns are not expected to be plowed through except for about six feet below the bottom of the wing spar (in the last update, I assumed more like eight feet). While the fan section and its housing is not expected to ram through the tower's columns, yet they're expected to bounce off the walls and fall to the street, as well as to shatter the white cladding on the building. There was no such debris when we see the engines entered into the building.

If you were idiotic and demonic enough to attempt this false-flag event, and if you were using real planes at the towers, you wouldn't bother planting evidence. If not one person believed that planes hit the tower when you knew they did, you could relax with nothing to worry about. But if you knew that no planes were used, you'd be very nervous about using too-little feigned evidence. To pull it off and not waste the gang's time, you want it to work. Therefore, planted plane parts is evidence that there were no planes. It's as simple as that. If real planes were used, plane parts would have fallen to the street, and the perpetrators needed only to have their cameraman below the crash site for to take the pictures of the fallen plane parts.

There is a photographer who claims to have been smack beneath the south-tower crash when it happened. His camera supposedly caught the explosion up at the plane-entry point, and while he says that plane debris was falling down, he doesn't have a picture of it on the ground. Hello? Isn't he one of the guilty stooges? Here is his picture:

With the engine damage now missing as a certainty in the north tower, the onus is on the criminals to prove everything. For the part of the truthers, we need merely to show possibility. For example, we need only to show the possibility of planting engines. We don't need to prove that they were planted...because the missing engine damage is our trump card for proving that all "evidence" of a plane strike was faked.

There is a landing gear shown in the covertoperations website above that supposedly fell off the north tower. I've read from two sites now that the government refused to give up any serial number of any plane part that they had planted. Cold feet? Yes. But Hell awaits to warm them up. When the culprits burned the workers in those buildings, they purchased their one-way trip to the fires of Hell. It's as simple as that. The more damage they do to cover up their crimes, the hotter their fires will be turned up. None of their victims will plead to God for mercy on behalf of their screaming souls. The victims will ask to have the heat turned up.

"The FEMA report says that one [of the falling debris] is an engine and the other is 'landing gear'. Landing gear would not burn white hot. If this landing gear landed on the Burlington Coat Factory, why was it not shown in any photographs?" Good point; there may be no evidence at all of this landing gear. We certainly don't expect anyone to lug it to a roof in planting it. Therefore, a photograph would be expected, and yet, apparently, they haven't provided one.

By the way, if pages ever do not load when investigating 9/11 topics, or if that nasty site pops up, try again, for it's predictable that the powers wish to block many sites. I've found that on the second or third try, the site will come up if not at first.

Unfortunately, some believe that missiles or military planes were used. I'm assuming that these truthers just can't buy the idea of criminals with their welding torches creating the plane shapes. It's in my opinion the easiest way to do it. I myself am capable, short of planting the appropriate explosives materials, to cut and bend the columns with cutting torches and some pulling equipment. I've never cut a piece of steel with a torch, but have helped many to do it; it's very simple: apply the heat, and watch it melt the steel before your eyes, inch after inch.

Truthers insisting that some form of flying objects were part of the hoax are not easily convinced that all witnesses are false. But if a military plane flew in, it would attract attention, very risky. It seems less risky to have no plane noise, then BOOM, followed by the pictures on the news that morning. The perpetrators can, moreover, use the conspiracy "nuts" to their advantage by claiming anyone to be a conspiracy nut if they truthfully tell what they saw on site. Anyone who tells the truth can be placed into the conspiracy-nut category because the "evidence" for planes is overwhelming. This has been their best card until now. But we now have the trump card, and that changes the game.

The proponents of missiles can't explain the wing-tip damage apart from torch cutters and/or explosives planters, and proponents of military planes have a problem if tip-to-tip distances are about 156 feet at both towers. The page above shows the angle of the plane as it was entering the south tower. Tip to tip on my computer screen, the plane is 9" long while the tip-to-tip measurement, on a horizontal line, is 7.125" (a difference of 1.26 x). If the plane has been positioned at the correct angle (I'm assuming it's very close), dividing one number from the other tells that the diagonal tip-to-tip distance is 1.26 times longer than the horizontal tip-to-tip distance. The only question is, where is the right-side wing tip? The south-tower picture doesn't seem to make that location certain.

At the right wing-tip area, there is a large, dark area that I do not think represents the contact point of the wing. Below that dark area, however, I see a black dot shape on the 5th column in. That looks like it was intended to be the very tip of the wing (some of the tip toward the center seems to be behind smoke). If correct, the criminals have another major problem. For it happens to be a fact that no matter how one tilts a plane's wings on any angle upon a grid of vertical columns, the center of the plane will always be exactly midway between the full spread of columns. Therefore, as there are 38 columns showing damage, the center of the plane would be between the 19th and 20th columns from either side. If you take the time to count to that spot, you will see instantly, without needing to measure anything, that this could NOT be the center of the plane. This is the risk idiots take if they send cutting torches into the building, seeking to feign the wing lines of a 767 without being fully able to see what they are doing on account of the concrete floors and/or the interior walls.

On the image of the south tower, the left wing turns out to be 3.4 inches long on my computer screen while the right wing is 4.3 inches (measured to where both wings are assumed to reach the very center line of the plane). Big problem there.

The horizontal distance of all 38 columns is 6.3 inches on the same screen. I don't see why this shouldn't be a fairly accurate way of measuring the reality. As the columns are one meter (39.4 inches) apart at their centers, the horizontal tip-to-tip distance is 124.6 feet. Dividing the latter by 6.3 inches amounts to 19.8 feet per inch on my screen, and so where the tip-to-tip distance (in a straight line) is 7.65 inches, it works out to (19.8 x 7.65 =) 151 feet from tip to tip. One could add as many as three more feet to this figure because the left wing tip seemingly passes the 38th column (i.e. the workers may have been measuring to the 39th.) Therefore, the fakers attempted to make the wing span 156 feet, the span of a 767.

If a military plane made the holes in the walls, then one may argue that a 767 was converted to a military plane. However, the problem / unlikeliness of wing entry through the all columns still stands.

Again, if the engine was planted on the street, and the landing gear really was not on the roof, then the video showing the two pieces falling from the building suggests that this video was faked. If that was faked, why not fake the plane coming in? If that was faked, why have a military plane at all as the thing that made the hole? Why not rather believe that the witnesses were faked too?

On the grid, I've measured 4.5 inches as the vertical-height difference between the left and right wing tips (south tower). That's (19.8 x 4.5 =) 89 feet of vertical height = about nine storeys. Therefore, where we see the plane cutting across eight concrete floors, it's correct. Just stare at that plane and ask whether the wings of any plane, even a military plane, could crunch through eight floors as well as slicing through 38 steel columns, while the wings come out unscathed to the very end of entry. Only a deceiver or one with a severely-retarded understanding of physics would say, yes. (Note how nearly straight the two wing lines are on the plane in the bollyn picture.)

A office floor span of 160 to 175 feet is not very large. It doesn't require a stretch of the imagination to imagine a few welders and explosives people working secretly behind locked doors in small areas. Welding torches are relatively quiet, not likely to be heard from peoples in floors below and above. Applying explosives materials is quiet. Put it this way, that if truthers are convinced of explosives placed on all/most columns over multiple floors, it's far easier to make the hole that feigns the entry of a plane because there is less space required to keep out of view from the "wrong" people. Granted, for the south-tower trick, multiple floors were used, perhaps due to the difficulty of getting access (of evicting the tenants?) on only two or three floors at the time.

Although the columns are very strong, as much as possibly 3/4-inch thick, they can be bent inward easily from people working on the inside. Yes, it's true. Step one: torch-cut a short section of column and remove it. Step two: decide where the remaining column should be bent, and, with the torch, cut three and a half, or more, of the four sides, leaving just one part uncut that will be bend on the easy, flat direction. A pulley and chain could do the bending quietly, and of course the metal to be bent could first be heated soft. Media photos from the outside, after the disaster, would not be able to see that the columns had been cut on their inner sides.

It was do-able to cut some sections completely out, and lay them helter-skelter on the floor, and just allow whatever happens when the explosives are set off. Such a scheme required that the building fall to hide the evidence of such workers.

Unfortunately, the north-tower-hole picture is from low down and doesn't fully show the column detail on the far left of the left wing. One can't see how many columns are cut right through versus not. But a measurement can now be made from tip-to-tip. On my computer screen, when the tip-to-tip distance is 12 inches exactly, the horizontal distance between the 43 columns is 11 inches. We first divide 12 by 11 = 1.09. We then multiply 43 by 39.4" and divide by 12 to get 141 feet. We then multiply the latter by 1.09 to get 154 feet, virtually the wing span of the 767! This is excellent, for, rather than proving that plane's hit both buildings, it shows that the frauds measured for it. They didn't take into account any wing bending at all. Stupids!

The exact dimensions, arrangement, and number of the core columns remained somewhat mysterious until the publication of a leaked collection of detailed architectural drawings of the North Tower in 2007...

...For the dimensions, see FEMA report, "World Trade Center Building Performance Study," undated. In addition, the outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14-inch-wide steel columns; the centers of the steel columns were 40 inches apart.

Likely, 40 inches here, and the 39 used by John Lear, refers to one meter rounded off. As this was a WORLD Trade building, it can explain why meter measurements were used rather than in yards or feet.

The page above has a link to three photographs during the building of the Trade towers, one of which is below. One can see that the columns were manufactured in triplets, each triplet with floor flanges pre-attached. There are those seeking to make it more credible that the plane got through the columns by appealing to the idea that the columns were burst apart at their joints, their weakest links. Not so. No wing could penetrate anywhere while simply separating the columns at their joints, for the joints to each triplet are staggered in height, as you can see. Joints can be seen midway between floors, but only once in every three triplets. It's a pattern repeated on each floor. The wings would have needed to slice clean through, therefore, no argument about it. I'm assuming that the floor flanges are about ten feet apart, nine in the least.

Now that you see the columns in place, how easy would it be to cut them with a cutting torch after the wallboard is removed from the inside?

Quick-Draw McGraw, and the Smoking Gun

We met Tony and his oak tree in the last update when a certain blogger shared concerning the south tower, saying to Tony: " can see where certain parts of the wings failed to make it cleanly through and only damaged the outer cladding." Actually, no I can't see it. And, actually, Quick-Draw McGraw, by his hasty comment, is wrong, because everyone saw the plane enter the building, wing tip to wing tip.

If the wings didn't make it clean through the columns, the how did the plane get into the building? What's Quick-Draw drawing in our minds here?

Tony needs to learn something, that we can't just take tree trunks and start throwing them at conspiracy nuts whom have done their homework. Tony and his pal need to answer why the very ends of the wings made contact with the outer face of the building while not cutting fully through some of the columns. If, for argument's sake, seven columns (seven meters = 23 feet) in from the far left resisted the wings, how could the very wing tips strike the outer face of the building? In the way Quick-Draw views things, that's impossible. For, if the wing no longer penetrated at this seventh column, the wing would be forced to bend back order to enter the building to the right of the seventh column. What is there not to understand?

Did Quick-Draw see the wing tips bend back when he watched the plane go through? No, he did not. Therefore, how did the plane get through if the wings didn't slice every column? And that's why I call him Quick-Draw, because he's too hasty to a false argument for the sake of making the conspiracy nuts look, nuts.

What happens to the wing tip when the wing bends back? The tip doesn't go toward the building, that's for sure. You can bet all your acorns on that, Tony. So how did the wing tips strike the outer cladding at the very tips, Quick-Draw, if the wings stopped penetrating several columns prior to that point? He's got no answer, that's for sure.

When the part of the wing that no longer penetrates (i.e. 23 feet from the tip) is initially undergoing contact with the column, the tip is still several feet from the building. Let's be sure about that, for the wing doesn't stick straight out at 90 degrees from the fuselage. The tip will never make contact with the building therefore, because wing-bending becomes the necessary law of physics the moment that the wing stops penetrating. There is no five-foot oak tree that can save Tony here. Leave the old thing in the ground, and do another kind of mental experiment, like reading up on true physics, for starters.

In expressing thoughts on a photo of a tower-crash site, one writes: "Here's one for the conspiracy nutters who claim the building was bombed and that there were never any planes. Clue: bombs don't make plane-shaped holes." Wowie, there you go, the typical Quick-Draw-McGraw mentality, can't wait to show his mental superiority over the nuts. It doesn't occur to them that the nuts have reasons for their accusations even though we see the plane-shaped holes. It's not as though we didn't figure that part out all on our lonesome.

In the north-tower hole, count about nine columns in from the left to see a string of five columns to the right of the ninth. Keep in mind that, in this mental experiment, the wing has been virtually indestructible to this point. It's been like a knife, but, suddenly, it can't get through another column. If the wings didn't bend earlier, when the kinetic energy of the plane was greater, how will the wings bend now that the kinetic energy is less?

So what happens to a moving plane when it can neither penetrate columns nor bend its wings? It's not going to enter the building, that's for sure. Mr. McGraw wants his cake and eat it too. He wants the wings to be indestructible, unbending, until it's time to slip in past the column that won't break. How convenient. But there is no other way to make fun of us if they can't have their cake and eat it too. They get to win no matter what. It's all about winning for them. It's all about celebration and making merry over the nut-crackers.

I'll tell you what Mr. McGraw will say now. He'll say that the wing only starts off virtually indestructible, but then starts to bend more and more toward the tips when, finally, the bending becomes so severe that penetration through columns is no longer possible. After that, Mr. McGraw will say, the plane slips through, past the column that can't be broken in half, and into the building, because the wing can then finally bend a lot.

Which is what nuts like me have been saying all along! Only I see the wing bending drastically a lot sooner than near to the wing tip. That means the hole in the building should be far less than 156-ish feet long.

Next question: how can Mr. McGraw explain that the contacted area in the north tower is 156 feet long, very near, anyway? For this one, Tony pipes up, and maintains that the wing can make a full "wingprint" if the plane is turning sharp when reaching the building, like the plane into the south tower was. In other words, the wing struck parallel with the face of the building, and created a full wingprint...before slicing through the many columns.

But even Mr. McGraw is clamoring, "Tony, don't be stupid." The wing can't hit all the columns at once, or it wouldn't even slice one column. "It's got to be one at a time, Tony."

The question now is, when will the wing begin to bend rather than penetrating a column? I can tell you this: we need the answer from an experienced engineer, not from Tony and his oak tree. And not from anyone who laughs, mocks and ridicules those of us who are asking these important questions.

Lets go back to the hole in the north tower, and count six columns in from the left, as well as the seventh. Both of them are bent slightly inward, noticeable to the eye. One can see they are not perfectly vertical. The only way to explain this is to assume that the columns are cut through completely. What would this suggest, in that the wing, this far out from the plane, was able to cut through these columns rather than yanking them apart at the joints? Are you going to believe the Quick-Draws of the world, or the power of leverage? It's not a far jump from too-quick to speak, to quack. Leverage is mighty.

The wing is a lever with the fulcrum where it connects to the wing box at the center of the plane. For every doubling of distance from the wing box, the leverage force applied to the wing box is either four or eight times as much, I can't recall which...and Wikipedia's article on either levers or torque is not kind enough to say straight-forwardly (it omits the first thing one expects to learn about lever and torque force).

Before you take your gun out to shoot me, note that the wing line is straight across the floor at an easy-working height for the poor slobs that will pay for this in Hell. Look at how many columns are split somewhere between knee and shoulder high, right across the floor. I've just counted 20. Either the plane got really lucky and came in with it's wing at the height of a man's belly straight across, or the crew got lazy and made fast work of this one.

Look at how the very far left, single piece of cladding is partially off but hanging in there. They placed explosives behind it, but not enough. Isn't that clear? We know a wing didn't hit it. We know a missile didn't hit it. What caused that piece of cladding to come off as much as you see it? I'm sure there wasn't a guy with a crow bar back there at the time of the explosion. Okay, so I'm right, they put explosives back there, and much of the facing fell to the ground.

Quick-Draw pipes up: why didn't we see this material falling to the ground when the plane entered? If you're so smart, John, how do you explain that?

Not so fast, for here we see the debris falling outward from the hole a second after plane entry. Look at all that debris falling out. This is a very unique picture. So here's what happened: the fireball was (seen) on the east side to begin with, and on the north side too, but, simultaneously, the explosives in the south wall went off to form the hole that feigned a plane entry. Those rectangular pieces we see up there in the air should be none other than the white cladding. But if the plane had entered here (it didn't), that cladding would be smashed to fragments (i.e. no longer rectangular), and would be scattered inside the building. If one takes the position that the fuel explosion then sent the fragments back outside, then the fragments shouldn't appear rectangular. Am I correct? Absolutely.

Go ahead and enlarge the picture. I count well over a dozen pieces of about the same size, of the same rectangular shape. Others appear smaller, but none larger. It's possible or even likely that the slabs have wire mesh inside to keep them from splitting easily upon the explosive force. There is nothing in the air that resembles a clumped-up fuselage, or pieces of fuselage, or pieces of spars, or anything that can be identified with certainty as plane parts.

The video of the plane entry showed not one slab falling off during entry. Only a criminal idiot could try to pass that off as reality. I truly am not trying to be insulting. Seriously, a plane entering a building at 400 mph or better would knock off a tremendous amount of cladding, but the idiots were over-worked by the headaches of producing this fantasy, and so didn't bother showing any of it falling off.

In many places, the columns are still as straight as the day they were made, even smack-dab beside the sliced-through parts. Don't you think a wing plowing through would first bend the columns back before being able to slide a socketed end off of its pin-end counterpart?

In all cases, the trade-center columns had a pin-end (I don't know what they're called in the industry) and a socket end. The pin end of one column telescopes snug into a socket end of another, and the ends were locked in place with a pin (and I've seen one welder welding their seams). The columns at these joints cannot be disconnected unless there is a sliding motion, or some very drastic ripping of the sockets. An aircraft wing slamming hard into the columns is not going to cause any column to rise straight up and off its partner column. The only way for a crashing wing to slide the columns apart is to first attempt a drastic bend, but bending is restrained by the fact that there are no free ends to the columns. It's a very tight situation. My guess, and it's only a guess, is that any assault upon these columns sufficient to separate them will do so as a shearing at the contact point rather than compromising the joints.

I do see a couple of columns, on the right side of the north-tower hole, where they took the time to bend them back further than 45 degrees. But it looks like they just gave up doing it to the rest. It figures. The no-goods wanted the rewards of their hoax, but not the work involved to achieve it properly.

Bloggers all over the Internet having the Quick-Draw mentality:

You write: "planes shouldn't slide into a steel wall without exploding on contact"

Why do you think a plane should "explode on contact"? Please answer this question with reference to the materials that comprise the WTC's walls (aluminum, steel, glass) and those that comprise the plane (aluminum, instrumentation, seats, people). I don't see why an aluminum plane should explode on contacting an aluminum/steel/glass facade. Should the explosion not wait until the fuel is spilled and ignites?

The fellow seems either to be ignorant or ignorant. The idea seems to be that, since aluminum and glass rubbed against steel doesn't create a spark, therefore these conspiratorial nuts are way off to suggest that the plane should ignite upon first passage through the building's wall. What's there not to understand that the walls themselves are steel upon steel upon steel, that, when mangled, are bound to form some sparks?

And by the way, I'm not sure that Aluminum alloys do not cause sparks when contacted roughly with steel.

Oh, yeah, duh, maybe I'm crackers, but I have this idea in my head that a fuel tank should rupture upon passing through a Trade Tower wall, but, uh, what do I know? In street language, it's called, kaboom.

Simon Shack is on a Crusade

I don't mind truthers rejecting the no-planes theory if they haven't got enough knowledge about it to make an informed decision. But what I don't like is ridicule against people who have done their homework and come to believe in a no-planes scenario. Here's Henry Makow expressing some opposition to Alex Jones flying off the handle:
"However, the film [September Clues (2008)] has received short shrift from the big names in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Alex Jones says the proponents of the 'no plane' theory are disinfo agents designed to make Truthers look clownish. He describes their followers as 'weak-minded' and 'mentally ill'. Dylan Avery (co-creator of 'Loose Change') refuses to allow anyone to discuss the film on the Loose Change forums"

For all their bluster, they do not refute the evidence in the film. Instead, they use smear tactics and relay dubious personal anecdotes (AJ claims friends from his college days were in NY on 9/11, and witnessed passenger planes). I have searched long and hard for a convincing debunking of the film, but I have yet to find one.

September Clues is essential viewing. The fact the passenger planes were Photoshopped reveals that 9/11 was to a large extent a purely televisual event, a mimicry of the disaster movies we are fed.

I can't view it, but you can. Simon Shack, the man behind the video, has the belief that the fakery was much more massive than most truthers hold to. Even the downing of the Trade towers was faked, Hollywood style, though they say that the buildings did in fact come down in a way that only the locals saw it. I haven't seen his evidence for this particular point, but I'm open to anything in this regard.

The logical idea of the following writer is that psychology played a big part in selling this hoax to the world:

...The first strike happens, and because the object is small and fast and unexpected, no-one is too sure what it is, or whether they saw it correctly. A few witness reports go to air reporting missiles or small planes or no craft at all, but there is only an 18 minute window for this to occur before the whole world sees a big jet live on TV - using commercially available real time animation technology. This distracts the media from interviewing many witnesses to the second strike, because everyone is fixated on the video replay. Those few witnesses who might get a moment with the media, then lack confidence in what they saw, because once again, the object was small, fast and unexpected. Seeing the TV replay - which was instantly available - would make most people think that they just didn't see it properly. The few who remain unshakable in their belief that it was not a large plane are easily shouted down and drowned out by the endless replays. In addition the airlines release a statement saying that they've lost two big jets and any witness dissent is *instantly* - the moment the second strike happens - marginalized almost to the point of oblivion.

This is not speculation. Read through the transcripts of broadcasts as they unfolded between about 8.47 and 9.30 and you will see that this is *exactly* what happened. From the moment the second strike occurred, anyone who tried to say that it was not a large jet immediately had a TV replay shoved in their face.

...In that brief period between the two strikes, there was only one witness who said a large jet - and that just happened to be the vice prez of CNN, which of course is a major player in the scam - just as pivotal as the govt.

You now understand that because there is no engine damage in the north tower, the vice-president of CNN did not see the plane hit the tower. And so, you see, CNN, from the top down to some other key stooges, was involved without doubt. Simon Shack has the simple idea that they all knew, all participated, and so why not fake it most-completely? Why put limits on how far they went in faking it? Simon gives the impression that this was ho-hum routine by the networks; there was no regard for the wickedness involved in deceiving the public. They are much higher beings than the public, and they partake in deception routinely. That is not an illogical accusation by Mr. Shack, and it's basically what most truthers have been saying, anyway. Alex Jones claims the same.

You need to accept this. You really do. It's diabolical. You don't need to agree with everything I say or Simon or anyone else; you just need to know that the large news organizations are constantly lying and creating a world impression that is untrue in order to get us to behave a certain way...which is why I won't behave that way. I use the term, "faggot," to show my rebellion. It's my term for showing animosity toward political correctness and all that sham. More people should use terms that show such rebellion. The less we speak out, the more it seems that the whole Western world has converted to the "correct" flow. I personally find faggots disgusting. I hate what they do, and moreover it's destructive. Should I be afraid of saying it because it offends those who want the "correct" flow? Where are these people going? Do they know?

For a primer in what Mr. Shack thinks, see the following. He doesn't sound like he's much of a Christian, and so do realize that even he is susceptible to demonic deception. Yes, we all are. But the group does it have it right in the no-planes position. My understanding is that Shack is somewhat of an expert in the field of video / photography:

In the image on the page above, where you see the plane repeatedly flying toward the obscured south tower, note the horizontal line of the plane, for it is only slightly above the "NEWS COVERAGE" caption. On another page (I'll share that with you below), the Shack crew shows that the nose of the plane comes out the other side of the building in both an aired CNN and ABC presentation. In other words, what the world saw on TV was merely a picture of an ordinary plane superimposed as a paste job to the Trade-tower scene. It's not even remarkable, and certainly not miraculous.

At the page below, two identical photos (though tweaked to change hue) by a Tina Cart and Robert Clark, supposedly handed in separately to authorities, and supposedly from two different cameras, exposes the fraud. The page also shows a Wolfgang Staehle claiming to capture the explosion of the north-tower crash, and yet the crash is not located properly upon the building. The goofs are so glaring that, sometimes, I wonder whether they were not deliberate in order to divide the world, and then come in and conquer. Perhaps they got nasty in blogging sites in order to pit citizen against citizen for to divide and conquer. A divided society has far less power in forming a movement against a corrupt state.

In the page below is a claim that four major media were all in cahoots with that morning's broadcast. "Wait a second, I know what your thinking. Did he just say that supposedly competing networks were using the SAME footage feed! And none of their own footage? Yes Exactly that. Here is where ALL 4 Networks show the EXACT SAME FEED. And the EXACT Place in time."

I don't know whether it's correct to say that, because four news organizations were showing the same picture at the same time that, therefore, they were all partners in crime in that particular regard. We know for a fact that news people share their news with one another (for a price), and so why not also share / sell their live feeds? However, I am not an expert at all on how media share their live feeds, and Simon should be one who knows much better. Therefore, I am not necessarily denying the claim at the page above, but would like evidence that sharing live feeds, in this case, was evidence of shared conspiracy.

The cluesforum page above has a very-important story of some 43 minutes gone missing in the ABC news archives on the evening of 9-11. This portion of the news was being hidden by ABC, until people began asking about it, yet it was hidden for nearly ten years. When it did come back up for public availability, in 2011, it turned out to include / concern a video by Evan Fairbanks, "the first 'amateur video' with a 'plane slamming into the tower ever broadcast, the 'Zapruder film of our time' according to The New York Times that even was exhibited in the New York Historical Society:..."

The released portion of the archives included Fairbanks himself speaking: "He's talking about the 'plane' ('It disappeared, it just disappeared [like a bad special effect]...' ) and, all of sudden, a recap video of the 9/11 highlights interrupts his discourse. Live, in a historical moment, a pre-recorded video cuts an exclusive interview without adding any important information. Bizarre, at least." The writer means to say far more than "bizarre." ABC didn't want us to hear what Fairbanks was saying, and it was the part after the "disappeared" that was especially damaging to the cause. (Apparently, Fairbanks meant that the plane disappeared into the building.)

About midway down the cluesforum page, not far below the phrase "nose-out," the CNN coverage of the plane crashing into the south tower (not visible) is shown with the plane emerging out the other side, though mainly hidden by the CNN caption. See that. It's important. One can barely see a dark thing over the "G" of "BREAKING." It means that the idiots weren't good enough -- they were downright sloppy -- to erase the plane after impact. CNN actually aired this thing with the plane coming out the other side, and simply covered over it with the caption. If you are not fully convinced of this from watching the CNN version, the ABC crew did far worse, showing the entire nose.

The CNN caption appears for only for a second or two just before the plane makes impact, and, after that short time, the caption disappears. It was added purely to hide the plane coming past the other side of the tower (not at all meaning that the plane was necessarily truly there). The question is begging to be asked why the south tower happens to be completely obscured by the north tower when this show takes place?

[At first, I didn't know why some truthers claim that the nose is coming out from inside the building, as that is not necessarily indicated by what I'm seeing. The plane could be passing by the building on the far side. But a couple of weeks after this update, I came across the video at the page below showing the plane's nose coming out what looks like the opposite side of the building. This is the production of the insiders, however, after they temporarily decided to go with the idea of a plane exiting the other side. See 5th update of this month for more on this.]]

The ABC view of the "nose-out", as well as from one Fox cast, is further down the cluesforum page. Later, ABC simply stopped showing that version, and, whatever they claimed the mystery object to be, it simply vanished. Is that what you would call "professionalism"? If it wasn't the plane, why did ABC remove it?

The page adds: "Also, by coincidence, I was trawling through some of my old archives and re-watched the BBC coverage, which also had its banner obscuring the plane! Of course, this could have been acceptable had they then removed the banner for the replays, but they didn't did they?" BBC nailed again. Jail time, humiliation, and license-revocation deserved. But we would like to know who in the great pyramid of things was the higher-up from these media stooges.

I don't know a more-apt term than "stooge," an idiot who follows along to his own demise, and meanwhile screws things up for the chiefs. The root of breakdown for the dark side is their choice of dark souls to work with. A house filled with defiled souls cannot stand. It's got a revolving door that never stops spinning with new dark souls coming in while the disgruntled are going out.

The difficult part is: "Remember, a few TV anchors (like Dan Rather and Jim Ryan) promptly uttered comments to the tune of 'the plane appeared to go right through the building - emerging on the other side!'." I'd like to see those quotes, but if they did say anything like that, do we then suggest that they were not privy to the hoax? If that's true, the news chiefs wouldn't allow them to see the plane coming out the other side. My solution is: these anchors were indeed privy to the plot, but they were speaking to the fact that ABC and others made the mistake of not getting their captions up high enough. The anchors were starting to draw the excuse (for public swallowing) that the plane had slid completely through the building, talking off the tops of their heads without first thinking or realizing how ridiculous that scenario would be while maintaining the original shape of the nose cone. TV anchors need be only attractive, soft-spoken, pliable stooges, not necessarily highly intelligent.

"...BOTH the TV feeds featuring the NOSE OUT (FOX and ABC) briefly blacked out (or FADED TO BLACK - for respectively 15 frames{FOX} and 8 frames{ABC}) - just as 'FLIGHT175 impacted' " The page shows that the Fox view was from an extremely-different angle, where both towers appear in the picture. Here is Fox's nose-out:

The north tower is considerably closer to the camera than the south tower so that the plane appears to be shorter than the side of that tower. In fact, the plane looks roughly its 159-foot length when compared in length with the right-side wall of the north tower. However, this is very wrong, for if the north tower were not in the way, the plane would measure much more than 159 feet when comparing its length to a wall of the south tower...especially as the plane is further away than the south tower when we take the plane's measurement.

Load the page below to see what I mean. The fact that the right-side wall of the north tower is at an angle to the camera means that it's not as simple as measuring the plane with a ruler, and then comparing the measurement with the width of the wall...UNLESS the plane is at the same angle as the wall. And it is!

The right-hand wall of the north tower is its west wall, and both towers stand in the same position i.e. facing the same directions exactly. The plane is supposedly at roughly the same angle with both west walls because it's about to crash into a south wall. Therefore, let's go ahead and do the simple math. When my plane is 3.45 inches long on my computer screen, the north-tower wall is 4.25 inches. Dividing the tower's width of 208 feet by 4.25 gives 104 feet per inch, meaning that the plane measures (104 x 3.45 =) 169 feet. THIS IS VERY WRONG.

The plane is already measuring about as long as a 767 is supposed to be. How much longer would it measure if it were as close to the camera as the north tower? The idiots just got lazy and sloppy yet again. Doing every tedious bit of the hoax ALL PERFECTLY just wasn't their calling in life, was it?

And for their further troubles, the conspiracy theorists continue to this day to plague them, and to blacken their reputations, and to threaten them with jail time, and in the meantime some of them are being threatened or even killed by their own partners in crime, every one of them worried that someone else might rat on them. Poor slobs. Hell still awaits them. Please don't think that when Jesus said to love our enemies it means going as far as loving such demons in human clothing as these.

Congratulations if, by reading my material, you have become a conspiracy nut. Welcome to the ever-growing movement that has wizened up to the demons ruling over us.

The Witnesses

Now, let's look at some varied eye-witness accounts to see how they differ and even how they show as lies at times. Most of us are not in the game of recruiting false witnesses, but this is no doubt a learned science for some. The CIA would know quite a bit about it. Some witnesses were secured before 9-11, and even more witnesses were needed afterward, judging by the number of goofs that were made.

Then we saw it just go right into the building and explode. I remember talking to Eric. I remember Eric saying something, "Oh, my God, there's another plane." I was saying to him, "That plane is closer to us. It's really not a big plane going towards the building." Two seconds later it rammed into the building."

Firefighter James Murphy.

What do you think Mr. Firefighter means by, "it's really not a big plane"? Why would he blurt out to his buddy the size of the plane going toward the building? Was that important at the time, or was it part of his instructions to say that the plane was small? Others said the same:

"I saw it [north-tower plane] come up from the left, and I saw the plane coming through to the building, go inside, a small plane, no, no, it was plane, you know, like they teach the people to pilot plane, small plane, you know, it was that kind of plane, yes, going into the building, and I never saw that plane before. It's like something, I don't know, it's like they work with the motors, I never saw a plane like that before!"

It's such a strange testimony of what sounds like a private-owner craft. He swears it went into the building. And then there is this from a CNN-interview:

"And we went to a high point in our building, which is on the 25th floor, and you had a clear view of the both World Trade Centers and the one that was smoking hard, and there was another plane that was flying low, and we just looked at it, and before we know it, it was just kamikaze, boom, right into the other tower... but it didn't seem like a big passenger jet. It was smaller type plane, because it made some pretty radical turn, and flying low..."

CBS got a smaller plane yet:

"...there's another one, another plane just hit. Another plane has just hit, it hit another building, flew right into the middle of it. Explosion, it's right in the middle of the building... yes that was definitely looked like it was on purpose. I just saw a plane go in to the building... it didn't look like it didn't look like it was a commercial a was a smaller plane. It was definitely a smaller plane..."

CNN again:

"...about five minutes ago, as I was watching the smoke, a small plane -- I did -- it looked like a propeller plane, came in from the west. And about 20 or 25 stories below the top of the centre, disappeared for a second, and then explode behind a water tower, so I couldn't tell whether it hit the building or not. But it was very visible, that a plane had come in at a low altitude and appeared to crash into the World Trade Centre.."

All testimonies above were on the 11th. Except perhaps for the fireman's testimony, it's hard to believe that these particular witnesses (and others giving similar small-plane stories) were prepped beforehand to testify on behalf of the perpetrators. The first witness even had a small plane before any plane hit either tower. One solution is that the perpetrators had one or two small planes up there hoping to get a few testimonies where the witnesses didn't mention the size of the plane. If you read the words above without "small" and "propeller" thrown in, it would sound 911-credible. The idea would be to snag any witness willing to believe that the plane they saw caused one of the tower explosions. They may not have seen the small plane(s) strike the tower, and yet they may have been coaxed into saying / believing it...due to the mighty effect on their minds of the explosion(s).

Here's another witness on the 11th: "...there was definitely a blue logo, it was like a circular logo on the front of the definitely did not look like a commercial plane, I didn't see any windows on the sides and definitely was very low... it was not a normal flight that I've ever seen at an airport..." Again, unless the perpetrators wished to deliberately confuse the world, this doesn't seem like a pre-planned witness.

Question: aside from the fireman, perhaps, why didn't any of the witnesses above see a passenger plane? Did the small-plane plan backfire on the perpetrators when non-insider media people interviewed for witnesses, getting the testimonies above that don't do much good for the official storyline?

Ten days into the disaster, a witness and his loud plane:
"Then all of a sudden I saw another plane, it was so loud and so low and so wrong. I knew before it even hit in the fraction of a second that something was terribly wrong and that my world would never be the same." Boy, "my world would never be the same" sure sounds scripted. Then, six months after the disaster, a fake with a new message: "Then I heard this terrible roar, just over my right shoulder. The plane was so close I could read the BOEING 767 painted under the cockpit window. Then all of a sudden, the pilot cut the engines. That's what no one talks about. He just glided in for the last couple hundred yards. There was this weird, horrible silence right before that plane hit."

The web owner makes a comment that seems adequately to reveal the latter was a fake witness: "Examination of United Airlines Boeing 767-200 photographs show that there is no "BOEING 767" marking under the cockpit windows. The closest text is "WORLDWIDE SERVICE" and is located behind and below the cockpit windows." I don't think any airliner puts the manufacturer's name on the side. Can we ask why it may have been necessary to convince people that the plane came in quietly at the last few seconds? There's no telling what was going in the camps of the perpetrators as they did damage-control meetings. I'm sure that they would have juggled things.

There was even a sonic boom that I've never read about until now: "I turned right to hear their response; just then I heard a sonic boom. I turned back and saw the second tower engulfed in flames. By then a group of 10-12 people had gathered to watch this. Two people said they saw another plane go into the South Tower..." Last I heard, passenger jets can't make sonic booms.

The problem is, with what may be four or more planes up there to this point, one perhaps a military cargo plane, it's amazing that I'm not reading anyone who claims to have seen more than one plane. How could that be? Here's yet another conflicting report to the one who said they saw a black/dark plane:

"The building material was sort of gray and you could see it, you know, how it differed from the plane. I was listening to the tape this morning of the people calling up and they were describing the plane that hit the building. Actually, so many people saw it. They actually described the plane as it came in. They said it was a military-type plane and it was green and it was this. I mean, I never saw the color of the plane."

But wait, the one below saw a passenger jet:

"...this is a U.S. airliner, it was a plane, commercial plane coming towards us. I said "it's going to hit my building, it's going to hit my building!" All of a sudden it made a left hand turn then a right and then hit. All of a sudden the whole downtown area just shook, it just literally, I though it was an earthquake..."

The page ends with: "None of these witnesses report seeing a United Airlines 767-200 collide with the WTC2 tower but they all appear to have seen some sort of aircraft fly directly into WTC2." See also this page:

I have a theory as to what may have been done: it's deliberate confusion. If the perpetrators had forged a dozen witnesses to come out on day one to say the very same thing, such as, "I saw a 767 passenger jet circle over the waters and then come in from the south, smacking into and the tower at full throttle, and then disappearing into the building," then all bloggers would be debating only one thing, whether or not it was true or false. The good guys would of course win that debate hands down, and all witnesses would be deemed fakes from the same room.

On the other hand, if witnesses were provided with drastically conflicting reports, then, for one thing, people discussing the matter would tend to throw hands up in futility and just go on with their lives. The criminals would like that. The discussions could go nowhere fruitfully for either side. And that's exactly the case. In the meantime, "everyone" saw a plane of some sort, and it did enter the building, "obviously," the very opposite from the reality. The last thing the idiots wants for us to realize is that there was no plane striking the building, for we would then see how the holes in the building were created, and that's the end of the line for them.

Why is it the end of the line? Because the creation of the holes could then be pinned on the owner of the building rather on some foreign element. That's the thing that needed to be hidden at all costs, the fact the Mr. Silverstein was involved by necessity of there being no planes involved in the creation of the holes. So long as there is confusion over the type of craft that made the holes, Mr. Silverstein is fairly-well protected.

So, with everyone arguing about the type of plane / missile used, no body noticed that the engine damage for the left-side engine, at the north tower hole, is missing.

Did you notice that no one came forth with a photo / video of the propeller plane, or of a small plane of any other sort, or of a military plane, or a green one, or whatever? All there is are several shots of the one plane that went into the south tower (the one into the north tower can be ignored), and, so far as I've seen, no one caught on camera a passenger plane turning around over the waters before it dive-bombed into that tower. With all those witnesses of various planes, and many telling of the U-turn, you'd think someone would have snapped at least one picture to corroborate their claims. But in all of these pictures below of that final few seconds, there's no plane up in the skies except for the one that was pasted into each scene:

I figure that anyone claiming to have been there that day, and claiming that there was no plane, is NOT part of the idiot-club confusion. Then there are the middle-of-the-road testimonies where a plane was not seen and was yet heard. Here's one report from photographer, David Handschuh, that you'll find online:

"I was underneath it, I was looking at the tower, I had my camera in my hand, I heard the noise, I never saw the airplane."...

"...Then out of nowhere came this noise. This loud, high-pitched roar that seemed to come from all over, but from nowhere in particular. AND THE SECOND TOWER JUST EXPLODED....I DIDN'T SEE THE PLANE HIT, ALTHOUGH I WAS LOOKING AT THE TOWER AT THE TIME. I have no recollection of pushing the button, hitting the shutter, making the picture that appeared on Page 2 of the [New York] Daily News the next day, a picture that was taken milliseconds after the second plane hit that tower..."

Below is the photo that David says he didn't recall taking, but it appeared in the news under his name, anyway. I don't know much about his story, why he claims that he doesn't recall taking the picture. Perhaps he feigned passing out in order to explain why he didn't photograph the plane debris expected at his feet.

David then went on to claim a plane strike even though he didn't see the plane: "Never, never did I anticipate another plane coming in...I heard it come in, but I didn't actually see it...out on the streets it was bad, as we were ducking for cover as large chunks of building and airplane came flying down and...then people started dropping from the buildings." One could argue that, in the same way that he assumed a plane, he would have assumed that the debris included plane parts.

It's difficult to view David as an insider, for, if he was, we would expect him to say that he saw the plane. On the other hand, he becomes a more-credible witness just because he says he didn't see the plane, and that makes his "high-pitch roar" claim stand out more like the truth, which, ultimately, plays well for the perpetrators unless it can be argued that the 767 didn't make that noise. I'd like to know more of David's story.

In the page above of the many plane photos, did you notice that virtually none shows a clear image of the plane. We can never tell what airline it's from, nor even the colors of the striping. Why do you think that is? Did all of the people taking pictures always use a lousy camera? That can't be right. In fact, the more pictures they come out with that fail to show some color or gloss, the more it looks bad. In some cases, the plane looks pitch black. What?

They couldn't even get their smoke right; look in the webpage above for the image with very-grey smoke as compared to the ones with pitch-black smoke. Different camera's do not make that much distinction on clear days. The one with grey smoke has the plane coming into the second tower as a small dot barely visible, wherefore one cannot argue that the time differences are the cause for the drastically-different colors. The see this one -- same time same place -- with white smoke.

Simon Shacks a photography buff with a tendency to have "fun" (he likes that word) when exposing the 9-11 demons. I came across a photo comparison that he made that I thought you should see, as this is a fine example of photo fakery by their media-image handlers. Compare these two images and you will see that an entire heap of rubble has been moved unchanged from one spot to another:

It's impossible to move that heap without changing the position of any of it's parts, wherefore they moved it by computer mouse rather than by an on-site crane. In that case, the heap may never have been on-site at all. The entire images may have been faked, for all we know, including the men. I mean, ask yourself why it was even necessary to move that heap from one place to another? Was the true rubbish at the true site somehow "wrong" for us to see?

Here is one of many video's (that I haven't seen) that Mr. Shack has produced.


On this page, you will find evidence enough that NASA did not put men on the moon.
Starting at this paragraph, there is a single piece of evidence
-- the almost-invisible dot that no one on the outside was supposed to find --
that is enough in itself to prove the hoax.
End-times false signs and wonders may have to do with staged productions like the lunar landing.

The rest of the Gog-in-Iraq story is in PART 2 of the
Table of Contents

web site analytic