Tuesday, August 30, 2011

The truth is the greatest enemy of the State


click for comic text


The 10th anniversary of 9/11 is turning out to be both absurd and surreal.


Propaganda for profit is even targeting the little kids with a coloring book so full of crap that it would make Fox News blush.

According to the NY Times, the White House has issued detailed guidelines/talking points to government officials on how to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks but with slightly different versions for domestic or foreign consumption.Very Orwellian.

This 9/11, Obama and wife will tour all three false flag sites, say a few empty words and return to the Washington National Cathedral.for a fake and deceptive interfaith prayer and concert service. The only 'faith' involved will be the worship of money and power and lies. 

The NFL confirms that they are buying their way into further favor with the scam by donating a million bucks to the three 'memorials' and a couple of charities with dubious intentions. T-shirts only $20.00.

The key word for 9/11 'remembrance'  seems to officially have become 'service.' This is led by a federal agency called The Corporation for National and Community Service. Since when is a federal agency a corporation?

Perhaps the worst of the worst is the Dick Cheney tour promoting his new book and capitalizing on the lead up to the anniversary. I've about given up hope that the sick bastard will pay for his murderous treason of 9/11, the war crimes and the profiteering so I'll just hope for his demise to come quickly and not drag out the anticipation as Henry Kissinger has.



I don't really think the average joe and jill who takes at face value the official 9/11 story really cares much about the anniversary. Is anyone on the street talking about it? Very few. It's all a media and government psyops anyway. Just like the original event.

If anyone was to care and ask questions just say "No, we don't yet know exactly the hows of 9/11 but when it comes to the whos, we have a pretty good idea. Israel and the Mossad had the motives and much of the means but had big help from some in the CIA, the FBI, the Pentagon, the Bush administration and New York officials. The 9/11 commission, NIST and media cover ups were the icing on the cake."



It sometimes helps to add that ...

"Every picture tells a story."

and ...

"Looks like a building being blown up to me."
























Most folks tend to be at least curious after watching this compilation of the collapse of building 7.


Joseph Goebbels knew his stuff ... He probably never imagined the extent to which his words and techniques would be expanded on and utilized.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

68 comments:

  1. It's a 9/11 'Truth Smackdown,' pitting those seeking to cut thru the army of lies surrounding the FALSE FLAG/INSIDE JOB of 9/11 vs. the scumbag traitors and their back-stabbing Israeli partners who were really behind 9/11.

    This is one battle we MUST win, or else we're condemning our kids and grandkids to a lifetime of poverty, slavery and despotic tyranny.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great post Kenny!

    I and others have asked what the f**k is going on?

    Les Visible gives a reasonable answer in this 10 minute video called the Big Ticket Item:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzkuak7QN-A

    Respectfully, Mouser

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Thus - the Jews of Germany were sacrificed for Israel, with Israel in turn to be sacrificed for one world government. That works for me. And they'd fucking do it too. Tell me they wouldn't."

    Well Nobs, you wrote that and 'my friend's friend, is my friend' so let's make peace and agree statesments like the above.

    I apologise for wondering if you are pro-zionist. You are clearly pro-truth.

    Stockholm

    P.S. I will respect the privacy of your blogs and stay away.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey Kenny,...The lunacy is just about to start - Libya has been driving me nuts with the al jazeera, cnn, bbc BULLSHIT! Now, here in rothschalia we have that knucklehead at wikileaks pretending to announce a list of "6 Known women on an Anti-terrorist Watch List", of course "The Government never responds to wikileaks releases", apart from to respond - "this latest release a dangerous threat to National Security" What women, what threat? Prelude to 911 celebrations in the knesset? YOU BET! What better way to celebrate a blood-rite slaughter, than with ANOTHER SHRUBBERY! WE are the Knights that say Nee! And we want,...another SHRUBBEREEEEE!


    veritas

    P.S. Who's the "Nob too" lune? Wot r u on a-bowt? Stockholm? Too much akvavit numb nutz?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Don't expect people to do the right thing. The masses want nothing more than to have some charismatic egotist tell them what to do. I have noticed that nobody in the so-called truth movement has any charisma; or even and engaging manner.

    Treason and treachery are nothing new. 911 was and is just business as usual for the human race. I will admit it was amazing the way they made those buildings disappear into a cloud of dust. But that is the only thing remarkable about the attacks.

    Time for the herd to mooooooooooooooooove along.

    McCob

    ReplyDelete
  6. Want to rip a high profile controlled opposition operation over his 9/11 lies? (Representative Press) Check in below, some spirited discussion going on there:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yab1T0rYXoY

    ReplyDelete
  7. http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/defending-civil-liberties/we-dont-need-any-groundswere-the-united-states.html

    You should listen to this insanity.

    "When the officers tried to grab your arm and you pulled away - that was assault. You're going to jail"

    Unbelievable.

    ReplyDelete
  8. YES! Great post Kenny.

    - Aangirfan

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey veritas, i just read on yur site that planes hit the towers on 911, so what kind of planes did you see and where is the evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well...led zeppelins of course because...August 31, 2011 at 3:27 PM

    nornal planes wouldn't create holes those cartoon holes in steel towers.

    At least the front fusilage would be crushed and lots of planeparts would be found on the impact side of the building.

    Looking foreward to the next tv-fake event.
    probably green aliens vaporizing whole cities.

    side note : seen this ( Libya Truth)?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=aJURNC0e6Ek

    what wonders interest free money can do...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hey, McCob! How's this for charisma:

    Why don't you take your idiotic anti-human rhetoric and shove it up your fucking ass?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hey Kenny,...Oh dear me, the kiddie porn studios in israhell must have stopped for play-lunch and now the little skinless yiddish wiener bratz (-wurst?) are piling onto the Net. Never mind, their yiddisher mommas will call them back into the studio shortly to finish their home movies, (cottage industry porn?) so we won't have to put up with these "snipped and sucked" little trolls much longer! Cooooeeee!

    When I was a kid, my mates and I used to pass a huge honeysuckle tree on the way to skool, we would snip the large orange flowers off the branches and suck the honey out of the flower - perhaps instead of "trolls" we should refer to these yiddish anon-e-schmucks as "honeysuckles"?

    How traumatized must these poor little schmucks be? Brutally mutilated by a diseased old satanic sex-offender, then sexually assaulted; imagine your first BJ being performed by your dirty old uncle schlomo the mohel, after he gnaws the schkin off your schlong? Errgh! Oi vey, the horror!

    Haa haa haa yeeee-haaaargh!

    FREE PALESTINE!

    veritas-ingatorix the Gaul!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hey Veritas, just because someone quotes your site and your official 911 fairy tale re hash is no reason to call them an Israeli. YOU are the one who sounds like Theresa Renaud, Gary Welz and The Harley Guy - who SAY they saw planes

    ReplyDelete
  14. Veritas is a bit....insane. Don't mind him.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Allow me to state the obvious. Harley guy established not the plane narrative, but the narrative that building collapse was the inevitable result- "mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense"

    Continuing with the obvious, you guys who insist on the "no planes" theory are either;
    1)Slow on the uptake, which may or may not be any fault of your own
    2)So callous that you enjoy making a mockery of the pursuit of truth
    3)In the employ of intelligence agencies wishing to obfuscate the truth

    Though you seem to enjoy playing a game of tag with your comments, which means you work as a team...

    ReplyDelete
  16. You'll respect my privacy? Shit. They're public blogs you dickhead. And I ain't impressed with your kissyface here. You're bullshit and whatever the fuck it is you're on about, soon enough I'll sort your shit out.

    Hey Veritas, it all took place in the previous comments here. And also, absurdly, at my poetry blog.

    At the moment I'm running between two possiblities:
    a) He doesn't have a clue but he does have some mental problem wherein whoever disagrees with him becomes an object of hatred to be railed at at every other blog.
    b) He does have a clue. And an agenda. I don't know who for but I'm thinking the paedophile/ satanist division (which is easily the equal of the hasbara).

    But who knows? It could be both, ha ha. Either way it's BYO rope and whilst he hasn't quite brought enough yet I expect he will.

    Sorry Kenny, feeding the troll: guilty as charged. But never mind that, I did like this one. Your habit of striking chords continues and long may it do so.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "...the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." Wow, how true is that statement? Good stuff kenny.

    We'll be out here in San Diego at the USS Midway this Sunday and on 9/11 exposing the fraud that was 9/11. Hopefully we'll get some coverage.

    Anyone else doing anything cool or worthwhile for 9/11? Or are we just going to sit around here and call each other names?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous said...
    Veritas is a bit....insane. Don't mind him.

    August 31, 2011 7:34 PM


    Funny!!

    Now who in world should be afraid of Veritas?

    Oh ... only the yiddie mouse-sad commenders. ☺☺

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hey Kenny,...My apologies for encouraging the honeysuckles; Nobs, your always straight with it cuz; hey musique - you know it brother.

    John Friend, you're a great operator and essential to the cause, forgive me; sometimes I lose it for the lighter side -

    "What larks Copperfield, what larks"!

    veritas

    ReplyDelete
  20. You mistake fear for pity.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Hey, McCob! How's this for charisma:

    Why don't you take your idiotic anti-human rhetoric and shove it up your fucking ass?"

    ROFL!!!!

    McCob

    ReplyDelete
  22. Meeting new people and making new friends on the internet is so much fun!

    McCob

    ReplyDelete
  23. The towers were hit by REAL PLANES and...September 1, 2011 at 2:35 PM

    all we have are these lousy FAKE VIDEOS !

    BTW.: Ace Bakers movie "911 psy-opera" will be released on 9-11-11.
    Should be good.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Every single discrepancy I've seen pointed out in one of these "FAKE VIDEOS" of the "WTC no planes" theory has been done so by someone who seems to have no idea what they're talking about.

    They point to bridges mysteriously moving across the background from shots which were obviously taken from a vehicle circling around the towers, and they point to mpeg artifacts around the planes and falling bodies as evidence of "masking" or objects being superimposed.

    Basically, in their "debunking" they demonstrate they haven't even the most basic understanding of physics, photography, digital image processing, etc. etc..

    The only remotely intriguing bit of "evidence" is the "nose out" / "no plane before zoom in" video. I am left to conclude that if there is any video fakery going on here, it would be this one single video. Incidentally, faking this particular video wouldn't be the truly godlike monumental feat that faking all the others in real time would be, an amateur could do it. An amateur looking to suck in gullible people and stir up controversy, that is.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This is fucking awesome:

    Protesters disrupted a performance by the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra in one of Britain's most venerable concert series and forced the BBC to pull the concert off the air, the broadcaster said Thursday.

    http://news.yahoo.com/anti-israel-protest-disrupts-uk-concert-series-211353061.html

    ReplyDelete
  26. anon 3.12:

    As a twenty-year FX guy (old-school and digital) I don't buy the digital fakery thing. I'm a dinosaur now but back then I was a heavy with no one above me in terms of dictating 'how' the job was done, and the assertions of the no-plane crowd conform to no logic that makes any sense to me.

    Let's put it this way: If my brief was to create footage of planes crashing into buildings, and I had the budget (and sangfroid) to use real planes controlled by a 40yo, tried and true remote-control set-up as opposed to some untried, cross-your-fingers-and-hope-it-works, digital, um... 'whatever' there's no way I'd pick the latter. No way.

    Think about it - in any given shot a crazy number of man-hours are spent just on the lighting. Okay, so how would people doing it digitally prep that? Remember, we're doing it on the day, a phrase guaranteed to strike terror in the hearts of an FX crew. The weather and lighting are unknowable (and perpetually changing) right up until the moment it happens. Jesus Christ, the nightmare brief from hell. Run screaming.

    And I don't care how much testing they do out in the middle of Nevada, or wherever, you take that and put it in a city and everything changes.

    In amongst the brief for the people who made 911, there was only one over-arching imperitive, and that was: IT CANNOT FAIL. And under that mindset, there's no way known you'd run with some untried thing. No way. And certainly not when you've got real planes that'll do it for sure with an unlimited budget to cover it. Anything else would be nuts.

    Otherwise, it's interesting how the no-plane crowd, ten years later, are still perpetual orphans, don't you think?

    As for the Proms (anon 7.40), what with the public backlash that those protests will cop it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the whole thing wasn't a mossad psyop designed to turn the punters against the BDS movement. Hmm... I wonder how Murdoch and the BBC et al will portray it all? Ha ha ha - yeah, right.

    ReplyDelete
  27. No planes tv fakery crap seems like a good way of trying to get one Dov Zakheim(SPC remote flight VP and Pentagon comptroller) off the hook. No planes means no remote flight means no Zakheim,no PNAC,no Israel. Bullshit. They did it. With planes flown remotely and either a bomb or small "friendly" aircraft(so it wouldn't be shot down) at the Pentagon accounting section.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hat-tip to Richard Edmonson's Aug 6 blog entry: quote from The Independent in UK, Monday 24 January, 2000:

    "Viewers tuning into American broadcaster CBS's recent news coverage of the millennium celebrations in New York witnessed a televisual sleight of hand which enabled CBS to alter the reality of what they saw. Using "virtual imaging" technology, the broadcaster seamlessly adjusted live video images to include an apparently real promotion for itself in Times Square. The move has sparked debate about the ethics of using advances in broadcast technology to alter reality without telling viewers that what they are seeing isn't really there.'

    Case for no planes proved.

    Sally

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hey Kenny,...Case for no brains proved! Sally darling, sweetie, pet, luvvy: The existence of elaborate CGFX is not in and of itself proof of "No Planes" you poor dear! Unless of course spurious reasoning is important to you, in that case, I have designed a talismen that protects the wearer from Drop-bear attacks in the Daintree Rainforest. With a 100% success rate - no wearer has ever been attacked by a Drop-bear, they are only 500 bucks each; how many would you like precious?

    veritas

    ReplyDelete
  30. anyone pushing any aspect of the official version is up to no good.


    'I'm a truther, the official version is 78.5% Bullshit, let ME explain it, YOU just don't understand'

    folks, the official version is 100% bullshit

    ReplyDelete
  31. hey veritas, i notice you didn't answer the question - what kind of planes did you see?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hey Kenny,...No, no, no, @honeysuckle 9:15pyem; the question is what kind of Planes, DIDN'T, YOU see?!

    I can easily wheel out the specs and description of what variants were sighted, there is a plethora of information not published by your tribe, however, I couldn't be arsed. (read: Can't get motivated to get off my arse, go get and plug in the external hard-drive.)

    So, why don't you, be true to YOUR burden of proof as you are the honeysuckle making the claim that there were no planes (Oi vey!) - and PROVE IT!

    With evidence, not semantic interpretation.

    You can't, so STFU! I'm hanging up on you now so go rummage through your SOI's from the JIDL and the disinfo files they gave you in your Mouseketeers "Sample-Bag" and see what you can't come up with, ta taa. Got Holograms?

    veritas

    ReplyDelete
  33. Sally, why are you trying to let arch terrorist Dov Zakheim off of the hook?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Hey Sally,

    It doesn't prove anything. They've been inserting those simple graphics into live TV for years. You can see it every time they have the football on and they show how many metres out from the tryline they are. And it works great until someone wearing green walks on the field and then they're not on the graphic but under it. You ever noticed? Same-same Times Square whatever.

    But planes flying into exploding buildings is a whole other story. Like I said, it takes days for lighting. The sign in Times Square, like the football graphics, have no lighting. Nor any shape. They're barely 3D at all - really they're 2D flat panels dropped into 3D space. And that's a piece of piss.

    I should qualify that by saying, now it's a piece of piss. Ten years ago? There was no such thing. But here we are ten years later and we can do flat panel unlit graphics provided no one in green walks in front of it. Wow.

    Otherwise Sally you might want to have a think about what constitutes slam-dunk proof. Your idea of it leaves a lot to be desired.

    I'm not a big fan of Occam's razor but here you'd have to ask, 'Why bother with 3D graphics?' Imagine we were shooting a scene involving a boy eating an apple. Not a magic apple, or an alien apple, or any other crazy thing - just a normal apple that he eats in a normal fashion which we want viewers to watch and believe in. Okay, why would we use a CG apple? Why not just use a real apple and have him really eat it? It's cheap, looks real, and we avoid all the time, expense, and rigmarole attached to CG. There's no need for CG, so why would we bother? Can you dig it?

    And there you have 911. There's no need for CG planes. They would bring anything to the equation that we couldn't do easier and better and more realistically with real planes.

    Hmm... here's a thought: the no-planers are providing an answer for a question no one asked.

    If they were at the production meeting for the apple-eating shot they'd stick their hand up and say, 'Well, we're definitely going to need a CG apple for that!' To which the whole room would variously burst out in guffaws, shake their heads, ask you if you were nuts, or all three.

    Here's my problem with no-planers. They've never explained 'why'. As in, 'why bother'.

    ReplyDelete
  35. sp: 'They wouldn't bring anything to the equation'

    Sorry, that's my editor's fault. He's a drunk and bum and I'd sack him if he weren't so pitiable.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous-'I'm a truther, the official version is 78.5% Bullshit, let ME explain it, YOU just don't understand'

    folks, the official version is 100% bullshit

    September 2, 2011 9:43 PM

    I think you meant-"I'm a no-planer at the WTC, the official version is 100% bullshit which means the buildings were fake too and the jumpers were fake and the people that died in the towers were all actors who didn't really die etc. etc. etc. let ME explain it, YOU just don't understand"

    Let me guess, you also believe in Judy Woods space beam theory too right? Or is that the microwave theory? Or laser theory? I forget.

    The point is bullshit like tv fakery etc. is meant to divert from the FACT that Israelis and American traitors did 9/11. We know a lot of their names and we basically know how they did it(demolitions and remotely flown planes). Going on about tv fakery is a good way to muddy the waters of that discussion and/or discredit the whole thing in the eyes of most. Which is the whole point of theories like tv fakery and microwave weapons. No doubt the same people who did 9/11 are some of the main promoters of such "theories". Disinfo 101.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I have been looking into 9/11 everyday for the past year now at least, and I'm convinced the videos were faked, the jumpers were faked, many of the victims were frauds or Operation Northwoods-type fakes, the hijacking were faked and the planes were faked. There is just too much evidence to suggest all of these things. I just updated my blog with links that provide very powerful explanations for all of these subjects. Here are a few good sources for video/media fakery:

    http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-they-didnt-use-planes-to-hit-wtc.html

    http://www.septemberclues.info/

    http://www.zeropoint.ca/FabledAirplanes.html

    http://thewebfairy.com/911/

    And no I'm not shilling for Zakheim and the other Zionist Jews that were behind 9/11. I think it's obvious that the videos were faked. It's a major part of the psyop that was 9/11.

    ReplyDelete
  38. BTW- everyone that hasn't already read this really should:

    http://www.christopherketcham.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/Gerald%20Shea%20Memo%20to%20the%209-11%20Commission.pdf

    It amazes me when people say we have no evidence that Israel did 9/11. Our own fucking government arrested these assholes, but Zionist Jew Michael Chertoff let them off the hook and go back to Israel. All of these guys were military/intelligence operatives specializing in wiretapping, espionage, infiltration and explosives. Think they had anything to do with 9/11?!?!?!?!?!

    ReplyDelete
  39. This board is infested with sayonim no plane scumbag disinfo shills. Megaphone got your number dude.

    ReplyDelete
  40. http://www.larsschall.com/2011/09/03/911-was-a-fantastically-profitable-covert-operation/

    Catherine Austin Fitts H/T: Max Keiser

    Robert in Arabia

    ReplyDelete
  41. Jules Naudet's film of Flight 11, a Boeing 767, hitting the North WTC tower was faked:

    http://www.spingola.com/jules_naudet.htm

    Everything about 9/11 is a fraud folks. If anyone else is really trying to understand what happened on 9/11, they need to understand the role of the media and the videos in this psyop. This is not disinformation or muddling the waters. The only people engaging in disinformation tactics are anonymous commenters who show up calling those of us trying to understand 9/11 as best we can shills and scum bags. If you have a legitimate point to discuss or comment on, please enlighten us.

    Does anyone have any criticisms of the link I just provided?

    ReplyDelete
  42. @Disinfo 101

    no. i think judy is disinfo. judy's job is to make all no paners look like the lunatic fringe, that's it. video fakery points directly at WHO did the fakery- ALL MSM, which is controlled by the perps. video fakery, fake jumpers, lying witnesses, vicsims is the truth- it was a media hoax, i dont even care HOW. I'm not saying Judy is 100% disinfo, She may be the truth, i just don[t care. go to let's roll forum, read the articles for yourself

    ReplyDelete
  43. Was there video manipulation of some kind? Maybe. Maybe not. But maybe it was after the fact to create a tv fakery wild goose chase so we wouldn't focus on the very real planes that Dov Zakheim's SPC manipulated. Ever think of that? I think "nobody" makes a lot of sense here.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Why would they fake jumpers exactly?

    ReplyDelete
  45. the planes were real. the whole point was the emotional impact they and the imploded buildings would have on new yorkers and the rest of the u.s.

    ReplyDelete
  46. planes=attacks=justification for the war on terror

    911-planes=no attacks= fraudulent war

    dig?unculnqt

    ReplyDelete
  47. Anon@12:30, that is ridiculous logic. There WAS an attack and if its shown the planes were flown remotely that leads directly to the perps. Gee, who could actually hijack and fly the planes from the ground? Who has that capability? Lets not worry about it because there were no planes right? Wrong, we know who did it and the no planers(at least the ones who started it if not the dupes who buy into it) are acting to protect them.

    ReplyDelete
  48. John, I knew you were weighing the evidence on no-planes, but didn't know you had become absolutely convinced. At any rate, I don't think you're a scumbag!

    To your first link, right off the bat we have a logical fallacy;
    "The videos were faked because planes alone wouldn't bring the towers down"
    It is asserting that *everyone* who believes the remote-piloted craft theory also believes that the planes *alone* took the buildings down.

    It goes on to argue about guaranteed penetration (whaka chika wah wah!). A passenger jet constructed of a thin aluminum skin, wings loaded with fuel traveling at hundreds of MPH is going to go through the steel-beamed exterior of the building like a water balloon hitting a sewer grate. As for the explosion not occurring immediately, on what does the author base his understanding of physics, Hollywood special effects? I'm sure Greg Bacon can do a better job explaining the fire-triangle, but the fuel is not going to ignite until it is dispersed and mixed in with air, as it would traveling through the building and out the other side.

    Next the argument is that they couldn't take the risk of having the planes miss the buildings! If a drone or missile can guide itself to a target to within a meter's accuracy, so can a properly equipped airplane, remote pilot or not. This is precisely what the GPS system was designed for, munitions guidance.

    This is where I stop reading these no-planes theories. They're just too incredible, right out of the gate. Nobody nailed it above, despite all the technical feats involved, "why bother?"

    I know it's not good form to dismiss a theory off-hand, especially when debating someone I actually have respect for, unlike these anony-twins above (hypocrite, I know), but I just can't sink my teeth into it. The "who" is so much more important than the "how".

    ReplyDelete
  49. Lots of people claiming to understand physics but...September 3, 2011 at 3:59 PM

    ...very few that understand.

    It's simple when clearly stated : a plane's fusilage is NOT filled with fluid of any kind, it's filled with AIR.

    Ok so far ?

    In the vid's we see the NOSE of the 'plane' creating a hole in the wall, made of steel tubes and backed up by concrete floors.

    The nose does NOT have the mass or the strength to do that.

    And in ANY collision, the weakest object will deform first. No doubt that that's the plane's nose in this case.

    So what is shown in the vid's is IMPOSSIBLE in the real world.
    ergo : they are fakes !

    And i won't even go into sheet aluminium wingtips and tail that cut through steel tubes and concrete floors.

    Any child should understand it is impossible.

    Gee, plane huggers, why do they make plowshares from hardened steel when a thin sheet aluminium construction can do the same ?

    I knew in 2005 it was impossible and the docu "September clues" explaned how they did it. Great work by Simon Shack .

    And thanks,
    -John Friend for the links, here and in the article on your blog.

    -all commenters that typed some truth in this world of lies.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I can't remember which of the above anons exactly said it, but I like the logic of inserting a single CG artefact into a piece of footage after the event. Dig it - it would take no time to do, cost peanuts, require almost no expertise, and yet have everyone running around like heads with no chickens for ages. That would be a genius act. Well not really, I think they call it poisoning the well, don't they?

    The more I think about it the more I like it.

    It's also somewhat curious that the no-plane meme seems perpetually connected to the Judy Wood/ Hutchison Effect thing. Here's a thought: what if we turned the above concept of 'Judy Wood as a too-crazy idea designed to discredit the no-plane concept' on its head? Thus the no-plane thing would be inserted to discredit the idea of x-weapons and jellified steel and dustification etc.

    I say this because for me the concept of x-weapons doesn't fail the 'why bother' test. Think about it: under the imperitive of IT MUST NOT FAIL, controlled demolition also qualifies as a spotty proposition. What if it failed? We've all seen footage of building demolitions wherein the demolition was incomplete, yeah?

    Okay, so if I was the 'producer' of this particular FX effort (and that's essentially what 911 was) and I'm sitting in the production meeting, my question to the demolition crew (keeping in mind I'm driven by IT MUST NOT FAIL) would be: 'Can you absolutely, 100% guarantee - upon pain of death - that these buildings will be brought down?' I reckon the answer would have to be, 'Um... no'.

    Okay, we're now in a different territory. X-weapons are now not an either/or, as the no-plane thing is, but rather a variety of overkill that comes with, um, I don't know... vampire killing, ha ha. We stick a stake thought its heart, cut its head off, burn the body, and then "nuke the entire site from orbit just to be sure." Vampires, aliens, whatever.

    Because that nutty level of overkill was precisely what was required on 911. Remember, IT MUST NOT FAIL. Dig it, it's the same logic as the Kennedy assassination wherein there was no way they'd ever have gone with one shooter (and then just sat around keeping their fingers crossed). Instead, they use three shooters, maybe four, who knows? Kennedy wasn't just to be killed, he had to be 'overkilled'.

    And 911 was no different.

    Besides which, in this world of HAARP is all that Hutshison stuff really that fanciful? How was that I-beam bent into a pretzel? Did we all see that footage of metallurgists (was it?) standing around at Fresh Kills looking at the 100 ton pretzel and declaring that they had no idea how steel could possibly do that. Okay, never mind them, has anyone got an answer for that? Because there's only so many ways of bending steel - hot or cold, take your pick. No expert me, but it looked to me like that pretzel was neither. Okay then, maybe Hutchison isn't that crazy after all.

    Besides which, in this world of HAARP such an x-weapon wouldn't be any variety of mad chimera on some colonel's never-never wish-list. Instead such things are the very raison d'etre of Skunk Works and all those other dens of black magic.

    And were it to exist, it would have to be protected. Like nothing else.

    Okay so we insert a single digital element of obvious rubbish into a piece of footage (hell, let's do a couple while we're at), tie it to the must-be-protected x-weapon meme, and Bob's your uncle. Now, no one will believe any of it.

    It's a thought, anyway...

    And off I go now to check out John Friend's links above. Ciao regazzi.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Interesting proposition, Nobody!

    "Lots of people claiming to understand physics but... said...
    why do they make plowshares from hardened steel when a thin sheet aluminium construction can do the same ?"

    Proves he's guilty of the same accusation he's leveling.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_of_materials
    "In materials science, the strength of a material is its ability to withstand an applied stress without failure. The applied stress may be tensile, compressive, or shear."

    The plane impacting the building head-on is an example of the fuselage's compressive strength. The plane being pressurized even *slightly* increases its compressive strength considerably in this front to back dimension.

    So here's what I propose to "Lots of people claiming..."
    Try to stomp an empty metal hairspray canister flat while it is upright. That is a test of its compressive strength.
    After your foot heals, test the canister's shear strength by turning it on its side and trying again.

    Jesus god you people. So clueless yet soooo confident.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Hey Kenny,...No Planes, they say? If that's what smokes your Salmon, fine, go with that. You do however know who did it and why, yes? I am a 'Planer', because that is the technology they developed for this purpose - 15 to 20 years prior - the advent of CGFX enhanced their ability to make this scam seem more plausible subsequently, however, again, here's my angle: I was in a Tank Regiment when I was a soldier, specifically I was Cavalry Reconnaissance, when I wasn't on the sneaky beaky for enemy "stuff", we operated as an Anti-Tank Troop, it was my JOB, to "defeat" armour; that is to say, defeat high compression metal sheeting.

    Anyone that knows anything about ballistics where anti-Armour techniques are concerned, will know and use the term "defeat", very few weapons "pierce" the Armour they are intended to defeat, in fact, there was only one device that we used when I was a kid in "the destruction business" and that was the APFSDS (Armour Piercing, Fin Stabilized, Discarding Sabot - pro; "sabo"). This was a projectile that utilized a sub-calibred tungsten bore, clasped by "sabots" (French, trans; "petals"). Our round was 105mm calibre, the tungsten bore was 60mm calibre. So, when fired, the 105 round would lose its petals as they "peeled off". What we were left with was an extremely hot and hard 60mmm tungsten bore traveling at the speed of a 105mm charge, powered projectile. The kinetic energy released at the point of impact was outrageous - there was not a tank in any soviet supplied arsenal that could survive a "hit" from this weapon.

    Until they developed laminated Armour...Then came, rocket assisted APFSDS - APFSRADS, they then developed, ceramic plates laminated between spaced Armour, then crinkle-cut ceramic plates between spaced Armour, then came explosive reactive Armour with crimped ceramic plates laminated between spaced Armour, and so it goes, on and on and on and...

    Technological dialectics cannot be applied as a fluid alternative to the time and motion of solid plans given the available technology - when the plans that were made to bring down the WTC, the technology was consistent with Planes, remote controls, reinforced airframes and thermite explosive cutting charges - so what?

    That the Planes that hit the WTC were re-enforced will have to be assumed, why not? Logic people. Perhaps they weren't reenforced and were assisted by launching a missile moments prior to impact. Like the water jet sprayed on the surface of a pool prior to the high-divers plunging downward.

    That the planes were remotely controlled is another assumption we have to make - nothing else makes sense - just like the perpetrators; if it wasn't the yiddish khazars occupying Palestine, nothing else makes sense! CUI BONO?

    Here's the thing though, who really gives a fuck, how? We know who, let's get on with the revolution and do away with these evil fucking monsters!

    The semantics of this argument are divisive and only serve the PTB.

    WE know who - lets' roll(grin).

    veritas

    ReplyDelete
  53. Thanks John, those links were pretty interesting. I can definitely see the logic to it. And yep, I admit it all nicely put paid to my assertions as to what did, or didn't exist in 2001. It seems the no-planer posited real-time CG fakery was possible. I concede the point.

    A few other things got my brain going too. Like for instance their point about there being no planes at the Pentagon or Shanksville. I can see how it would then stand to reason that there'd be no planes in New York as well.

    The only problem with Shanksville is that there was a plane. It just wasn't in the absurd hole they said it was. Rather it was scattered about miles away over a forest and lake (I seem to recall) with the feds kicking everyone out so that they could collect it all. Hmm... so there was a plane there.

    And I also recall the local Shanksville witnesses who testified to this as being quite convincing particularly insofar as none of them came anywhere near the official line (what with their talk of chase planes etc). And nor did they resemble the bullshit witnesses at the Pentagon that Dave McGowan shot down in his analysis.

    But I'll happily concede that there was no plane at the Pentagon. Which is dandy, except now we have to choose between it being one of three, or an odd man out.

    But then again, it was an odd man out. At least in terms of being the only plane of the four wherein its flightpath was drawn in as a dotted line by the media. Which is curious. And if that dotted line was part of the fakery, the first question I'd ask is why? How would it serve the government's story? Surely it represents a hole in it?

    -snip-

    ReplyDelete
  54. -snip-

    But never mind all that... I reckon the whole no-plane thing lives or dies on their no-plane assertion that they'd have to fake the planes because of the likelihood of one of them missing the building, either completely, or by just clipping it in some kind of pissweak fashion (and thus impressing no one as to being the cause for a collapse).

    That's the crux. It's the answer to my question of 'why bother'.

    But where's the obvious next question? And that is: How accurately could an RC wide-body be flown at such speeds? If the answer is 'not very' then the no-planer's case firms up. Or, if the answer is 'pretty bloody' then my question 'why bother?' still stands.

    I notice John's first link there includes a rear shot from one of those those RC crash tests of a 707 (or 720 or whatever) making it look like it wasn't particularly accurate. But I've seen lots of shots of those tests, all of which were scarily accurate. Right into camera! Would it be poor of me to suggest he picked the shot which looked most off target? But whatever, even that chosen rear shot still demonstrates an accuracy that would comfortably carry the government's plane-initiated-collapse narrative. No worries. And yeah, we'd all roll our eyes and declare it bullshit, but we are anyway aren't we? And?

    And let's not forget those shots were from the late sixties/ early seventies. Where's airborne RC accuracy now? Thirty to forty years ahead of that? I expect so. Cruise missiles follow road maps and strike with metre accuracy. And yeah, yeah, that's a missile and this is a plane but the technology is the technology. Given the advances between 707/727's and modern 737's in every other aspect of their construction why would the RC aspect of be left behind? Does that make sense? (Not forgetting the seventies were plenty accurate anyway...).

    Back to the producer in the production meeting - I reckon the answer to the question, 'Can you guarantee those planes will hit the building?' would be, 'Short of a one in a million chance that any given plane might have some hiccup and just fall out of the sky - a bet we we all took this morning when we flew here - I'd say, absolutely'.

    Anyway, it was definitely interesting and for a moment I was there. But only for a moment. Never mind.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I've been MIA for awhile but you guys certainly have had very interesting discussions. Detailed and civil. I'm impressed. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  56. http://thirteenthmonkey.blogspot.com/2011/09/psychopaths-amongst-us.html

    How to spot a psychopath.

    Here is the 20 point test - you can take it yourself for fun and evaluate your friends and aquaintances!

    Each item is objectively scored as 0, 1, or 2. Max score is 40. A score of 30 or above gives the clinical diagnosis of psychopath.

    The twenty traits assessed by the PCL-R score are:

    1. glib and superficial charm
    2. grandiose (exaggeratedly high) estimation of self
    3. need for stimulation
    4. pathological lying
    5. cunning and manipulativeness
    6. lack of remorse or guilt
    7. shallow affect (superficial emotional responsiveness)
    8. callousness and lack of empathy
    9. parasitic lifestyle
    10. poor behavioral controls
    11. sexual promiscuity
    12. early behavior problems
    13. lack of realistic long-term goals
    14. impulsivity
    15. irresponsibility
    16. failure to accept responsibility for own actions
    17. many short-term marital relationships
    18. juvenile delinquency
    19. revocation of conditional release
    20. criminal versatility

    The interview portion of the evaluation covers the subject's background, including such items as work and educational history; marital and family status; and criminal background. Because psychopaths lie frequently and easily, the information they provide must be confirmed by a review of the documents in the subject's case history.

    Results

    When properly completed by a qualified professional, the PCL-R provides a total score that indicates how closely the test subject matches the "perfect" score that a classic or prototypical psychopath would rate. Each of the twenty items is given a score of 0, 1, or 2 based on how well it applies to the subject being tested. A prototypical psychopath would receive a maximum score of 40, while someone with absolutely no psychopathic traits or tendencies would receive a score of zero. A score of 30 or above qualifies a person for a diagnosis of psychopathy. People with no criminal backgrounds normally score around 5. Many non-psychopathic criminal offenders score around 22.

    Read more: Hare Psychopathy Checklist - define, person, people, used, personality, score, traits, Definition, Purpose

    http://www.minddisorders.com/Flu-Inv/Hare-Psychopathy-Checklist.html#ixzz1WzcUeEcJ

    ReplyDelete
  57. So clueless yet soooo confident...September 4, 2011 at 10:23 AM

    ....knows at least that a comparison of an empty metal hairspray canister to a plane's fuselage is absolute WRONG.

    Why ?

    Well..the diameter/wall-thickness ratio is completely off.

    Plane : 5 meters/several millimeters
    Canister : 5 centimeter / several tenths of a millimeter.

    You're about a factor 10 wrong to start with.

    I won't go into tubelength, material and the fact that you can NOT scale constructions if you want to keep strength,mass and dimension ratio's the same.

    Please remember that last one, it's kind of a litmus test to sift out the charlatan physicists, like the one who can type "clueless" above.

    And as there are still people around that believe planes made those holes in the towers i'll put up a question :

    Please explain how the wingtips/tail, which are all empty aluminium sheet constructions, can cut through steel tubes and concrete floors ?

    ReplyDelete
  58. By the way, Kenny, I could be wrong, but I don't believe "The Big Lie" can be attributed as that wicked NAZI villain Goebbels' technique.

    It was the wicked NAZI villain Hitler who identified The Big Lie in Mein Kampf:

    "But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to Justice.

    All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods"

    ReplyDelete
  59. Weren't both heavily influenced by the American jew Edward Bernays?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Yes Sir, yes we were didel-der dum-der-didle-didle-der

    ReplyDelete
  61. As for 'empty' wings, they're the strongest part of the plane. Forget those plastic model kits you built with the fuselage being the main member with the wings hanging off them. In real planes, the wings are effectively the foundation (as in a building's foundation). They come first on account of having to hold the entire rest of the plane up.

    But who needs me when there's Dave McGowan?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Remember Michael Rennie in 1954's
    The Day the Earth Stood Still?
    Listen to the speech at the end.
    Gort represented the military/police
    control machine.
    They control it.
    Until that changes things will
    get a lot worse.
    A lot.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Nobody's talking about...September 5, 2011 at 2:03 PM

    ...empty wings ( there's fuel inthere ), but the tips are empty.

    Also the tips are the weakest part of the wing. Like the tail, just alu sheet constructions.

    Even 10 Dave McGowans cannot change that and write them through steel tubes and concrete floors.

    Just impossible.

    Also, a blind man's dog can tell those videos are fake.

    ReplyDelete
  64. That Goebbels quote is a fake.

    Beware of cartoonishly evil statements attributed to dead Nazi and Arab leaders (Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, etc) as they are mostly the inventions of zionists and other mentally ill individuals.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I've got your "steel tube" right here buddy!

    ReplyDelete
  66. If you're a truther get your quotes right and don't just repeat them in the same patteren the sheep repat the government version. Goebbels did say this > "Good propaganda does not need to lie, indeed it may not lie. It has no reason to fear the truth. It is a mistake to believe that people cannot take the truth. They can. It is only a matter of presenting the truth to people in a way that they will be able to understand. A propaganda that lies proves that it has a bad cause. It cannot be successful in the long run<""

    ReplyDelete