Friday, March 24, 2017

David Ray Griffin Best Evidence of Truth on 9-11

No Planes on 9/11 - Documentary


Once again from the top.  If you are vexed by people who say there were planes/drones or missiles, here it is again.  Copy and save this to your notepad or other text file app and paste it as a reply whenever you see the need.  Better yet, copy the url here and paste that so they can come here an get an eyeful.

A rabbit is pulled from a hat, a woman is sawed in half, a bird materializes under a handkerchief...  How do you know that these are illusions created by trickery, and not things that really could happen?  Because the science of the real world precludes these things from happening for real, so you know they have got to be tricks.  The lady sawed in half does not leave a pool of blood on the floor, as she must if really cut in two.  That exposes it as an illusion.  So, circumstantial evidence of planes,  without any physical evidence of them, tells you that it is an illusion.  If you are able to believe that some 400 tons of aircraft, each with 2 million parts,  could vaporize, disappear or otherwise be absent at the scene of 4 crash sites,  then you are thinking like a child with little real world experience.  Sweeping away what could not possibly have happened, reveals that what's being presented is the result of trickery. 

 Let's try to think like the planners.  They knew the results of this plan would be a high profile event.  Meaning that it would be seen by lots of people from many different angles.  While that doesn't mean that they cannot fudge some parts of it,  any fudging would have to be so small and go by so quickly, that the artifact(s) it presented would be easy to either dismiss or confuse.

On the side of the planners is the trauma and grief the masses will experience, which will almost totally consume them and prevent them from being willing to even look at any evidence or critically analyze any theory.  Thus you will be stuck and will stay with the more "comfortable" story that outsiders (terrorist) did this,  rather than people inside the gov't or that it might be the covert operation of an ally.  That grief and trauma makes it easier to dismiss claims of culpability by anyone other than the accused terrorists, than to accept that you are being tricked by some carefully crafted plan by "insiders".  

Okay, so with the above in mind,  let's look at the elements the planners needed to cover.  First, since they plan to claim that the towers collapsed as a result of planes crashing into them,  they need to know if planes, crashing into buildings can do such a thing.  Any physicist, worth his/her salt, will look at the strengths of the materials involved and the energies available to easily figure out that the plane crashes would do minimal damage to the buildings,  let alone fail to bring them down. Didn't the people who designed the building say that planes would cause minimal damage? Then that would have been the best information the planners had go go with.

Thus, the planners quickly realize that, to achieve the results they desire -- that crashing planes did massive damage to the buildings and started large internal fires,  they would have to plant explosives inside the buildings,  otherwise the mission would fail.  But then there are four problems that come with planting explosives inside the buildings.  

1.  You've got select an impact site for each building.

2.  You've got to use explosives to augment these impact sites.

3. The buildings collapse initiation has to align with the aircraft impact sites. 

4. Timing: If the impacts come too early or late, again the use of explosive charges is exposed.

If they fail to cover these four points the event fails to be believable.  If the impact creates too little damage, the event will not be believable.  If the aircraft do not hit the augmentation points exactly,  the use of explosives inside the buildings becomes apparent and finally if the collapse initiation does not begin at the impact level,  the use of explosives is exhibited again.

Now let's have a look at the "weapons of choice".  The first choice would be to use real aircraft.  But using real aircraft has too many uncontrollable problems.  You cannot guarantee they will take off in time to meet any schedule,  thus an operator would have to be assigned and trained to trigger the explosives at the exact time of the impact.  But real people are unreliable,  they itch, they sneeze, they have spasms.  They get distracted and are sometimes slower or quicker to react than they should be.  Could anyone really trust such a sensitive situation to the ministrations of a real person?  Where even a split second too soon or too late would create massive, unmask-able problems.

The aircraft too have idiosyncratic and phenomometric problems beyond the control of the pilots.  Equipment can fail and scrub the flight, the vagaries of atmospheric anomalies, wind gusts, barometric inconsistencies tend to make flight times and target acquisition unpredictable,  not to mention bird strikes.

Then there's the human factor.  Even people avowedly disposed to commit suicide in theory cannot always be relied upon to follow through in real life. A moment of indecision would be all it takes to ruin the entire plan. Worse yet, you have a goodly number of people on board the aircraft, hijackers included, anyone of whom could either intentionally or inadvertently interfere with the plan.

The problem of accurately hitting a targeted point on a building with either a missile or drone is off the scales, since their accuracy, under the best of conditions would be 50 feet plus or minus,  far too wide a margin for an exercise of this type. While drones can be controlled precisely enough for take offs and landings,  you have to remember that these occur at very low speeds, not at 400 and 500 mph.

So the planners face the problem of using a cgi, which can meet all of the above required criteria.  So there's only one problem left: The eyewitnesses. To deal with the eyewitnesses who may say they did not see any planes,  you simply get your cgi film on tv,  by having a switch thrown in the stations control rooms.  The newscasters are not going to question what is being shown on their own stations monitors.  So, while there are a few people who did not see planes while standing there on the streets,  they have no one to talk to, while the media is "informing" millions of people in the seconds and hours after the events.  Having planted "eyewitnesses" out on the street goes a long way towards confusing and drowning out anyone who says they did not see a plane,  because most people will feel they must be mistaken or otherwise in error. 

To be sure, if there were planes,  people on the street would not say "I didn't see any plane",  they would say "I didn't see THE PLANE",  there's a big difference.  One says that they believe there was a plane that they didn't see, while the other statement says that they were looking and did not see one.  Finally, if there were real planes then nobody would say there were none,  only that they didn't see any, but not that there weren't any.  Many of the people who claimed to have seen the aircraft were discovered on later questioning,  to have had no vantage point from which they could have seen the aircraft.  

Then there's the matter of sounds that jet aircraft make, with the engines open full bore, there should have been a deafening sound reverberating through the area, and unmistakable earsplitting roar of a jet at less than 1,000 feet above ground.  The sounds heard in the amateur videos is inconsistent with the capture of a real jet aircraft, from video to video the sounds are different.  That should not be the case. As they are all supposedly recording the same event.

So, the only way we have to sort through the confusion is, to look at the video of the impacts.  We see the aircraft slicing it's way completely into the building from wing tip to wing tip, with nothing breaking off and no damage being done to the facade of the building.  Wings, carrying fuel, in real crashes, explode immediately on impact, yet we don't see that in the videos.  There are no wake vortexes in the smoke and fire of the impacts, which shows that no aircraft has moved through that airspace. 

So, even while there are people claiming to have seen planes, the hard evidence of there having been planes is absent.  The hard evidence of there having been hijackers is absent.  Instead there is only highly questionable "evidence" of passengers, crew, planes and skyjackers.  Cell phone calls that could not have been made. Black box data that does not support the official narrative of the events.  Before flight 77 took off, as shown on the data recorder, Pilots for 911 Truth, who analyzed the data, discovered that the cockpit door was closed and never opened again.  So, how could hijackers have entered the cockpit?  If the door detection switch had failed the error would have either shown the error or shown the door opened.  It remained closed from takeoff to impact.

The only conclusion that sufficiently and credibly answers all of these anomalies is that there were no plane crashed on 911.

Here's the url for this page:

Feel free to distribute it wherever it's needed.

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

One of the Best Truth Bomb Lectures You've EVER Seen

How the CIA Plants News Stories in the Media

The War on Islam: 9/11 Revisited, Uncovered & Exposed

9/11 DECEPTION: End Game - March 18 2017

There is a problem here with this compilation, I have to take issue with the holocaust denial, which I do believe did occur. There are, however, many reasons why people are convinced it could be a fraud, without being anti Semitic. I've viewed some of the holocaust denial material and I must say that much of it is very cleverly constructed.  Such that a novice or other person unfamiliar with the details of Nazi Germany, could easily be convinced that something so horrific could not be undertaken on such an enormous scale.  

I, however, require a much higher standard of evidence than merely cleverly constructed arguments.  If any such arguments are to be true we should see concomitant physical evidence to bear out the narratives.

To make a simple case for example: We see large numbers of people being put on board trains and we have reports of same.  We see the logistics for the transport of large numbers of people to destinations claimed to be the death camps so we know where these large numbers of people were taken.

Now, for the denial stories to be true, we would have to believe that these large numbers of people were not killed there.  But where are the logistics for them to have left?  There are none.  There are no reports of trains coming to take them away from the camps, nor are there any reports of any exodus on foot. There are no logistics for any large numbers of people ever leaving these camps, except by mass graves and crematoria.  Regardless of how cleverly designed any denial arguments might be, they are not supported by physical evidence. Otherwise, these people should have continued their existence and the reports and tales of their continuing trials and travails should have continued to be present and their reports should have grown larger and larger over time. Instead they terminate at the camp sites.  While this could be true of just a few hundred people, it is impossible with many thousands, let alone millions.  Mr. Easton seems a good egg, so I'll just put this down to him being emotionally overwhelmed and distraught at the entire systems of reporting to the extent that he's has become subject to over reaching without checking much outside of 911 very thoroughly. In an emotional state of flux, it's very easy to fall prey to cleverly designed argument and the holocaust denial movement has cleverly designed constructs in spades.