May 31, 2007

Why They Didn't Use Planes To Hit The WTC

(Updated: 09/23/08)

For those who ask:

"Why would the government fake crashing planes into the WTC towers and thereby also having to fake all the crash videos when it would be much easier for them to crash real planes into them?"

(Video: Hezarkhani)

Here is why they didn't use real planes to crash into the WTC and used TV fakery instead:


Why do most of Americans still think planes brought down the Twin Towers? Because to them, the official story of why the Towers collapsed was believable. Large aircraft loaded with lots of fuel crashed into the Towers at high speeds and penetrated inside before exploding thereby causing extensive internal damage. Then the resulting fire weakened the steel causing the top sections to collapse down thereby pulverizing the rest of the buildings. Then debris from the falling North Tower pelted the WTC 7 causing massive structural damage and causing it to catch fire and eventually collapse.

A Boeing 767 allegedly crashing and causing this massive explosion in the South Tower.

North Tower collapsing partially on the WTC 7.

Most people who believe 9/11 was an inside job probably believe that the WTC 1, 2, and 7 were pulled (i.e. brought down by some kind of controlled demolition method) and therefore should also agree that the collapse of all three of these buildings was arguably the most important goal of the perps that day.

All seven buildings of the WTC lie in ruins.

For 9/11 conspiracists who believe planes hit the towers, I would say that almost all of them believe these planes were flown by some kind of remote control or on-board computer guidance system and they either believe it was Flight 175 with all the passengers that was electronically hijacked similar to the Lone Gunmen 'Pilot' episode, or it was some kind of empty Boeing 767 drone painted in United Airlines colors.

So if crashing large aircraft loaded with fuel into the WTC was enough to make most people believe that planes crashing and fire caused the Twin Towers to collapse, what logic is there to argue no planes crashed there? It's quite simple actually.

'Penetration' is the Key

Look at some of the WTC crash videos. Observe not just that we see a plane crashing into the Twin Towers, but how these planes crashed into the towers:

Flight 11 supposedly crashing and penetrating all the way into the North Tower before exploding.

Flight 175 supposedly crashing and penetrating all the way into the South Tower before exploding. (Top video: Naudet Brothers. Middle: Evan Fairbanks. Bottom: Jennifer Spell. See all WTC crash videos here.)

The videos show that these planes that hit the towers supposedly at 470mph (Flight 11/North Tower) and 590mph (Flight 175/South Tower) penetrated all the way into the buildings which gave the perception that these planes were able to cause enough internal damage to cause both towers to collapse because the videos showed the world that these planes had penetrated all the way into the buildings before their fuel tanks exploded.

With the following questions, you'll understand why the perps could not have used real planes to make the official collapse theory believable:

  • What if any of the planes missed hitting the towers? Do you think the perps would have pulled both towers? What if the plane aiming for the North Tower missed, you think the perps would still have pulled the WTC 7?

  • What if the planes hit, but they mostly blew up on the outside? Would most reasonable people believe that planes mostly blowing up on the outside would be able to cause the towers to collapse? Just think of how many people at first questioned how the towers could have collapsed even though they saw the planes in the videos crash and penetrate all the way into the buildings. Imagine if the planes didn't penetrate enough of the way through? As one person accurately puts it, it is this penetration that the official story rests on and the perps had to use a method that would guarantee penetration into the towers.

  • What if the perps used two drone 767's and any of them missed their targets or didn't completely penetrate all the way through the towers and pieces of it landed outside on the ground thereby exposing it as a drone? Game over for the perps.

  • How could the perps be absolutely certain that Boeing 767's would not miss their targets and that their relatively delicate fuel tanks in the wings would be able to fully penetrate the steel facades and concrete encased floor slabs before exploding? Do you think the perps would trust that 767's would be able to penetrate through two buildings without doing a real world test run to see if they would be able to penetrate? Or do you think the perps actually built replicas of portions of the Twin Towers' facade and crashed 767's into them to see if they would actual penetrate inside before blowing up?

Only using computer generated imagery (CGI) of planes instead of real planes would guarantee penetration into the Twin Towers and since this operation would be done on a computer, the perps could rehearse their plan over and over and over again and the CGI plane would always penetrate through the WTC because you can make pixels do anything.

CGI planes "melting" into the WTC.

However, imagine the cost, time, complexity, and secrecy the perps would had to undertake from simulating real planes flown via remote control crashing into some kind of "WTC replica" over and over again until they could guarantee the planes would penetrate (if they ever could).

Media Warned About TV Fakery

Airing fake scenarios on TV is known as "TV fakery" (a term that has been used back since at least 1998). The concept of simulating a fake attack on computer and broadcasting it to the world is nothing new. The military had talked about using TV fakery well before 9/11:

Prof George J. Stein, AWC
Airpower Journal - Spring 1995

Let us take just one example of how current technologies could be used for strategic-level information warfare. If, say, the capabilities of already well-known Hollywood technologies to simulate reality were added to our arsenal, a genuinely revolutionary new form of warfare would become possible. Today, the techniques of combining live actors with computer-generated video graphics can easily create a "virtual" news conference, summit meeting, or perhaps even a battle that would exist in "effect" though not in physical fact. Stored video images can be recombined or "morphed" endlessly to produce any effect chosen. This moves well beyond traditional military deception, and now, perhaps, "pictures" will be worth a thousand tanks.

Digitally altering live TV events
has been possible since at least 1998.

A winner of multiple Emmy Awards for technical achievement, the Virtual Yellow 1st and Ten Line makes use of Sportvision’s patented video overlay technology to create the illusion that a yellow first-down line is painted on the field, allowing players to cross over and stand on it. Invented by Sportvision and first introduced in 1998, 1st and Ten allows viewers to see the necessary distance for a first down as plays progress... -

The media has been informing us that the technical capabilities of using TV fakery in live broadcasts exist and have been warning the public about its use before 9/11:

When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing

By William M. Arkin
Special to
Monday, Feb. 1, 1999

A Box of Chocolates is Like War

Most Americans were introduced to the tricks of the digital age in the movie Forrest Gump [1994], when the character played by Tom Hanks appeared to shake hands with President Kennedy.

For Hollywood, it is special effects. For covert operators in the U.S. military and intelligence agencies, it is a weapon of the future.
When TV brings you the news as it didn't happen

Broadcasters are using virtual imaging technology to alter live broadcasts - and not even the news is safe from tampering

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.

The technology to do this comes from the defence industry where, following the end of the Cold War, a number of companies have developed new ways of commercially exploiting their military navigation and tracking expertise.

None of the companies will publicly discuss how their's works. But the principle is common: each alters the live video image in the split second before it is broadcast.
Lying With Pixels

July/August 2000 (Updated)

Seeing is no longer believing. The image you see on the evening news could well be a fake—a fabrication of fast new video-manipulation technology.

By Ivan Amato

In the fraction of a second between video frames, any person or object moving in the foreground can be edited out, and objects that aren’t there can be edited in and made to look real.
Compared to PVI’s job, the military’s technical task was more difficult—and the stakes were much higher... the TIGER team manipulated a live video feed from a Predator, an unmanned reconnaissance craft flying some 450 meters above Kosovo battlefields... the task was to overlay, in real time, “georegistered” images of Kosovo onto the corresponding scenes streaming in live from the Predator’s video camera. The terrain images had been previously captured with aerial photography and digitally stored.
It is perfectly possible now to insert sets of pixels into satellite imagery data that interpreters would view as battalions of tanks, or war planes, or burial sites, or lines of refugees, or dead cows that activists claim are victims of a biotech accident.
There’s a big difference now, says Haseltine: “What used to take an hour [per video frame], now can be done in a sixtieth of a second.” This dramatic speed-up means that manipulation can be done in real time, on the fly, as a camera records or broadcasts.
The combination of real-time virtual insertion, cyber-puppeteering, video rewriting and other video manipulation technologies with a mass-media infrastructure that instantly delivers news video worldwide has some analysts worried.

“I’m amazed that we have not seen phony video,” he says, before backpedaling a bit: “Maybe we have. Who would know?”

It’s just the sort of scenario played out in the 1998 movie Wag the Dog, in which top presidential aides conspire with a Hollywood producer to televise a virtually crafted war between the United States and Albania to deflect attention from a budding Presidential scandal. Haseltine and others wonder when reality will imitate art imitating reality.
Combine the potential erosion of faith in video authenticity with the so-called "CNN effect" and the stage is set for deception to move the world in new ways. Livingston describes the CNN effect as the ability of mass media to go beyond merely reporting what is happening to actually influencing decision-makers as they consider military, international assistance and other national and international issues. "The CNN effect is real," says James Currie, professor of political science at the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington. "Every office you go into at the Pentagon has CNN on." And that means, he says, that a government, terrorist or advocacy group could set geopolitical events in motion on the strength of a few hours' worth of credibility achieved by distributing a snippet of well-doctored video.

With experience as an army reservist, as a staffer with a top-secret clearance on the Senate’s Intelligence Committee, and as a legislative liaison for the Secretary of the Army, Currie has seen governmental decision-making and politicking up close. He is convinced that real-time video manipulation will be, or already is, in the hands of the military and intelligence communities.

Coincidentally, a mainstream network president had even warned in 2000 about fake plane crashes using CGI:

CBS Is Divided Over the Use Of False Images In Broadcasts

Published: January 13, 2000
New York Times

[Andrew Heyward, the president of CBS News,] said that he understood the argument against the use of the technology -- which is widely employed in sports and some entertainment shows -- on news programs. The danger is "that it looks too real and therefore it's wrong or potentially wrong," he said. "I certainly agree it's potentially subject to abuse."

He noted that advances in computer-generated techniques had made things like missiles hitting Baghdad and airplanes crashing lo
ok so real that it was incumbent on networks to underscore that these were not real images.

Now we know that the military has talked about using TV fakery for psyop operations and that the technology to insert digital images into "live" TV broadcasts existed before 9/11. All the military had to do on 9/11 was control the TV airwaves and air a couple of videos showing an image of a plane looking like it crashed into the South Tower and if you need to control the media, what better way to do that than have your own people on the inside before 9/11:

Army 'psyops' at CNN
News giant employed military 'psychological operations' personnel

Posted: March 03, 2000

By Geoff Metcalf

CNN employed active duty U.S. Army psychological operations personnel last year, WorldNetDaily has confirmed through several sources at Fort Bragg and elsewhere.

Maj. Thomas Collins, U.S. Information Service has confirmed that "psyops" (psychological operations) personnel, soldiers and officers, have worked in the CNN headquarters in Atlanta. The lend/lease exercise was part of an Army program called "Training With Industry." According to Collins, the soldiers and officers, "... worked as regular employees of CNN. Conceivably, they would have worked on stories during the Kosovo war. They helped in the production of news."
The CNN military personnel were members of the Airmobile Fourth Psychological Operations Group, stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. One of the main tasks of this group of almost 1200 soldiers and officers is to spread 'selected information.' Critics say that means dissemination of propaganda.

TV Takeover

On 9/11, the military took control of what would be shown on the major TV stations (ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, FOX and MSNBC) and blacked out all the local NYC TV stations. Even though at least five national TV stations would be airing "live" footage, the military only aired footage showing a plane flying into the South Tower on three stations (ABC, CBS, and MSNBC) and only showed a total of four different clips showing a plane (the CBS footage showed two different clips of a plane).

CNN just used part of the ABC feed.

The BBC used all of the ABC feed.

For FOX, the military didn't air any "live" footage showing a plane.

This might have been because they were going to air this footage showing a plane crashing into the South Tower from the side, but they screwed up and the CGI plane went to far which showed the its "nose" exiting the other side of the building and the perps couldn't flip the switch fast enough to cut off the feed.

An analysis by Simon Shack shows that the object seen exiting the South Tower is the same shape as the nose of the "plane" about to hit the building:

If you notice on all of the four "live" clips (and even the fifth screw-up clip), none of these shots show the plane crashing into the side of the South Tower where the "crash" actually happened. They military simply aired views of the WTC which would show the plane disappearing behind the towers. The first videos showing a plane crashing into the "crash" side of the South Tower didn't air until much later.

If the idea that the footage on 9/11 that you saw live on TV was faked still sounds absurd to you, such as the live shots taken from network helicopters, just look what happened recently at the past Olympics:

Beijing Olympic 2008 opening ceremony giant firework footprints 'faked'

10 Aug 2008

What they did not realise was that what they were watching was in fact computer graphics, meticulously created over a period of months and inserted into the coverage electronically at exactly the right moment.
Meticulous efforts were made to ensure the sequence was as unnoticeable as possible: they sought advice from the Beijing meteorological office as to how to recreate the hazy effects of Beijing's smog at night, and inserted a slight camera shake effect to simulate the idea that it was filmed from a helicopter.

"Seeing how it worked out, it was still a bit too bright compared to the actual fireworks," he said. "But most of the audience thought it was filmed live - so that was mission accomplished."

Notice the "shake" in this live 9/11 MSNBC alleged helicopter shot.

Bewilderment from the Planers

For the conspiracists who believe 767's hit the WTC, some even seem to agree that 767's could not have penetrated the Twin Towers and were baffled from what they saw on the videos (emphasis mine):

Then last on the list for the odyssey of Flight 175 is its peculiar entrance, and exit out of the world trade center. How does a plane which is 16 feet, 9 inches in diameter, made out of thin aluminum, tear through not just one set of tubular steel spandrel beams, spaced 39 inches apart, but two of them? Yet there is more. The floors of the WTC, are less than 12.5 feet between floor and ceiling. Which means this plane ripped through a minimum of TWO FLOORS of 209 feet of concrete, 4 inches thick, (with a 22 guage steel pan) and the planes cockpit and fuselage remained intact all the way back to the wing root, and made it clear through the building? Remarkable to say the least. Physically impossible to say the most.

To resolve their bewilderment, they had to created some elaborate theories of how these 767's could have fully and freely penetrated the tower's facades such as suggesting that the perps used thermite/explosives placed at the exact entry points the planes would hit to weaken the facade enough to allow to allow the planes to freely penetrate, saying that the perps used special 767 drones that fired a missile from its “pod” underneath it a fraction of a second before it hit to help the planes enter the facades, and some even suggest that these drones were specially made to cut through steel by being fortified with special materials, such as being lined with Depleted Uranium, or even, get this, fitted with explosive charges to help open the walls of the Towers.

Anthony Lawson, the 10% truther, thinks that the planes that allegedly penetrated through the Twin Towers could have been specially lined with Depleted Uranium and fitted with explosive charges.

Also, if the perps chose to use real planes, then only using the real Flight's 11 and 175 with all the alleged passengers on board would prevent the perps from being caught if one or both of the planes missed their targets, or didn't fully penetrate all the way into the building. However, they would still run the risk of not being able to pull the Twin Towers and WTC 7 if any of the two planes didn't crash the exact way they needed them to crash (i.e. penetrate all the way through so they blow up in the insides of both buildings) and that is something the perps could not afford to chance since collapsing the WTC 1, 2, and 7 was arguably the cornerstones of their diabolical plan.

Lastly, for conspiracists who believe the WTC was brought down with traditional explosives (i.e. bombs/thermite), do you really think crashing large planes loaded with fuel into two of some of the tallest buildings in the world you've just rigged with explosives for a controlled demolition would be a good idea? How would you know that crashing large planes into them wouldn't prematurely explode any of the critically placed bombs that might jeopardize the way you wanted the towers to fall or worse, might even prevent the towers from collapsing at all? Do you really think the perps wanted the towers to fall over like trees into the neighboring non-WTC skyscrapers? What if crashing a real plane into the North Tower caused it to collapse away from the WTC 7? Still think the perps would have pulled the 7?


Using real planes to crash into the towers and make it look believable that the planes crashed in such a way to cause enough internal damage to collapse the mighty Twin Towers and then shower debris onto the WTC 7 to give them an excuse as to why that huge skyscraper collapsed would be way too risky (if not impossible) and that's why they didn't use real planes to hit the WTC. On the other hand, if the perps simply made people on the ground and who were watching TV think that planes hit and penetrated into the Twin Towers, then they eliminated the risk of having to crash real planes into them.

Pulling off 9/11 has given the NeoCons/PNAC (or who ever you want to call the "powers that be") their ticket to continue the build-up of the military and create their never ending war on terrorism so they could invade the Middle-East (Afghanistan and Iraq) to further their quest for global domination by controlling the population and earth's vast resources. Using real planes left too much to chance. A missed target, or failed penetration would ruin all that 9/11 has given the perps. They had to use the least-risky viable option that would not only guarantee hitting their targets, but would also guarantee penetration into the buildings and that was TV fakery.

(Discuss this article at forum.)

See also:

(Special thanks to
The Quest for insights for this article.)

May 27, 2007

The insane war on drugs

You know the war on drugs has totally gotten out of hand when things like this have to be done:

Steel-plated motel offers refuge in Mexico drug war

MONTERREY, Mexico (Reuters) - A motel in northern Mexico is putting steel doors on its rooms to protect guests from kidnappings and shootings in an escalating war between rival drug cartels.

Owners of the Rancho El Trueno, or Thunder Ranch, began fortifying the highway motel near Monterrey a year ago but have decided to shield all 35 rooms as drug killings have worsened in the area in recent months.

Funny, I don't remember ever hearing that motel owners had to do this when drugs were legal.

And remember, drug dealers are against legalization.

May 24, 2007

Purdue engineers think wings & tail sections are stronger than steel

Purdue engineers created this simulation of AA11 crashing and penetrating all the way through the facade of the North WTC Tower. What a fine institution of higher learning:

Here is the full version:

You can find the original to download here and Purdue's 9/11 simulation project here.

See also:

May 22, 2007

On the Dynamic Duo show with Jim Fetzer

(Update - Show archive: Hour 1 - Hour 2 )


I'll be on for the full 2 hours (I think).

Show time:

May 22, 2007

3:00pm - 5:00pm Central Time

(4pm EST - 1pm PST)

Listen here
(select Network 2)


Links to follow along:

WTC 'Plane' Crash Videos
(Collection of all the known 1st & 2nd hit videos, plus photos)

The really really really strong wings of 'UA175'
(animated gifs of '175' penetrating the South Tower)

767's Wing Tips Made Of Pentanium Steel?
(my first article on 'no-planes')

South Tower 'exit' hole

The Frozen Fireball

TV Fakery explains the "Pod" phenomenon

WTC Photo Gallery

May 21, 2007

Archive of no-plane debate against Mike Chambers

(Update: Archive is down.)

Here is the archived show of the no-plane debate between Mike chambers of TruthNet Radio and myself.

This debate was before my no-plane debate with Mike Swenson and was a spontaneously scheduled debate, like as in only a couple hours advanced notice.

May 18, 2007

Archive of no-plane debate on Revolution Radio

Here is the audio archive (hour 2 file) from this show the other week where I debated with host Mike Swenson about no-planes. The show had lots of audio problems and my Skype call dropped a couple of times. It was also very hard to hear some of the callers that called in. I also was very sleep deprived that night from having to make up super early in the morning and since it wasn't my show, it was hard to bring up all the points I wanted to bring up.

The highlight of the night was when Dylan Avery called in and accused me and saying that all the witnesses at the WTC were lying and were in on it and blasted me for saying that the NIST said a CNN video was taken by a “Michael Hezarkhani” in which Dylan says was taken by CNN executive producer Rose Arce and then asked me “is Rose lying?” and that I need to get my “facts straight.” Well it turns out that Dylan didn't get his facts straight because Rose Arce didn't taken that photo and the NIST did in fact say that CNN video was taken by a Michael Hezarkhani:

I also asked Dylan what he thinks hit the 2nd tower and again, he wouldn't say. Hmm.

May 15, 2007

The spinning WTC

There may be an explanation for why it looks like a bridge is continuing to move behind the WTC even after the camera stops zooming. Seems like the bridge wasn't really moving, but that the WTC was built on a giant revolving platter:

The video is being shot from the south tip of Lower Manhattan and is showing gash on the south face of the South Tower allegedly made by Flight 175 crashing into it. Notice you can also see the east face of the South Tower throughout the entire shot.

The tall skyscraper on the far right with the pointy top is the Empire State Building, which is about 3 miles from the WTC. (1st pic)

When the camera zooms, you can see what looks like the WTC 7 just to the right of the South tower. This building is actually the 1 Pennsylvania Plaza building; two blocks from the Empire State Building. (2nd pic)

Now the 1 Penn Plaza is seen to the left of the North Tower. (3rd pic)

And finally, the Empire State Building is seen almost right next to the right side of the South Tower as if the WTC was on a revolving platter rotating left. (4th pic)

The camera continues to show the south face of the South Tower the entire time.

The buildings in the WCBS video do not line up with the buildings using Google Earth.

Photos of the Empire State Building:

This WCBS shot is like the moving bridge shot in which the Verranzano-Narrows bridge looks like it's relatively close to the WTC in the video, but in reality it is 7.5 miles away.

(Thanks to Still Diggin for this.)

May 14, 2007

Mysterious moving bridge near the WTC


Notice that the bridge seen in this video that is to the south of the burning WTC is moving towards the left and continues to keep moving to the left even after the camera stops zooming:

(Click photo to see animated gif.)

This mystery bridge seen in the news clip is the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. Is it even possible that the news camera could make this bridge that is 7.5 miles away look as if it was relatively close?

Thanks to Still Diggin for help with this post.

May 13, 2007

40ft bird flies behind North WTC Tower

or it's a normal sized bird that simply disappears into thin air...

NOTE: This "disappearing bird" was spotted by someone else a while ago, but not sure who. I had just stumbled upon it again.

See also:

May 10, 2007

The Frozen Fireball

(Updated: 07/27/07)

Notice the quality and focus of each frame of the zoom-out is superb even though the zoom-out was extremely fast in the video from CNN's America Remembers.

Notice all of the vehicles on Franklin D. Roosevelt Dr. appear to all be white.

Notice that the white crane arm seems to be swinging out very fast after the camera stops zooming. Remember that the zoomout clip was slowed down from the impact clip.

May 09, 2007

No-plane debate tonight with Mike Swenson

I'll be on Mike Swenson's Revolution Radio show tonight at 10pm-12am EST debating the "forbidden" no-plane theory. I think I'll be coming on for the 2nd hour only.

Call in #: 1-800-451-1567

Access show's chat board here.

[update: 05/18/07 - Show archive (hour 2 file)]

Shanksville debate with JREFer continues

My debate about Flight 93 not crashing in Shanksville with JREFer "Chippy", who had bowed out earlier because of "time constraints", finally continues.

May 08, 2007

Holy shit, now there's an extra "Oh my God!"

I had previously shown to you in one of the many versions of CNN's "Michael Hezarkhani" 2nd hit video that you can hear a man saying "Oh my God!" at the end of one version and in another longer version of the same video, this man is not heard.

Now in another version of this same CNN video, this man is again heard, but this time he is heard saying "Holy shit! Oh my God!" and he is heard saying this much later in the video:

Here is the original "OMG" version which is the same guy saying "OMG", but early than in the video above:

Note that I think the "Holy shit, OMG" video at top has the same audio track as this "missing OMG" version below, but this version just stops a couple seconds sooner so that's why you don't hear any "OMG" in it:

Once again, credit to the immortal Fred for this fabulous find.

May 05, 2007


The forum that I was asked to be an admin at and was helping to promote seems to have vanished without a trace. The webmaster at this site was Slick (a former admin at the old Loose Change forum) who was operating it from his own server. The site went offline sometime last week when my computer was out of commission for about a week and a half.

I've tried to email/skype Slick to see what happened, but so far I haven't heard back from him. I hope he is ok. I know he was becoming more and more disenfranchised with the growing intolerance in the 9/11 truth movement, but I don't want to speculate as to why the site vanished.

I'm sorry to everybody who had posted there. We wanted to start a new 9/11 conspiracy forum that was free of censorship and ran professionally. I had no control over site to keep it running. I'm very disappointed too that the site has just vanished.

I'll try to find out what happened to and try to recover all the posts at the forum and import it to a new forum on a free hosting forum site.

May 04, 2007

New MyWhore, er Space

I created a new MyWhore account (my nickname for MySpace). I wasn't going to bother to set up a new account at this censoring company after they axed my original account, but a lot a people kept asking me if I was going to set up another one, I miss a lot of the friends I had on there, and sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. Reaching people with 9/11 truth is more important than being pissed that they axed me.

I'm going to keep my account there simple. I'm just going to upload my non-copyrighted signature avatar and that's it. No other photos and no videos, so there should be no technical reason for them to ax me. So this should be an test to see how bad they censor.

Please add me as a friend:

May 03, 2007

Oddities of the Scott Myers 2nd WTC hit video

This video is said to be taken by a Scott Myers. As far as I can tell, this person has never been interviewed or has publicly talked about filming this video (just like most of the other alleged 2nd WTC hit video filmers) and there is no evidence this Scott Myers exists other than taking the word of the gov't.

The camera is supposedly taken from a building on Broadway & John St and looks to be mounted on some kind of tripod as its filming up at the burning WTC.

Notice that the camera is pointed up at the middle of the two towers even though the North Tower on the right is only on fire.

It's as if he was anticipating the 2nd crash and the camera angle shows a perfectly unobstructed view of where this 2nd "plane" will eventually hit.

Also, notice that this video has audio and it recorded the sounds of multiple sirens going off, the sound of a plane, and also the sound of an explosion. However, not a single person is heard talking or screaming in this video. The alleged filmer (Myers) is not even heard in it.

Where are all the people? Where are all the screams after the 2nd plane hit? Where was this Scott Myers at any time during this video? Did he set his camera up on a tripod and then take off? Seems extremely odd that this video was able to record the sounds of all the sirens going off, the sound of a plane coming in, the sound of the explosion, but no humans talking or screaming.

Another extremely odd thing about this video is that all the sirens heard suddenly stop after the "plane" hits!

Other things to notice is that the sound of the explosion is greatly delayed from when the explosion happens and there is no deceleration, crumpling and/or breaking of this alleged aluminum plane as it is seen crashing into the side of this steel skyscraper.

May 02, 2007

Banned at Loose Change forum

I’m banned at Loose Change forum . . . again. Well technically I’m not banned, just suspended (until the year 2009!):

Your account has been temporarily suspended. This suspension is due to end on Feb 26 2009, 10:40 PM.

Looks like Dylan Avery was too much of a coward to outright ban me and have the word “gone” appear under my avatar there, so he choose to sweep me under the rug.

I had earlier called for Dylan to step down as admin at his joke of a “9/11 truth” forum because of his censorship, hypocrisy, and unprofessional actions at the forum. Dylan suspended me for 7 days the other week because I told him he fell hook, line and sinker when some JREF punks starting bumping all my previous threads and adding pro-TV fakery/no-plane stuff on them in order to make me look bad in the eyes of all the Loose Change groupies. Subsequently, all my threads at LC have since been locked.

I’m sad to see that very few truthers (if any) who have complained about Dylan running the forum into the ground (again) have publicly called for him to step down as administrator there.

So why was I banned there this time? I dared to post about TV fakery which is now apparently forbidden to discussed at Loose Change’s 9/11 “truth” forum although it’s not listed in their main rules as of this post and is not even listed in their new prohibition of no-planes:

(Main rules)


The Loose Change Forums are a place for the intelligent, respectful exchange of ideas.

Certain theories perceived as extreme and divisive will be moderated at the discretion of the administration.

This is a privately owned forum and the administration reserves the right to restrict the participation of any user that is deemed disruptive for any reason.

Please take a minute to read the Invision rules which we are also subject to in detail.

Also, if you are a self-professed "skeptic", please note the following arguments will be either ignored or erased, as they have no merit:

"too many people would be involved, so your conspiracy is bogus"
"all the people involved must be paid off, so your conspiracy is bogus"
"you guys are still alive, so your conspiracy is bogus"
"our government is too dumb to pull this off, so your conspiracy is bogus"
"our government would NEVER do this, so your conspiracy is bogus"
"screw you guys, your conspiracy is bogus"
"you guys are all in this for the money"
"you guys are all Bush bashers"
"you guys are all Liberals"
"you guys are all nuts"

Thank you.


(No-plane rules)

Loose Change Forum is from now on taking a NO TOLERANCE POLICY on "No Planes At WTC"

From this post forward, anyone seen promoting that theory ... first offense, 7 day suspension. Second offense, banning.

This is our forum, and we refuse to allow our reputation to be tarnished any further.

So as you can see, I didn't talk about anything forbidden at LC.

It's kind of funny that Dylan forbids talk of no-planes (and apparently TV fakery as an unwritten rule) because he thinks it makes the truth movement "look bad". I can’t help but chuckle when I saw what the Man has to say about his film Loose Change:

“Loose Change” Debunked

Amateurish video on 9/11 full of errors, faulty reasoning

Despite the video’s extraordinary popularity, its claims are so absurd that
they are considered an embarrassment by other conspiracy theorists, some of whom have written lengthy critiques of the video’s most outlandish claims.

Dylan has also axed the Alternative Theories section at the LC forum, but interestingly has kept the Skeptics section. Hmm.

Here’s my post that got me banned, but don’t bother clicking the link because Dictator Dylan already deleted it from his “truth” forum. Fortunately my friend Fred saved Dylan’s last good-bye to me:

dylan avery
Posted: May 2 2007, 05:36 PM

You know our policy on this, "Killtown"


Yes Dylan, I know your policy of censorship. My bad.

Btw, my post showed how CNN’s Michael Hezarkhani video showing the 2nd WTC hit is fake -- kind of like how Dylan tells us in his video Loose Change that the U.S. government used voice morphing software to fake the passenger phone calls from the four hijacked planes, "no question about it". Now that theory won't look "outlandish" to potential 9/11 truth newcomers, right?

I spent about an hour making that TV fakery post and I felt it showed very clearly that CNN video is fake and was made in 2D animation, but did Dylan care? Nope.

So I’m making the call again:

Dylan, your censorship, hypocrisy and unprofessional actions has made the forum become a joke. For the good of the 9/11 truth movement, step down as admin at the Loose Change forum, or close the forum like you did with the your first one.

I also call on all the admins/moderators at the Loose Change forum who do not support censorship to immediately resign from there.

To all members currently posting there, don’t wait until one of the theories you believe in is forbidden to be discussed there to stand oop against 9/11 truth dictators.

My banned from list.