Lawson Video on Absurdity of "No Planes Hit WTC" Theory [Archive]

PatColo

7th August 2011, 06:36 AM

"9/11: The Absurdity of the No-Planes-in-New York Theory"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gV4rvTxcMSY

Uploaded by alawson911 (http://www.youtube.com/user/alawson911) on Jul 30, 2011
PLEASE SEE THE BEST COMMENT EVER, BELOW.

Although it will make sense if viewed in isolation, this is not meant to be a stand-alone video; it was compiled as a companion to a text article of the same name. Links to the websites that host the article are as follows:

These are the links to the text article of the same name.

http://salem-news.com/articles/august012011/no-planes_al.php

http://www.rense.com/general94/911%20-%20The%20Absurdity%20of%20the%20No-Planes-in-New%20York%20Theory.pdf

MARIAUTUBE made a great comment on August 2nd.
Since I'm a New Yorker I can absolutely assure every single IDIOT that says there were no planes that day; that there were freaking planes !! Are you freaking insane !!?? The 1st plane flew almost right over me !! There were thousands of people if not hundreds of thousands, who saw the freaking planes and not just saw them from NYC but from Brooklyn, New Jersey and Queens. OMG, I just don't understand how these morons make these claims when they weren't even here !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you, Maria.

Bollyn writes,

Lawson Video on "No Planes" Theory (http://www.bollyn.com/index.php#article_13123)

Updated August 5, 2011
Anthony Lawson has made another excellent new video entitled "The Absurdity of the No Planes in New York Theory" in which he challenges the "No Planes" theory promoted by James Fetzer and others. Lawson also wrote an article, titled "9/11: The Absurdity of the No-Planes-in-New York Theory" (http://salem-news.com/articles/august012011/no-planes_al.php) that supports his video.
There is one point in the latest Lawson video where I am not in complete agreement. After exchanging emails with Mr. Lawson, I have decided to clarify my position on this point.

The photographs and videos clearly show two very fast moving objects flying out of the South Tower ahead of the explosion. Lawson identifies one of these as the engine that was found on Murray Street. I agree with him on that, but I do not think this engine is from the aircraft, but is rather part of a depleted uranium missile that was fired into the tower just before the plane made impact. I think both objects seen flying out of the South Tower are parts of this missile. The object that is burning white hot is probably the remaining depleted uranium warhead leaving a dark trail of uranium oxides. The gap between the extremely hot burning uranium warhead and the visible oxides could be due to the fact that the oxides need to cool before they are visible.

http://www.bollyn.com/public/Hezarkhani20video20Engine1.JPG
The two fast-moving objects that came out of the South Tower had incredible momentum.

http://www.bollyn.com/public/Damage_to_WTC2.jpg
The right engine of the aircraft (about 9 feet in diameter) would have broken through at least three 14-inch exterior box columns on entry, which would have robbed it of most of its forward momentum. The aircraft engine would not have had enough momentum to pass through the building, break through more box columns on the far side of the tower, and carry on for a few hundred meters down the street. This is as far-fetched as Arlen Specter's "Magic Bullet" of the JFK assassination.

http://www.bollyn.com/public/175_impact_on_WTC2.jpg
This NIST diagram shows the right engine hitting the spandrel of the 82nd floor, which means that the engine that is thought to have flown through the tower would have first broken through the spandrel and three 14-inch box columns, the 4-inch concrete floor, its steel pan, and dense trusswork - edgewise. It is simply impossible for the right engine to have passed through all these solid obstacles, broken through the box columns on the far side, and carried on for several hundred meters further down the street. This engine would not have passed through the tower. Source: NIST Report (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-2B%20Chap%201%20thru%208.pdf) on the World Trade Center

I have written an analysis of these two objects in an article from April 2011 entitled "The 'Huge Bullet Hole' in the South Tower and Analysis of Missile Evidence" (http://www.bollyn.com/the-huge-bullet-hole-in-the-south-tower-and-analysis-of-missile-evidence). The object that is burning white hot has the characteristics of a burning depleted uranium warhead. While one of these two objects is probably the engine that landed on Murray Street, I do not think it is the one that is burning white hot. The engine that landed on the street has not been identified and is probably part of the missile that carried the depleted uranium warhead.

http://www.bollyn.com/public/DU_WTC_WhiteHotObject_small.jpg
Two objects came out of the South Tower ahead of the explosions. Note the gap between the burning object and the dark oxides it produces.

http://www.bollyn.com/public/debris_trajectories.jpg
The FEMA report says that one is an engine and the other is "landing gear". Landing gear would not burn white hot. If this landing gear landed on the Burlington Coat Factory, why was it not shown in any photographs?

http://www.bollyn.com/public/Engine_on_Murray_street_small.jpg
This engine, "the bullet from the smoking gun" that killed hundreds of people on 9/11, was never identified and was treated as garbage. Judging by the sign and the square placed on top of it, this part of the engine is only about two feet (60 cm) wide. Why was this engine not identified by its time-tracked parts if it truly came from the airliner that is said to have hit the South Tower? My opinion is that this is part of the missile that penetrated the tower immediately before the aircraft made impact.

Anthony Lawson's new video can be viewed here: [see video at top - PC]

Sources and Recommended Reading:
Bollyn, Christopher, "The 'Huge Bullet Hole' in the South Tower and Analysis of Missile Evidence", April 2011
http://www.bollyn.com/the-huge-bullet-hole-in-the-south-tower-and-analysis-of-missile-evidence (http://www.bollyn.com/the-huge-bullet-hole-in-the-south-tower-and-analysis-of-missile-evidence)
Lawson, Anthony, "9/11: The Absurdity of the No-Planes-in-New York Theory", 1 August 2011, Salem-News.com
http://salem-news.com/articles/august012011/no-planes_al.php (http://salem-news.com/articles/august012011/no-planes_al.php)

Hatha Sunahara

7th August 2011, 09:18 AM

I have a great deal of respect for Anthony Lawson. He presents facts in a logical way so that his conclusions are solid and unassailable. However, I cannot buy his conclusions on this set of facts.

My question, which he ignores, is: How do flying aluminum tubes penetrate a mesh of steel columns that are twice the thickness of the armor on the biggest tanks in the world?

When you see a plane flying into such a building, and it disappears inside the building, it is not obeying the laws of physics. Aluminum does not cut into steel. What you would expect if an aluminum plane flew into a steel building is for the aluminum plane to meet some substantial resistance. It would rapidly decelerate. Then it would crumple like an aluminum can being crushed. Some parts of the plane that were between the steel columns might enter the steel building, but most of the plane would come to a stop outside the building. The tail would compress into the nose. The wings would compress into the leading edge. The part of the plane that did not enter the building would come to a stop outside the building. It might make a small dent in the steel face of the building, and then most of the plane would fall down outside the building into the street below. This is not what we saw on the videos of the planes hitting the buildings. They completely disappeared inside the building.

That leads me to believe that the videos we saw on TV are fake. Computer graphics. A complete lie. Anthony Lawson does not question the veracity of the videos. I think his conclusion is wrong. He is taking the same path that Putin takes--claiming that it is impossible to cover up what happened. I don't think it is impossible to cover up what happened if you believe the laws of physics prevail. Videos are easy to create. We have a complete art form for creating fantasies in cartoons for kids. What we saw on 911 were cartoons for not so smart adults.

Hatha

keehah

7th August 2011, 10:22 AM

Disinfowars! Idiots and Elite United against Reality!

willie pete

7th August 2011, 10:58 AM

mrnhtbr2232

7th August 2011, 11:13 AM

How do flying aluminum tubes penetrate a mesh of steel columns that are twice the thickness of the armor on the biggest tanks in the world?

This really is a key question. The majority of concrete used to build the towers was in the bathtub and the basement, leaving mostly steel box columns and framing except for the floor slabs. Most of what was standing was structural steel.

The building design was meant to withstand hurricane force winds 30 times stronger than the airplane's weight as a lateral load. The design was also redundant and took into account shifting structural stress in the event an aircraft crashed into it. Therefore an aluminum and plastic airplane flying into what was essentially a steel reinforced catcher's mitt and causing the towers to collapse from the ensuing heat and damage is just simply not possible.

And yet there we see it in the photos provided to the media and online - an obvious sheer line in the building facades like it was prefabricated - beams curled inward, clean slices through concrete floors, distinct entry footprint without a single piece of aircraft debris to be seen. A surgically clean impact - it certainly raises more questions than it answers.

Hatha Sunahara

7th August 2011, 12:12 PM

"My question, which he ignores, is: How do flying aluminum tubes penetrate a mesh of steel columns that are twice the thickness of the armor on the biggest tanks in the world?"

I've seen other "lightweight" objects propelled fast enough to penetrate heavier more dense objects....for instance, during a tornado, these images were taken in the aftermath of the tornado that hit Joplin MO, ....also the kinetic rounds they use in warfare, that's nothing more than a metal "spear" going really FAST, BUT when it impacts a Tank, it punches THROUGH the several inches of armour and OUT the other side with NO problem at all, and it does that with absolutley NO explosive at all....Pure Kinetic energy

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/7782/chairinthewall.jpg

[http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/139/strawinwood.jpg

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/3374/woodthroughconcrete.jpg

The metal spear they use as an anti tank round is made of Depleted Uranium. The reason it pierces the tank's armor is because the DU is much denser than steel, and it is traveling much faster than an airliner. The energy released when it collides with the tank is turned instantly to heat, which melts a hole in the tank's armor, and it penetrates. DU is far denser than aluminum. My question still stands: How do aluminum planes penetrate a thick steel mesh? When I hear a plausible answer, I'll give up my suspicion that the laws of physics are being challenged by the 911 Official Story.

Hatha

Joe King

7th August 2011, 02:15 PM

My question, which he ignores, is: How do flying aluminum tubes penetrate a mesh of steel columns that are twice the thickness of the armor on the biggest tanks in the world?

When you see a plane flying into such a building, and it disappears inside the building, it is not obeying the laws of physics. Aluminum does not cut into steel. What you would expect if an aluminum plane flew into a steel building is for the aluminum plane to meet some substantial resistance. It would rapidly decelerate. Then it would crumple like an aluminum can being crushed. Some parts of the plane that were between the steel columns might enter the steel building, but most of the plane would come to a stop outside the building. The tail would compress into the nose. The wings would compress into the leading edge. The part of the plane that did not enter the building would come to a stop outside the building. It might make a small dent in the steel face of the building, and then most of the plane would fall down outside the building into the street below. This is not what we saw on the videos of the planes hitting the buildings. They completely disappeared inside the building.

That leads me to believe that the videos we saw on TV are fake.

Hatha

What if the outside face of the buildings weren't structural steel?
...or not even steel at all, but rather aluminum?

Yamasaki's design called for the building facades to be sheathed in aluminum-alloy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Design)

If you look at the plans, you'll see that all the big steel columns were at the core of the building.
If anything, the concrete floors of the buildings probably acted as knives and sliced the planes as it entered the building and the individual parts just slid right on through.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/frames.html

PatColo

7th August 2011, 07:35 PM

Funny that controlled-opp site 911blogger has not seen fit to make a blog entry for this latest Lawson vid, even though the controlling mods/clique there at 911B are anti-NP@WTC theories, in line with this latest Lawson vid. They sure loved Lawson's first 911 video from 12/07, the short/punchy 2 min "WTC7 - This Is An Orange":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk

It was '08 that it became clear that 911B had 'quietly' (LOL) become co-opted by the dark side and morphed into a controlled-opp site,

Editorial Direction at 911blogger.com (http://911blogger.com/node/14466)
Submitted by Reprehensor (http://911blogger.com/users/reprehensor) on Sat, 04/12/2008 - 8:39am

^^ wherein 'Lawson's MELTDOWN' is referenced (a holohoax (http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Editorials/2010/March/15%20o/Truth,%20History,%20and%20Integrity%20Questioning% 20the%20Holocaust%20Religion%20By%20Gilad%20Atzmon .htm) DENIER, OH MY! :o). See Lawson's contributions in that 'Lawson meltdown' thread at 911forum.org.uk - Mossad tactic- Link 911 Truth to Holocaust Denial (http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=14360&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0) << clever title too, with the agents obviously in control of 911forum.org.uk pulling the trusty CHUTZPAH MANEUVER (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?48510-The-gullible-mind-explained-False-projection-of-honor-code&p=410540&viewfull=1#post410540), accusing Lawson of being a Mossad Agent secretly working to damage the [fake] 911 truth movement... LOL ;D

Also see this 911B entry from later '08:

On Disinformation and Damaging Associations (http://911blogger.com/node/17206)
Submitted by Reprehensor (http://911blogger.com/users/reprehensor) on Sun, 08/24/2008 - 12:33pm

... so obviously the 911 Truth Gatekeepers @ 911B have deemed Lawson a "damaging association" who risks "hurting the [fake] truth movement..." ::)

And Lawson has proven them correct I suppose, more recently producing such thought-crime videos as,

The Hate Mongers Among Us (great vid re propaganda!) (http://gold-silver.us/forum/general-discussion/the-hate-mongers-among-us-%28great-vid-re-propaganda%21%29/msg130016/#msg130016)
&
Holocaust, Hate Speech & Were the Germans so Stupid? Anthony Lawson vid (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?46222-Holocaust-Hate-Speech-amp-Were-the-Germans-so-Stupid-Anthony-Lawson-vid)
&
Anthony Lawson - The Death Of American Democracy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK7SRYp4sBc)
&
AIPAC 101 - What Every American Should Know (http://vimeo.com/23674530)
&
this interview: Anthony Lawson On 9/11 And The Holocaust (http://rense.com/general93/anthn.htm)

willie pete

7th August 2011, 09:40 PM

The metal spear they use as an anti tank round is made of Depleted Uranium. The reason it pierces the tank's armor is because the DU is much denser than steel, and it is traveling much faster than an airliner. The energy released when it collides with the tank is turned instantly to heat, which melts a hole in the tank's armor, and it penetrates. DU is far denser than aluminum. My question still stands: How do aluminum planes penetrate a thick steel mesh? When I hear a plausible answer, I'll give up my suspicion that the laws of physics are being challenged by the 911 Official Story.

Hatha

Sure DU is more dense than steel, about 2½ times more dense, unless I'm mistaken, So what? that chair imbedded in that wall of that building and those pieces or straw or small sticks embedded in that tree(?) I posted to argue the point that a light weight object traveling at a very high rate of speed could penetrate a harder object....as far as your theory of the DU spear's KINETIC energy turning immediately to heat and melting the tank armour to penetrate it, ...well it's my opinion you might want to re-think that one....what punches a hole in the tank's armour is nothing but the shear and immediate TRANSFER of Kinetic energy onto the point of impact of the DU spear, remember some guy named Newton opinned that there was an equal and opposite reaction for a given action, sorta like what I used to hear people say "oh a .45 will KNOCK a man backwards on his ass" .....yea right, did it knock you on your ass when you pulled the trigger? ....Nope, so it won't knock a man off his feet when it hits them, at least NOT from the force of impact..

I think the reason the aluminum planes penetrated the facade of the twin towers was; you had a 250,000 lb object, traveling at +/- 500 mph (733 fps) ....that's extremely close to the muzzle velocity of a 230 grain .45 ACP bullet, and then add in 15,000 gallons of jet fuel, you'll have a hell of a fireball, which in deed was witnessed...

PatColo

7th August 2011, 10:26 PM

The "planes are just like flying beer cans" analogy (a line Jim Fetzer likes to repeat ad nauseum, listen to his recent interviews with Kevin Barrett) just doesn't fly, ;D

Planes have a titanium frame giving them strength; you think beer can aluminum would be sufficient to support the massive weight of those jet engines mounted below the wings?

So unless FetzerCo actually mean titanium-framed-jet-engined-beer-cans, I think they should just drop the retarded "but but, planes are made of aluminum like beer cans!!" talking point altogether.

And yes the outer skin of the WTC was aluminum; the 47 massive steel columns were the inner core of the bldgs, not outer.

Hatha Sunahara

7th August 2011, 11:31 PM

Large jet airliners aren't designed to stay rigid if they fly into something hard. If the same plane flew into a mountain, how far would it penetrate into the mountain? Or if it flew into the ground in a vertical dive, the ground would stop it. It would crumple and compress, but would it make a crater? Oh, excuse me, the plane that crashed in Shanksville PA on the same day made a huge crater, but left virtually no debris. Somehow, I don't think that crater was made by a plane.

A Boeing 767-300 has an empty weight of about 180,000 pounds. With fuel and passengers, it might weigh 300,000 pounds, or roughly 150 tons. If it is flying at 500mph and meets a steel structure that weighs in excess of 100,000 tons, don't you think you would be able to see some deceleration immediately after the nose made contact with the building? But we didn't see any deceleration whatsoever. Both planes just flew right in and disappeared. The tail flew right into the building as well. There was no deceleration of the planes that you could see before they disappeared inside the building. The whole plane went into the building in tact and disappeared. Doesn't this strike you as a bit strange? Shouldn't each plane have slowed down as the nose made contact with the building? Each plane was more than 100 feet long, and it didn't slow down at all as it made contact with the building. Nor did the planes disintegrate until after they were inside the building.

I remember a few days after it happened, I fired up my Microsoft Flight Simulator and practiced flying airplanes into the WTC on my computer. When I managed to hit the buildings, my computer animated planes flew in exactly the way the 911 planes on TV did--without decelerating, and then the program told me the flight was over. In a real plane you would see the force of the impact affecting parts of the plane behind the point of impact. You would see crumpling and compression, and large pieces like the wings and the engines and the tail falling off. That didn't happen. Why not? My question is about what didn't happen that I would expect to see--not what I saw on TV that was played over and over again at least 1000 times on each network in the 48 hours after the event. If I was on the street in NYC when this happened, and I saw nothing, after two days, I would swear I saw real planes doing what they showed me on TV. It was a masterful psy-op. Just about everybody fell for it for a while, until their rational minds returned, if they ever returned.

Hatha

Joe King

7th August 2011, 11:59 PM

It wasn't steel they broke through, but the aluminum facade on the building.
ie it wasn't a load-bearing material, and why do you keep insisting it was steel?

The inertia of 150 tons of plane hitting it at 500mph was more than enough to allow the planes to punch right through it.
ie like a 500mph beer can going through aluminum foil.

Hatha Sunahara

8th August 2011, 12:56 AM

Joe King, you may not be familiar with the construction of the WTC towers. Here are some pictures that might help you wrap your head around how the WTC towers were built. There is a steel core in the center of the building, and a steel box frame on the outside perimeter of each tower. The box frame on the outside is covered by aluminum facing which is a decoration, and not part of the structure of the buildings. Here are the pictures:

586

585

I hope this helps you understand just how tough those towers were. You can see the component box frame members spaced one meter apart all along the outside of the buildings. The steel in the core was much thicker. The only concrete in the building above the foundation was in pans between the core and the external skeleton, about 4 inches thick on each floor of the building. The amount of concrete in each building is miniscule compared to the amount of steel in the frame of the building. It was the steel that turned into dust almost instantaneously when the buildings collapsed. Certainly the planes didn't deliver enough energy to those buildings to pulverize all the steel into micron sized bits of dust. But there weren't any real planes. They couldn't have penetrated that steel on the perimeter of the building.

Hatha

willie pete

8th August 2011, 09:46 AM

I never heard that hypothesis: "It was the steel that turned into dust almost instantaneously when the buildings collapsed" Really? ......I'd think the only way you could pulverize steel would be to freeze it down to several hundred degrees first...IMO even though the twin towers were engineered to sustain plane impacts, I don't think they were thinking about a full throttle "kamakaze" type attack, they were probably referring to a Low-speed landing approach. The box frame members were hollow, in the photo attached you can see how at the POI they're pushed inwards from the force of the plane penetrating the facade, and commercial aircraft impacting the ground, it will depend on the ground as to what and how much debris is immediately visible

http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/2233/wtchole.jpg

sunshine05

8th August 2011, 10:13 AM

Hatha - I've been convinced for a long time now that the videos are fake. There is no doubt. There were NO planes flown on 9/11.

willie pete

8th August 2011, 10:22 AM

Hatha - I've been convinced for a long time now that the videos are fake. There is no doubt. There were NO planes flown on 9/11.

just curious....do you have an opinion as to what produced the damage in the photo above? ↑ ↑

Dogman

8th August 2011, 10:28 AM

Hatha - I've been convinced for a long time now that the videos are fake. There is no doubt. There were NO planes flown on 9/11.

Go to new york and ask around , think you will find thousands of people that saw the planes hit. And I bet you would have to pick yourself off the ground if you say that there were no planes hitting the buildings.

Way too many people with eyes saw it all go down. And most of them lost personal friends or people they knew die that morning.

Joe King

8th August 2011, 10:36 AM

just curious....do you have an opinion as to what produced the damage in the photo above? ↑ ↑

My opinion...not that it really matters....is that airplanes, due their own inertia caused the damage.

After all, it's obvious from the pic something hit it from the outside. Add to that, video and numerous eye-witnesses also agree.

To say planes did not hit those towers is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

Hatha Sunahara

8th August 2011, 10:54 AM

just curious....do you have an opinion as to what produced the damage in the photo above? ↑ ↑

Look at how cleanly the box beams were cut in the picture above. That is the kind of damage thermite could do, along with explosives placed on the outside of the box beams to blow them inward, and a lot of barrels of jet fuel with explosives strapped to them on the floors where the jets supposedly hit.

The biggest problem we all have with 911 truth are our 'lying eyes'. Somebody set it up so our eyes would lie to us. The 'planes' were an integral part of it. Why do you suppose the NTSB the National Transportation Safety Board did no investigation on these 4 crashes? It's because there were no planes, and no plane crashes. The NTSB has investigated all other plane crashes without exception, but not the ones that 'crashed' on 911. Nobody found parts to match to an FAA database of plane part serial numbers.

Why does Anthony Lawson ignore these facts? There may be millions of people in New York who believe they saw planes crash after they watched it a million times on TV. If there were so many eyewitnesses, why is there such a limited supply of independent videos of the event?

Hatha

DMac

8th August 2011, 10:57 AM

Go to new york and ask around , think you will find thousands of people that saw the planes hit. And I bet you would have to pick yourself off the ground if you say that there were no planes hitting the buildings.

Way too many people with eyes saw it all go down. And most of them lost personal friends or people they knew die that morning.

Lived and worked in NY for many years. Knew folks that died that day. Knew folks that died from the rescue effort. I've never met someone that saw the planes.

Dogman

8th August 2011, 11:00 AM

Lived and worked in NY for many years. Knew folks that died that day. Knew folks that died from the rescue effort. I've never met someone that saw the planes. Understand, how many people live in the area? Thousands are not even 1 prcentage point.

DMac

8th August 2011, 11:07 AM

Understand, how many people live in the area? Thousands are not even 1 prcentage point.

In the area? Not many, its primarily a commercial district. It's a small world Dogman. By now, I think I would have met someone. I've had a large social circle over the course of my life, in particular, ~10 years ago.

You're talking out yer butt on this one!

Go to new york and ask around , think you will find thousands of people that saw the planes hit

Dogman

8th August 2011, 11:16 AM

In the area? Not many, its primarily a commercial district. It's a small world Dogman. By now, I think I would have met someone. I've had a large social circle over the course of my life, in particular, ~10 years ago.

You're talking out yer butt on this one! I was referring to all of the area that people could see the towers. Some

18,897,109 People give or take a few hundred thousand or so. live in the area.

Lot's of witness's saw it in person.

DMac

8th August 2011, 11:45 AM

I was referring to all of the area that people could see the towers. Some

8,175,133 People give or take a few thousand or so. live in the area.

Lot's of witness's saw it in person.

What you assume would be thousands turns out to be a hand full - maybe 2-3 dozen, when you search for actual reports.

You are making assumptions! You cannot prove your claim of thousands of witnesses.

NYC is not some open field where its 8 million inhabitants are watching for low flying planes. At the time of the attack, there were no more than several thousand on the ground in lower Manhattan. There is an obstructed view, it is like being in a mountain valley, standing on the street in some areas. The window for witnesses shrinks dramatically when you calculate all the variables that interfere with sky watching.

Look, I'm not claiming there were no planes, or that it was missiles or something. I just want it to be clear that there are VERY FEW actual witnesses of the events (in person) at the time the planes struck WTC.

Joe King

8th August 2011, 11:47 AM

Look at how cleanly the box beams were cut in the picture above. That is the kind of damage thermite could do, along with explosives placed on the outside of the box beams to blow them inward, and a lot of barrels of jet fuel with explosives strapped to them on the floors where the jets supposedly hit.

In that scenario, with only air on the outside, the energy of the blast would be directed outwards, not inwards.
ie air "bends" much easier than anything that building was made out of.

The biggest problem we all have with 911 truth are our 'lying eyes'. Somebody set it up so our eyes would lie to us. The 'planes' were an integral part of it. Why do you suppose the NTSB the National Transportation Safety Board did no investigation on these 4 crashes? It's because there were no planes, and no plane crashes. The NTSB has investigated all other plane crashes without exception, but not the ones that 'crashed' on 911. Nobody found parts to match to an FAA database of plane part serial numbers.Then what happened to the hi-jacked planes?

Why does Anthony Lawson ignore these facts? There may be millions of people in New York who believe they saw planes crash after they watched it a million times on TV. If there were so many eyewitnesses, why is there such a limited supply of independent videos of the event?

HathaThat I can't answer. It just is what it is. Asking that is like asking why more people didn't take pics of JFK being shot. Quarter million people there, after all. Cameras been around for a long time before then, so why didn't we get more pics of it? I dunno.

Dogman

8th August 2011, 11:56 AM

What you assume would be thousands turns out to be a hand full - maybe 2-3 dozen, when you search for actual reports.

You are making assumptions! You cannot prove your claim of thousands of witnesses.

NYC is not some open field where its 8 million inhabitants are watching for low flying planes. At the time of the attack, there were no more than several thousand on the ground in lower Manhattan. There is an obstructed view, it is like being in a mountain valley, standing on the street in some areas. The window for witnesses shrinks dramatically when you calculate all the variables that interfere with sky watching.

Look, I'm not claiming there were no planes, or that it was missiles or something. I just want it to be clear that there are VERY FEW actual witnesses of the events (in person) at the time the planes struck WTC.

O.K learned a long time ago , when too quit. But I still hold to what I have said. The web is a sorry place for this kind of info, because all of the dis-info on it. And on this subject pages of it.

I like a conspiracy theory now and then, but there is a point that they can take on a life of their own with not a shred of real truth and evidence.

And I am doubly cautious when people start making their living by keeping them going.

Said my piece and dos pesos.

Enjoy!

willie pete

8th August 2011, 03:39 PM

Look at how cleanly the box beams were cut in the picture above. That is the kind of damage thermite could do, along with explosives placed on the outside of the box beams to blow them inward, and a lot of barrels of jet fuel with explosives strapped to them on the floors where the jets supposedly hit.

The biggest problem we all have with 911 truth are our 'lying eyes'. Somebody set it up so our eyes would lie to us. The 'planes' were an integral part of it. Why do you suppose the NTSB the National Transportation Safety Board did no investigation on these 4 crashes? It's because there were no planes, and no plane crashes. The NTSB has investigated all other plane crashes without exception, but not the ones that 'crashed' on 911. Nobody found parts to match to an FAA database of plane part serial numbers.

Why does Anthony Lawson ignore these facts? There may be millions of people in New York who believe they saw planes crash after they watched it a million times on TV. If there were so many eyewitnesses, why is there such a limited supply of independent videos of the event?

Hatha

I think those box beams look the way they do because the planes impact was fast enough to shear them off, and notice the angle, they're pointed inwards....and the "barrels of jet fuel and explosives"...I just don't think it happened that way....take a look at that fireball again, it's HUGE, it's what at least 10 stories on the outside of the bldg? that WHOLE floor and maybe 2 or 3 others would have to be Filled with barrels of jet fuel.....I sometimes wonder why it's so hard for some to think that it wasn't a terrorist act......they tried the same thing in 1993, they shot down a helicopter the other day killing 30, these people HATE the US....they've HATED the US & West for decades....they've been barbarians for centuries, I don't think it's a stretch at all for them to CONTINUALLY attack the west & the US

sunshine05

8th August 2011, 04:54 PM

We know there were no planes in Shanksville or the Pentagon, well, at least those of us who have spent some time looking at those two events. If we know there were no planes there, why is it such a stretch to believe there were NO planes anywhere. I recommend watching September Clues. The TV footage was all identical and there were errors to hide. They put a large banner on the bottom of the screen at one point. There are film anomalies, such as a giant Empire State Bldg, larger than the towers to the right of the towers and then cut to commercial. If I have time, I'll try to find that one and post it here. It was Sim city all the way.

Joe King

8th August 2011, 05:08 PM

Hatha Sunahara

8th August 2011, 07:30 PM

I thought this was about the WTC's? But seeing as you brought it up, if the video of planes hitting the towers in NYC was so easy to fake, why wouldn't they produce fake video for the other locations, too?
...or at least the Pentagon.

The Pentagon was hit with a cruise missile. If it was hit by a commercial jetliner that was hijacked, there would have been debris outside the pentagon as well as luggage and body parts. Did anybody see any photos of these things that were convincing? The part of the pentagon that was hit was the part that would have been useful to track the 2.3 $Trillion of missing assets that Rumsfeld claimed were missing on 9/10/01. I didn't see anything on TV or anywhere else that supports the claim that an airliner hit the Pentagon. The case for no plane at the Pentagon was made first by a French guy named Thierry Meyssan.

The idea that the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile comes from a Russian named Dimitri Khalezov--who put together a complete explanation of all parts of 911. He explins it in a set of videos and a book. The videos are 26 segments, each 10 minutes long. There are links to them here: http://www.911-truth.net/. There is a link there to download his book The Third Truth. Khalezov makes a good case that the 3 WTC buildings that came down were brought down by nuclear demolition devices exploded 50 meters below each building. Khalezov makes a much better argument than I am able to make about aluminum tubes not being aple to penetrate the steel outer structure of the WTC towers.

I think Anthony Lawson underestimates the skullduggery and skill of the 911 perpetrators when he claims it would be impossible to cover up a no planes scenario.

Hatha

JDRock

8th August 2011, 08:00 PM

how many planes hit wtc 7??

willie pete

8th August 2011, 09:14 PM

how many planes hit wtc 7??

that's the wrong question to ask....

Joe King

8th August 2011, 09:18 PM

Khalezov makes a much better argument than I am able to make about aluminum tubes not being aple to penetrate the steel outer structure of the WTC towers.

Hatha

If you want to know if it's at all possible to fly planes into the WTC's, what you need to ask is, what is the shear strength of those beams on the building? If they are riveted together, what's the shear strength on those? Then ask, how much force can a 150+ton plane deliver at 500+mph? Over what surface area?
Answer those questions and you'll be on your way to determining if those planes did as they were shown to do.

That doesn't get into the question of whether or not the impact was sufficient to bring the buildings down, as that's an entirely differnt question.

But what about my question? If the video was so easily faked for the WTC's, why wouldn't they have made fake video footage for at least the Pentagon? There were lots of cameras in Washington that could have been used for such a task. So why not do the same?

PatColo

8th August 2011, 11:46 PM

The web is a sorry place for this kind of info, because all of the dis-info on it. And on this subject pages of it.

yep, many many pages of disinfo in "real life", too!

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/images/Wolfowitz_with_9-11_Commission_Report.gif

I like a conspiracy theory now and then, but there is a point that they can take on a life of their own with not a shred of real truth and evidence.

And I am doubly cautious when people start making their living by keeping them going.

Like when the banksters & MIC etc "make their living" off keeping their official 911 CT, and their subsequent warrenterra hoax going? ???

Were America Attacked by Scary Moozlemists on 9/11? (http://davidraygriffin.com/articles/was-america-attacked-by-muslims-on-911/)

Conclusion
All the proffered evidence that America was attacked by Muslims on 9/11, when subjected to critical scrutiny, appears to have been fabricated. If that is determined indeed to be the case, the implications would be enormous. Discovering and prosecuting the true perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks would obviously be important. The most immediate consequence, however, should be to reverse those attitudes and policies that have been based on the assumption that America was attacked by Muslims on 9/11.

Hatha Sunahara

9th August 2011, 01:58 AM

But what about my question? If the video was so easily faked for the WTC's, why wouldn't they have made fake video footage for at least the Pentagon? There were lots of cameras in Washington that could have been used for such a task. So why not do the same?

If you want an answer to that, you might have to accept some assumptions about how the WTC towers were demolished. They didn't need to make fake videos of a plane flying into the Pentagon because the 'planes' were used to pin the blame on Arab terrorists. If those terrorists flew them into the WTC, people would believe they also flew one plane into the Pentagon. No need for a fake video there. They didn't need to make videos of a plane flying into WTC 7 because their demolition devices were capable of turning the entire building to dust. Not so with the Tall WTC towers that could only be pulverized up to about the 80th floor. Did you notice how when the buildings started to collapse, the floors started blowing out from about the 80th floor downward, and the parts of the building above the 80th floor stayed in tact, then disappeared into the cloud of dust below? Also how there were papers scattered all over the streets of Lower Manhattan? That paper was from the top floors of the building which didn't get pulverized. They broke up into larger pieces. The planes had to fly into the part of the building that was the top limit of the subsequent pulverization. That would make it look like the planes caused the buildings to collapse, and could therefore be blamed on 'arab terrorists'. WTC 7 was presented as damages caused by pieces of the tall towers hitting it. The damage to the Pentagon was assumed to be caused by one of the four planes supposedly hijacked, although there is no evidence that the Pentagon was hit by a plane.

Once again, I will refer you to Dimitri Khalezov's explanation at the link I provided above. It wouldn't make sense unless you know how the buildings were really demolished. They only had to create the perception that hijacked planes destroyed the tall towers, and they did that with fake videos. All the rest of what people believe about 911 is an extension of the belief that terrorists flew planes into the tall towers and caused them to collapse. So the people covering it up have to squash the 'no planes' theory. The planes were essential for blaming 911 on the Arabs. If people believe there were no planes then there were no arabs, and obviously somebody else did 911. Once again, Khalezov explains it much better than I do.

Hatha

Joe King

9th August 2011, 02:48 AM

If you want an answer to that, you might have to accept some assumptions about how the WTC towers were demolished.I'm not the one seeking answers as to whether or not a plane should or shouldn't have been able to penetrate the building{s} {WTC 1&2} but rather you are.
So I was saying that knowing those things I mentioned would be a good starting point in determining if a 150ton plane flying at 500mph carried enough energy to penetrate the sides of the buildings.

I already accept that they did in fact carry enough energy to penetrate WTC 1 & 2.

They didn't need to make fake videos of a plane flying into the Pentagon because the 'planes' were used to pin the blame on Arab terrorists. If those terrorists flew them into the WTC, people would believe they also flew one plane into the Pentagon. No need for a fake video there.But it would make the story so much more believable if video of a plane hitting the pentagon could be shown. Why go to the trouble of faking the ones in NY and not for the Pentagon?

They didn't need to make videos of a plane flying into WTC 7 because their demolition devices were capable of turning the entire building to dust. Not so with the Tall WTC towers that could only be pulverized up to about the 80th floor.Are you talking about the nuclear thing? If so, I don't see how that has any credibility at all. Sorry.
...and we weren't talking about WTC7 nor the exact cause of WTC1&2 collapse, but just whether or not it is possible for those planes to penetrate into the buildings.

Did you notice how when the buildings started to collapse, the floors started blowing out from about the 80th floor downward, and the parts of the building above the 80th floor stayed in tact, then disappeared into the cloud of dust below?Yes, I did see that. Noticed it on 9/11 actually. I was also well aware of WTC7 collapsing then, too.
I've been a skeptic on that since day one.

Also how there were papers scattered all over the streets of Lower Manhattan? That paper was from the top floors of the building which didn't get pulverized. They broke up into larger pieces. The planes had to fly into the part of the building that was the top limit of the subsequent pulverization. That would make it look like the planes caused the buildings to collapse, and could therefore be blamed on 'arab terrorists'. WTC 7 was presented as damages caused by pieces of the tall towers hitting it. The damage to the Pentagon was assumed to be caused by one of the four planes supposedly hijacked, although there is no evidence that the Pentagon was hit by a plane.

Once again, I will refer you to Dimitri Khalezov's explanation at the link I provided above. It wouldn't make sense unless you know how the buildings were really demolished.How they were really demolished? You mean to say that his is not a theory? But rather, fact?

They only had to create the perception that hijacked planes destroyed the tall towers, and they did that with fake videos.Again, it doesn't make sense to only make fake videos for NY and not for the Pentagon too.
Especially when there's so much evidence for something other than a 757 hitting the Pentagon, but not in NY.

All the rest of what people believe about 911 is an extension of the belief that terrorists flew planes into the tall towers and caused them to collapse. So the people covering it up have to squash the 'no planes' theory. The planes were essential for blaming 911 on the Arabs. If people believe there were no planes then there were no arabs, and obviously somebody else did 911. Once again, Khalezov explains it much better than I do.

HathaIf they faked the videos, that means there were no planes.
What happened to them? Four planes came up missing that day. Where did they all go?

Hatha Sunahara

9th August 2011, 10:25 AM

Now you're asking the right questions Joe King. Where did those planes go? They belonged to American and United Airlines. The aircraft that were scheduled to fly those routes that day did not fly at all. The last I read about the aircraft was that they were still in the inventories of both United and American airlines as late as 2008. I don't know what airlines do with their old planes.

It's interesting that the civil aviation industry is required by the FAA to to keep a database of part numbers and certifications of installation of parts on commercial airliners. When a plane crashes, the NTSB can examine all the records of the crashed plane using this database. Usually they look for the flight recorder in a crash. No flight recorders were found for any of the 911 planes. There was no NTSB investigation of any of the four crashed planes. I just wonder what the NTSB plane crash investigators were thinking when their bosses told them they would not be investigating these crashes. Wouldn't you be curious about what the NTSB bosses told their staffs about the 911 planes? So would I.

I also have a keen interest in how the faked videos were made. The videos of the planes crashing into the buildings didn't come out until later in the day. The videos of the buildings collapsing, or the damage to the Pentagon after the crashes came out on live news in real time. But the planes hitting buildings didn't come out until the evening news. Plenty of time to insert the computer graphic planes. I think there are only a dozen or so of videos of 'planes hitting buildings'. Do you ever wonder why there aren't many many more?

Don't all these lingering questions about an event that happened 10 years ago disturb you, Joe King? Doesn't the behavior of our public officials regarding this event disturb you? Doesn't the 'methodology' of the 911 Commission disturb you? Why didn't they say anything about WTC 7? It seems that 911 has a growing stack of unanswered questions even to this day? Do you think it would be fair if the answers to those questions only came out after we are all dead? Everybody hired by the government to troll forums like this one to derail discussions about 911 will succeed and the people who want answers to legitimate questions will die never knowing. And who will benefit? Criminals who are above the law and can pay people to shut up or shut others up. This is the kind of world we live in. It's all phony. I just don't know how long a phony world like this can continue to exist. Maybe we're seeing it disintegrate before our eyes now. Maybe after everything crashes we will get the truth. But I know tht is only wishful thinking. I won't contribute to maintaining the lies about 911.

Hatha

willie pete

9th August 2011, 12:56 PM

IF I had to speculate as to why the NTSB didn't investigate 9-11, it didn't fall within their scope ....it's my WAG that they ONLY investigate transportaion accidents, this was a criminal act, it wasn't an accident, and it still seems like a stretch to me that videos were "faked" ....for the sake of debate, IF there were no planes, where are the passengers? or are you saying there were never any passengers and all the families of these "fake" passengers are lying? (because IF it was a fake video, that'd mean they'd have to have fake passenger manifests for the fake planes) so JUST for as an example, say YOU had a brother who's name was on one of the fake passenger manifests, BUT in real life, you DON'T have a brother, how would you cover that if someone then came to you and said "I see your brother's name on the passenger's list, but I didn;t know you HAD a brother?" OR you REALLY do have a brother and his name was on a passengers' list, but he's couldn't come back home because he'd have to play dead.....in fact he could NEVER appear again......so do you think the Families would take a governmental conspiracy that far?

To me this is like a very large Rabbit hole.....to try and explain away one thing, you have to go deeper into the rabbit hole, No planes? OK...fine ...So where are the passengers?

Joe King

9th August 2011, 01:21 PM

Don't all these lingering questions about an event that happened 10 years ago disturb you, Joe King?I've had questions about it since the day it happened.

Doesn't the behavior of our public officials regarding this event disturb you? Doesn't the 'methodology' of the 911 Commission disturb you?Yes.

Why didn't they say anything about WTC 7? They actually did. I distinctly remember hearing about it the day it happened. If no one else heard of it, then aparently I was the only one paying attention, it seems.

It seems that 911 has a growing stack of unanswered questions even to this day? Do you think it would be fair if the answers to those questions only came out after we are all dead?No, of course not.

Everybody hired by the government to troll forums like this one to derail discussions about 911 will succeed and the people who want answers to legitimate questions will die never knowing. And who will benefit? Criminals who are above the law and can pay people to shut up or shut others up. This is the kind of world we live in. It's all phony. I just don't know how long a phony world like this can continue to exist.How long has it existed so far? If it's existed a very long time, the odds of it going away in any one persons lifetime should be quite small, I'd think.
...and I hope that you don't think I'm trying to de-rail anything, because that's not my intention.

Maybe we're seeing it disintegrate before our eyes now. Maybe after everything crashes we will get the truth. But I know tht is only wishful thinking. I won't contribute to maintaining the lies about 911.

Hatha
Perhaps we are. But who knows for sure? Only time will tell, my friend.

JDRock

9th August 2011, 03:27 PM

so, the ONLY PROOF ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH that could prove the absurd official story, which is the faa radar tapes that have tracked EVERY single flight in many decades.....have.....have...been ERASED! ....but wait, how about the backups?...erased !....sneaky ol bin goldstein must have been preety busy that day..just how did he gain access to the building??
and, if erasing a single lone file on a pc is SUCH a difficult thing to do,to wreaqk a file beyond recovery TAKES WORK!
no conspiracy here folks...none at all...

sunshine05

9th August 2011, 06:53 PM

osoab

9th August 2011, 07:07 PM

Here's the video clip I mentioned earlier in this thread with the giant Empire State Bldg. I just put it on youtube to show you guys. At the end of the clip you can see the entire bldg, clearly much larger than the towers and WAY too close. They quickly cut to commercial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9-C-E21jAg

Granted I think the first plane was a total hoax. I don't know if I have ever seen raw footage from some random individual that happened to film the 1st plane.

But in the vid, the perspective from the far away shot and that short close up you describe seem to bee in the same scale.

Joe King

9th August 2011, 07:21 PM

Do you mean this shot?

619

The shot is from farther north than the Empire State bldg and it was originally zoomed in. At the end it's zoomed out.
ie its looking South down 5th Avenue/Broadway along side the Empire State Bldg.

willie pete

9th August 2011, 07:34 PM

Here's the video clip I mentioned earlier in this thread with the giant Empire State Bldg. I just put it on youtube to show you guys. At the end of the clip you can see the entire bldg, clearly much larger than the towers and WAY too close. They quickly cut to commercial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9-C-E21jAg

isn't it because of the camera angle the ESB appears larger than the twin towers? ....it appears this shot is in mid-town Manhattan looking south towards the WTC, so naturally the bldgs in the foreground are going to appear larger

sunshine05

10th August 2011, 07:09 AM

It doesn't look real to me, not when you look at some actual photos from the ESB to the twin towers. None of them look anything like this.

Joe King

10th August 2011, 11:49 AM

It doesn't look real to me, not when you look at some actual photos from the ESB to the twin towers. None of them look anything like this.Can you point out an example of what you are talking about?
ie got a pic to show for a comparison?

sunshine05

10th August 2011, 12:20 PM

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8534413@N03/4725128015/lightbox/http://www.flickr.com/photos/8534413@N03/4725128015/lightbox/

Look how real this photo looks compared to the one above. It looks too clean, like it's from a computer game. Don't you think?

Joe King

10th August 2011, 12:45 PM

Yea, it does look cleaner.

But perhaps the lighting was different? Looks like the '73 pic was taken on a cloudy day and from what I recall, 9/11 happended on a day that was skys were very clear.

Also, the type of film used for the '73 pic could possibly make a difference too, I'd think. {the pic looks a bit grainy to me}
...but I'm not a film expert, so who knows on that one.

sunshine05

10th August 2011, 01:40 PM

I'll post some more examples soon. There are many. I have to locate them. I'm still spending all my time working on this wrongful conviction that occurred in my town.

ETA: I deleted the video I posted because I'm trying to keep my youtube account limited to the case I'm working on.

PatColo

15th August 2011, 06:41 AM

Often I paste articles and the GSUS board loses all the paragraph breaks in the original. So I go back and edit to add new paragraph breaks. Pasted this Rense/Lawson article, and GSUS not only lost paragraph breaks, but also merged all the sentences together so it's hard to even tell where the paragraphs are supposed to break. :o So recommend reading it at the original rense page if this is too hard to read here. -PC

http://rense.com/1.imagesG/newlog_o.gif
What Has Happened To Veterans Today? (http://rense.com/general94/vtrn.htm)

By Anthony Lawson

8-14-11 For some years now, Jeff Rense has been kind enough to host my videos and a few of my articles, and several other websites have followed Jeff's example, including Veterans Today, with whom my relations have been equally cordial, up until a few weeks ago when the notorious James Fetzer suddenly appeared out of nowhere, as a contributor, dredging up the almost-laid-to-rest No-Planes-in-New York theory. This is the 9/11 conspiracy theory that the mainstream media cannot get enough of, because it allows it's well-paid lackeys; commentators and comedians like Glen Beck and Bill Maher to ridicule the entire 9/11 truth movement as being made up of foil-hatted nutters who think that thousands of New Yorkers must have been hypnotised or drugged into thinking that real planes actually hit the Twin Towers, when they were really holograms or computer-generated images in a made-for-TV spectacular. The theory has been thoroughly debunked, but some logic-challenged diehards still cling to it, and a few others, with sinister agendas, use it as the thin edge of their disinformation wedge to keep a lot of people from taking the basic step from a state of: Our-government-could-never-have-been-involved-in-something-like-that, to the conclusion that terrible things of gigantic proportions could not possibly have happened the way that the world was told they happened on that dreadful day: September 11, 2001. As the 10th anniversary draws closer, the disinformationists are cranking up their propaganda machines to try and divert attention away from the really serious issues such as: How could WTC 7, a 47-storey building suddenly collapse, at 5:20 that evening, virtually in its own footprint when it had not been hit by an aircraft, and when the falling-debris and fire damage could not have been serious enough, or more importantly, evenly spreadenough for that building to fall as though it had been brought down by a controlled demolition?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk
--WTC7 * This is an Orange Of course, there were other anomalies of monumental proportions which will never be properly understood unless access is given, to unbiased investigators, to whatever small amounts of the WTC buildings remain in storage, or that can be exhumed from their hurried burials in a land-fill on Staten Island. Just the action of spiriting away as much of the evidence as possible, including the jet-engine core that fell out of the South Tower, constituted a series of criminal acts known as tampering with the evidence; literally burying evidence relating to the deaths of then, almost 3,000 people, which figure has now risen well above that level because of the illnesses that can be directly connected to the dust from the Towers, which contained tons of cancer-inducing asbestos.

For some, this heinous crime lives on as they approach their own deaths in the certain knowledge that they have been lied to, marginalised and virtually forgotten like the victims of the so-called collateral damage, brought about by the three wars that this yet-to-be-solved crime was the excuse for. Millions of people killed in Afghanistan and Iraq and the victims of the War on Terror are on the rise, with false accusations of involvement in planning acts of terror, and there will also be an equally sinister fallout as the after-effects emerge of increased exposure to full-body X-Ray scans at airports, and anywhere else these lethal machines might be placed to fill the coffers of those who manufacture them. And all because of a gigantic pack of government lies about who was responsible for 9/11. And now, Veterans Today, which once seemed to pride itself on trying to present honest, well-researched articles on all kinds of issues, is knowingly hosting a person who surrounds his no-planes-in-New York arguments with a bodyguard of lies. Lies about facts; lies about the people he regards as experts, and lies about what he claims those who challenges him have said or written, in the past. One example is all that is necessary. James Fetzer, originator of the website "Scholars for 9/11 Truth", once hosted a radio discussion about the speed of the plane that hit the South Tower (almost certainly not UA 175) during which one of his favourite "experts" was thoroughly debunked by two experienced pilots as knowing nothing about such flying matters, but whom James Fetzer still claims is an aerospace engineer and now claims that he developed a non-existent airborne safety system. In Fetzer's own words: "Joe Keith, for example, actually designed the shaker system for Boeing, which is used to determine when a plane is going to come apart in flight." (Please note, this has nothing to do with the stick-shaker, stall-warning system that has been around since the 1960's.) There is no such system that determines "when a plane is going to come apart in flight", and this has been pointed out to James Fetzer and the editorial board of Veterans Today, which includes Gordon Duff and Dr. Alan Sabrosky, in an e-mail written three days ago. Far from anyone showing concern, I have only heard from Gordon Duff, who has been critical of me for keeping the "dispute" going. Dispute? There can be no dispute, the statement was untrue, and James Fetzer will not retract it. However his latest bit of reasoning shows a degree of arrogance that is bordering on a belief in his own infallibility. "But since I believe everything I am saying and have no intention to mislead anyone, I am not lying." Members of the alternative media, including the staff and contributors to Veterans Today are constantly criticising the mainstream media for telling lies and twisting the truth to fit the agendas of those who control it, so I would like to ask who is now controllingVeterans Today, which allows a provable liar to continue to make false claims about an "expert" he is constantly quoting to back-up his thoroughly debunked No-Planes-In-New York theory? He has also made a number of serious accusations about what I have written and said, which I can prove are not true, so shouldn't Veterans Today be asking: What else is he lying about? Perhaps more importantly: What does he actually know about the subjects he pontificates on? But of paramount importance: How can anyone trust the veracity of anything else published by Veterans Today, if they continue to ignore the totally provable accusations of one of its own, hitherto, trusted contributors? Me. --Anthony Lawson lawson911@gmail.com http://www.youtube.com/user/alawson911 -- Only fools believe what they are told, when it is clear that much else is being hidden.

http://rense.com/general94/vtrn.htm

PatColo

16th August 2011, 11:16 PM

Lawson guest on KBarrett's NoLiesRadio show - at this writing they haven't yet posted the archive audio,

Monday, August 15, 2011

Anthony Lawson blasts Jim Fetzer, Veterans Today (http://truthjihadradio.blogspot.com/2011/08/anthony-lawson-blasts-jim-fetzer.html)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IUFgwV06HNg/TkgkCviX_YI/AAAAAAAAAog/1YyTqGykt9M/s1600/anthony+lawson.jpg (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IUFgwV06HNg/TkgkCviX_YI/AAAAAAAAAog/1YyTqGykt9M/s1600/anthony+lawson.jpg)
Tuesday, August 16th, 9-10 a.m Pacific (noon Eastern) on NoLiesRadio.org (http://www.noliesradio.org/) (archived here (http://noliesradio.org/archives/category/archived-shows/kevin-barrett-show) a few hours after broadcast).

Anthony Lawson, maker of the greatest 9/11 short film ever, This Is an Orange (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk), is on the warpath! In a brand-new article What Has Happened to Veterans Today? (http://rense.com/general94/vtrn.htm) Lawson blasts Veterans Today (http://www.veteranstoday.com/) for publishing Jim Fetzer. Lawson and Fetzer, email friends for a time, had a falling-out over Fetzer's support for claims that videos showing planes hitting the World Trade Center towers cannot be authentic. (Read about Jim Fetzer's August 1st appearance on my radio show here (http://truthjihadradio.blogspot.com/2011/08/richard-forer-on-transforming-fear-into.html), and listen to it here (http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Truth-Jihad-32k-080111.mp3).)
(More information about this show, including my take on the controversy, here (http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2011/08/anthony-lawson-blasts-jim-fetzer.html).)

Hatha Sunahara

17th August 2011, 09:57 AM

PatColo

17th August 2011, 10:05 AM

Joe King

17th August 2011, 12:32 PM

Does Lawson think those videos are authentic? How can anything that shows an aluminum airplane penetrating a steel building without decelerating, or compressing or crumpling and disappearing inside that building be authentic? And why is he attacking the people who cast doubt on its authenticity?Because it's possible for those planes to do what you saw in those videos.
With enough inertia, seemingly soft objects can punch right through other, seemingly stronger objects.

As example, look at what a chunk of what amounts to styrofoam did to the space shuttle columbia. Did the soft object bounce off? No. It tore right through the reinforced wing edge.

A rounded edge, no less. Why didn't it just glance off? Because relative to the forces involved, the path of least resistance was straight through the wing. Wouldn't you think the air to either side would have been more easily penetrated than a curved wing surface?

The same thing applies to that 150+ton plane moving at 500+mph hitting the WTC1&2
The majority of those beams strength was in a direction 90degrees to the direction of impact.

Did you ever enquire as to the shear strength of those beams and how much force was delivered by the plane over how big of a surface area? Find the answers to those questions and you can answer your own question, as opposed to only surmising that the planes should have bounced off the side of the buildings.

My attitude is that it is the job of the government and media to prove that these videos are genuine, not the obligation of casual observers to prove that they are fake. They appear more fake to me than genuine.That's not how it works. Only fakes can be proven.

PatColo

21st August 2011, 08:22 AM

See 2nd hour w/Fetzer:

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Jonathan Azaziah on Norway & Syria; Jim Fetzer responds to Anthony Lawson (http://truthjihadradio.blogspot.com/2011/08/jonathan-azaziah-on-norway-syria-jim.html)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XqORWa3xyjE/TkxpxJiXtzI/AAAAAAAAA0Q/zqAh4a5dQWM/s320/azaziah.jpg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XqORWa3xyjE/TkxpxJiXtzI/AAAAAAAAA0Q/zqAh4a5dQWM/s1600/azaziah.jpg)Truth Jihad Radio Wed. 8/17/11 (http://loveforlife.com.au/content/10/11/19/american-social-credit-why-we-need-it-now-you-need-understand-stealth-economic-warf), 1-3 pm Central, American Fre (http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/)edom R (http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/)adio (http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/)(archived here (http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/Barrett_11.html).) Call-in number: (402) 237-2525 or post your questions to my Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1632985004).

First hour: Jonathan Azaziah is the author of Massacre In Norway: Mossad Strikes Again Under ‘Lone Gunman’ Cover (http://www.maskofzion.com/2011/08/massacre-in-norway-mossad-strikes-again.html): "It is now known that Anders Behring Breivik traveled to the Zionist entity several times before the July 22nd operation. What isn’t known is what Breivik’s reasons were for traveling to Zionist-governed historic Palestine, but based on the evidence presented in the previous section, it is of the strongest likelihood that Breivik made pilgrimage to the occupied holy land to receive additional orders from his Tel Aviv paymasters." Another new article: Syria Under Fire: Zionist (http://www.maskofzion.com/2011/08/syria-under-fire-zionist.html)Destabilization Hits Critical Mass (http://www.maskofzion.com/2011/08/syria-under-fire-zionist.html).

Second hour: Jameshttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PcPgh6OXtL8/TkxqHgUFofI/AAAAAAAAA0Y/XrdX0ZAw67M/s320/Dr._James_Fetzer.jpg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PcPgh6OXtL8/TkxqHgUFofI/AAAAAAAAA0Y/XrdX0ZAw67M/s1600/Dr._James_Fetzer.jpg) Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (http://911scholars.org/), Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota-Duluth, responds to Anthony Lawson's attack (http://truthjihadradio.blogspot.com/2011/08/anthony-lawson-blasts-jim-fetzer.html). (Listen to Lawson here (http://noliesradio.org/archives/36088).) Jim Fetzer is the author of 9/11: An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about “Absurdities” (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/03/911-an-open-letter-to-anthony-lawson-about-absurdities/), a response to Lawson's 9/11: The Absurdity of the No-Planes-in-New York Theory (http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august012011/no-planes_al.php). His other recent articles include Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/14/peeling-the-911-onion-layers-of-plots-within-plots/), and RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/08/rfk-outing-the-cia-at-the-ambassador/).

Posted by Kevin Barrett at 9:28 AM (http://truthjihadradio.blogspot.com/2011/08/jonathan-azaziah-on-norway-syria-jim.html) 0 comments (http://truthjihadradio.blogspot.com/2011/08/jonathan-azaziah-on-norway-syria-jim.html#comments)

Labels: anthony lawson (http://truthjihadradio.blogspot.com/search/label/anthony%20lawson), breivik (http://truthjihadradio.blogspot.com/search/label/breivik), jim fetzer (http://truthjihadradio.blogspot.com/search/label/jim%20fetzer), jonathan azaziah (http://truthjihadradio.blogspot.com/search/label/jonathan%20azaziah), no planes theory (http://truthjihadradio.blogspot.com/search/label/no%20planes%20theory), norway attacks (http://truthjihadradio.blogspot.com/search/label/norway%20attacks), RFK assassination (http://truthjihadradio.blogspot.com/search/label/RFK%20assassination), syria (http://truthjihadradio.blogspot.com/search/label/syria), video fakery (http://truthjihadradio.blogspot.com/search/label/video%20fakery), zionism (http://truthjihadradio.blogspot.com/search/label/zionism)

MP3 2 hrs, 28 MBs - advance to the middle aka top of the 2nd hour for Fetzer:

08/17/2011 (http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Truth-Jihad-32k-081711.mp3)
Wednesday - 1st Hour: With Jonathan Azaziah. 2nd Hour: With Jim Fetzer.

Hatha Sunahara

21st August 2011, 10:29 AM

Because it's possible for those planes to do what you saw in those videos.
With enough inertia, seemingly soft objects can punch right through other, seemingly stronger objects.

As example, look at what a chunk of what amounts to styrofoam did to the space shuttle columbia. Did the soft object bounce off? No. It tore right through the reinforced wing edge.

A rounded edge, no less. Why didn't it just glance off? Because relative to the forces involved, the path of least resistance was straight through the wing. Wouldn't you think the air to either side would have been more easily penetrated than a curved wing surface?

The same thing applies to that 150+ton plane moving at 500+mph hitting the WTC1&2
The majority of those beams strength was in a direction 90degrees to the direction of impact.

Did you ever enquire as to the shear strength of those beams and how much force was delivered by the plane over how big of a surface area? Find the answers to those questions and you can answer your own question, as opposed to only surmising that the planes should have bounced off the side of the buildings.

That's not how it works. Only fakes can be proven.

I think the issue here is:

Do you see what you believe, or do you believe what you see.

I don't believe what I see--an aluminum plane disappearing into a steel building cleanly--with no mess left behind. Apparently, you believe what you see, and you're putting the burden on me and everyone else who doesn't believe it to prove that it's fake. It's like Lawson's orange with the word apple beneath it. Prove that it's an orange. If you flunked physics make the people who got an A in physics argue with your unfounded belief. It wasn't until very recently that the Church apologized to the long dead Galileo for doing that to him.

And what aluminum plane brought down WTC 7? After two planes doing the impossible, we see no planes doing it.

And one final question. Why don't they make bullets out of aluminum?

Hatha

Joe King

21st August 2011, 10:49 AM

Hatha, what I believe is that the force delivered by the planes hitting WTC1&2 exceeded the shear strength of those beams.
As I already pointed out, and you ignored, it's the same type of forces at work that allowed a piece of foam to punch through a hard, convex surface.
ie it's all about velocity and surface area.

If you want to know how a particular thing happened, try looking at the most plausable and logical solution first, as it is typically the correct one.
The more complex the "solution" is that you come up with, the less likely it is to be the right solution.

As of now, you have a very complex theory of how the buildings fell, so I would say it's on you to prove your theory.
ie extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

Besides, pics/vids can only be shown to be tampered with, not the reverse.

Edited to add: Did you see this video? (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?52319-9-11-Experiments) What that guy does is to actually try to see what is even possible, rather than just hypothesing or taking other peoples word for stuff. Whether he's wrong or if he's right, we need more people like him that actually want to do their homework.
ie have you ever tried calculating the forces involved with 150tons of stuff hitting those buildings in the area shown to have damage from impact, that you say could not have existed?

PatColo

1st October 2011, 09:57 PM

This Carolyn Yeager podcast with holohoax denier Frederick Tobin was good, among other things they discuss the Lawson/Fetzer flap, and note the obvious: the HARM agent Fetzer perpetrates with his noisy, incessant drum beating for exotic WTC demolition theories, as well as his "no planes/video-fakery at WTC" rambling, is that it seeks to divert the truth movement's energies into a blind & irrelevant alley, rather than focusing on awakening those still asleep and prosecuting the 911 perps... agent Fetzer's shtick could also be called, "sucking all the oxygen out of the room", and seeking to reduce 911 truth movement into a debating society focused on needless distractions such as the exact method by which the WTC was demolished, as well as the "no planes @ WTC" ridiculousness..

The Heretics’ Hour: Fredrick Töben on Truth, Maturity and Social Nationalism (http://reasonradionetwork.com/20110829/the-heretics-hour-fredrick-toben-on-truth-maturity-and-social-nationalism)

August 29, 2011

http://reasonradionetwork.com/images/2011/09/Fredrick_T%C3%B6ben-SydneyHarbourBridge11July2011-300x225.jpg (http://reasonradionetwork.com/images/2011/09/Fredrick_T%C3%B6ben-SydneyHarbourBridge11July2011.jpg)
Fredrick Töben, Sidney Harbor, Australia

Carolyn brings back revisionist historian Fredrick Töben to discuss the latest personal disagreements arising from articles and comments (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/22/confessions-of-a-911-truth-activist-2/) on 9/11 that have appeared at Veterans Today web site. With the 10th anniversary of the event just around the corner, disinformation is ramping up. When will the 9/11 “Truthers” see they are up against the same powers as are the “Holocaust Deniers” and join forces? Töben also spoke about Nigeria, Libya and Alexander Lukashenko (http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/08/social-nationalism-the-political-thought-of-alexander-lukashenko-of-belarus/) of Belarus.

Fredrick Töben was born in Germany; his family moved to Australia when he was young. He received a Doctor of Philosophy degree from Stuttgart University in 1977 and subsequently taught in secondary schools and colleges in New Zealand, Germany, Rhodesia and Nigeria. He founded the Adelaide Institute in 1994 and relinquished the Directorship to Mr Peter Hartung in 2009. He’s best known for his work on Holocaust Revisionism and has been persecuted, including given jail time, for his views. He is the author of Forty Days in Teheran, 50 Days in Gaol, and ARBEIT MACHT FREI: impertinent incarceration, plus numerous papers and articles. He currently lives in Adelaide, Australia.

Announcement: The Heretics’ Hour with Carolyn Yeager is going to two hours beginning Sept. 5, with call-ins the second hour. Join us then for a special Labor Day evening!
13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.
http://vornetwork.com/thumbs/download_footer.png (http://reasonradionetwork.com/downloads/thh/VoR_The_Heretics_Hour_20110829.mp3) http://vornetwork.com/thumbs/podcast_footer.png (itpc://feeds.feedburner.com/VoiceOfReasonPodcast) http://vornetwork.com/thumbs/archive_footer.png (http://reasonradionetwork.com/?cat=60)

Gaillo

2nd October 2011, 12:10 AM

Many posts in this thread reveal a SHOCKING and APPALLING lack of knowlege of basic physics on the part of the posters! :o

Seriously... those who suggest the trade center buildings were brought down with nukes under the buildings, or that no planes hit the buildings and the airplane footage was faked are SERIOUSLY lacking in basic observational skills and scientific understanding! You are playing RIGHT INTO THE HANDS of the criminals who engineered this false-flag event... discrediting anyone who dares to step forward with REAL scientific evidence by mere association with whackjobbery.

This is what all the evidence, from both "truthers" as well as (inferencially) mainstream "9-11 Commission" sheepsters, points to as having actually occurred:

1 - Airplanes hit the towers. It's IMPOSSIBLE to refute the vast pool of evidence, eyewitness testimony, audio recordings, and film/video footage (some of which was taken by amateurs, and some of which is still being discovered as time goes on!) that points to this fact.

2 - Previously installed military nano-thermite explosives were then used to create a controlled demolition which brought the 2 towers, along with building 7 down. The physical evidence for this is, again, overwhelming and confirmed by multiple independant sources, some of which has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

3 - Government officials used the whole event as a pretext to TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS and wage WAR on targets of the empire - which is what people SHOULD be focused on, not all this complete BULLSHIT about nukes, holograms, Tesla earthquake generators, remote controlled planes with underwing missiles, aliens, energy weapons, and half a thousand other wierdass physics-defying theories we've all heard ad-nauseum despite having unparalleled (compared to any other time in history) access to the scientific evidence to the contrary.

Good God, folks... don't you know "divide and conquer" when you see it? Don't you know "poisoning of the well" psy-ops techniques when they are used? Didn't you pay the SLIGHTEST bit of attention when you learned about matter, energy, and force when you were in school? Aluminum can't cut steel? GIVE ME A BREAK! ANYTHING can cut ANYTHING if propelled to sufficient velocity and aligned properly! There are well documented experiments wherein the U.S. Navy using an electromagnetic railgun was able to cut through 4" of hardened tank armor using 70 grain (about the weight of a heavy .22LR bullet) piece of LUCITE PLASTIC - simply by accellerating it fast enough!

Just because 90% of 9/11 "facts" are complete fabricated BS doesn't mean we should throw our brains out the window and disregard the 10% remaining physical/scientific evidence... if we do, we have ZERO chance of proving the whole thing to be a terrible .gov run false-flag operation.

Oh... by the way... Jackie did it, and you all know it! ::)

P.S. THINK about one more thing: If no planes hit the towers, and they "faked up" footage or holograms or whatever, WHY didn't they bother to do the same for Building 7? Only enough budget for HALF A THOUSAND video footage clips of the main two buildings, then they just ran out of money or time or computing power to fabricate a SINGLE CLIP OF FOOTAGE for the third building? Whatever. ::)

Gaillo

2nd October 2011, 12:58 AM

Granted I think the first plane was a total hoax. I don't know if I have ever seen raw footage from some random individual that happened to film the 1st plane.

At least 2 pieces of video footage exist of the first plane impacting the tower... one of them was taken by a tourist who was crossing a bridge into NYC with his camcorder running, and the other was taken by a French filmmaker who was doing a documentary on the New York fire department and its new trainees. I've seen both pieces of footage, and both are fairly easy to find if you search.

Cebu_4_2

2nd October 2011, 07:33 AM

Oh... by the way... Jackie did it, and you all know it!

Now your waking up!

Joe King

2nd October 2011, 09:36 AM

Many posts in this thread reveal a SHOCKING and APPALLING lack of knowlege of basic physics on the part of the posters! :o

Seriously... those who suggest the trade center buildings were brought down with nukes under the buildings, or that no planes hit the buildings and the airplane footage was faked are SERIOUSLY lacking in basic observational skills and scientific understanding! You are playing RIGHT INTO THE HANDS of the criminals who engineered this false-flag event... discrediting anyone who dares to step forward with REAL scientific evidence by mere association with whackjobbery.

This is what all the evidence, from both "truthers" as well as (inferencially) mainstream "9-11 Commission" sheepsters, points to as having actually occurred:

1 - Airplanes hit the towers. It's IMPOSSIBLE to refute the vast pool of evidence, eyewitness testimony, audio recordings, and film/video footage (some of which was taken by amateurs, and some of which is still being discovered as time goes on!) that points to this fact.

2 - Previously installed military nano-thermite explosives were then used to create a controlled demolition which brought the 2 towers, along with building 7 down. The physical evidence for this is, again, overwhelming and confirmed by multiple independant sources, some of which has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

3 - Government officials used the whole event as a pretext to TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS and wage WAR on targets of the empire - which is what people SHOULD be focused on, not all this complete BULLSHIT about nukes, holograms, Tesla earthquake generators, remote controlled planes with underwing missiles, aliens, energy weapons, and half a thousand other wierdass physics-defying theories we've all heard ad-nauseum despite having unparalleled (compared to any other time in history) access to the scientific evidence to the contrary.

Good God, folks... don't you see "divide and conquer" when you see it? Don't you know "poisoning of the well" psy-ops techniques when they are used? Didn't you pay the SLIGHTEST bit of attention when you learned about matter, energy, and force when you were in school? Aluminum can't cut steel? GIVE ME A BREAK! ANYTHING can cut ANYTHING if propelled to sufficient velocity and aligned properly! There are well documented experiments wherein the U.S. Navy using an electromagnetic railgun was able to cut through 4" of hardened tank armor using 70 grain (about the weight of a heavy .22LR bullet) piece of LUCITE PLASTIC - simply by accellerating it fast enough!

Just because 90% of 9/11 "facts" are complete fabricated BS doesn't mean we should throw our brains out the window and disregard the 10% remaining physical/scientific evidence... if we do, we have ZERO chance of proving the whole thing to be a terrible .gov run false-flag operation.

Oh... by the way... Jackie did it, and you all know it! ::)

P.S. THINK about one more thing: If no planes hit the towers, and they "faked up" footage or holograms or whatever, WHY didn't they bother to do the same for Building 7? Only enough budget for HALF A THOUSAND video footage clips of the main two buildings, then they just ran out of money or time or computing power to fabricate a SINGLE CLIP OF FOOTAGE for the third building? Whatever. ::)

Dude, that was brutal, but it was a good read, too. :)
...and pretty much what I'd been trying to say, but in a more, how shall I say....diplomatic way? lol

IMHO, the fact theories like these take hold at all, does nothing but to confirm to me that Milgram was right.

It's just that in cases like this, people get to choose their own authority figure to explain things that they don't fully understand themselves...and then they "run with it" because it satisfied their questions that may have been based upon a limited understanding of certain elements within the equation.

After all, everyone can't know everything about everything and when you couple that with an extreme distrust of anything the gov says, people will sometimes go looking for answers anywhere they can.

I see it as a but symptom of the World-gone-wrong that we've found ourselves to have been born into.