Whoops again, wrong person. "Simon Shmack" it turns out, is a scamming jewish runt. But Ed Charini is still an American hero (compare his ears to Elmer Fudd's).
As far as plane-hugging itself goes, that part is for retards only now.
Plane-huggers can now be debunked in one-fell-swoop with anybody else who believes in the official fable of 9-11 in just 25 seconds:
25 Second 9-11 Truth Test for All Your Friends & Relatives !
The great thing about this is that it will only take around 25 seconds to a couple of minutes of their 'oh-so-precious' time away from watching the crap on their TV, so they will almost always do what you say even to just get rid of you.
Have them watch this 25 second clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjjmvu5ei8
let them watch it a few times if they want and then ask them what the video is asking which is
"If this happened tomorrow, would you believe it ? "
and see what they say.
It should be good for lots of laughs because if they have the brains to recognize this 25 second clip for the complete media fakery and forgery that it so obviously is (by the video maker - complete with fake headlines and CNN logo - CNN: Breaking News - F18 hijacked by Hamas terrorists - Iran is supporting terrorism on U.S. soil, a non-event, & audio transposed from the 9-11 newscasts in the background) then you can just tell them:
Well, this is what you saw on 9-11 as well, so why do you believe that ?
After which you can show them one of the ridiculously fake 9-11 clips such as this one:
just wrote my friend Dick Eastman, and this is what he said:
One Youtube had 47 different recordings of the crash.
The question is - with all of the cameras on the towers because of the hit on North Tower -- how could "no-plane" plotters possibly controlled for someone in New York City or New Jersey catching a video shot of the south side of the south tower exploding without a plane hitting. Just one such video showing up would expose the entire plot. Then why are there no recordings of South Tower suddenly exploding without the plane hitting.
Also how could they possibly have gotten the same explosion from all those angles -- which is easily confirmed.
And, how come the explosion - as considered from all side - has such powerful south-to-north momentum -- the explosion blasting out big from the north but not leaving a big hole -- whereas the explosion on the south side was much smaller and with no big south-moving momentum to the debris yet the big airplane hole is on the south side?
Also the pieces of steel on the south side are pushed in. So where did all the momentum come from, all the north-headed force?
Also I know very well both of the people who originated the "no-plane" theory -- Rosalee Grable and Gerard Holmgren. Rosalee was arguing that the planes everyone saw were holograms. She was arguing that the plane that hit the North Tower -- because it is only a blur in the famous video -- that it was not a plane -- when in fact if you "believe" that video, then the North Tower had no windows (the resolution was that bad) -- so Rosalee went from one theory to another for attention (and to create diversion) each of which contradicts the other. Holmgren, an Austrailian guitar player, wrote a lot about the Pentagon attack -- but when he came to the US and met Grable in CHicago -- they both suddenly came up with the no-planes idea.
But then guess what? WHo joins them but Jim Fetzer the JFK investigator who tried to debunk the video evidence that disproves the single shooter theory -- Fetzer suddenly backing no planes.
And then Morgan Reynolds appears. When I was a graduate student in the doctoral program in economics at Texas A & M I knew Reynolds. I became well known in Washington for the evidence I assembled showing that the killer object that hit the Pentagon was not the jetliner that came over the Naval Annex and passed north of the Citgo station -- since the killer object struck down a lamppost well to the south of the path of that plane. But guess what? Morgan Reynolds was at the White House (with Ted Olsen, who lied about getting two phone calls from his wife on Flight 77 before it crashed (no record of the call and the call was impossible) and also Karl Rove, the dirty trickster disinformation artist of the Bush White House -- Reynolds doubtless made it known that he knew me -- and so he was tagged to become a phony "truther" - so he joined the movement --not getting in contact with me, but going right to the no-planers and making common cause with them -- and when I wrote to him making the arguments that I made above -- he attacked me. Reynolds argued that the building was steel and the plane was aluminum so that the crash was impossible. He said that a jetliner is just a flying bus -- but I came back with the fact that mass is not as critical as velocity in adding to the force of a collision -- and that the plane hitting at 500 mph would have had the force of 70 big city buses each hitting the wall at 50 mph. And as for the building being solid steel -- just look at any picture of the towers taken at night with the offices windows all lit up -- the building looks like it is more than half window.
You will tell this to the no-planer and he will brush you off. And he will argue that one faked video proves that all the videos are faked. But there is an answer for that too. One video does show the plane going in with a puff of smoke visible under a wing that should be behind the wing. They take this one video -- which obviously was a photoshopped video -- and use it to discredit everything we know, to prove that all the witnesses were liars and all the cameras were tampered with. But then I read the account of the man who owned that video and the camera that took it. HIS VIDEO WAS CONFISCATED FOR SEVERAL DAYS AND THEN RETURNED TO HIM!! So it seems that the "no-plane" thesis was part of the plan early on -- that they had intended to confuse investigators with this bit of disinformation and all of the confusion the agents could make of it. Remember that Ted Olsen was solicitor general - his job is to protect the president from lawsuits -- legal protection for a presidents crimes. (And he is the man who helped Ryan prepare for the debate last night (which I missed because it was my wifes birthday and she hates politics) -- anyway - for those who can still think - this proves that Reynolds and the leading no-planers are accomplices in the 9-11 crime - they are part of the operation, covering the evidence, concealing the crime - obstructing justice and in fact working with the perpetrators.
And god damn you all who understand this and have never spoken up to those around you -- damn you to bloody hell for you are accomplices too -- you are guilty of misprison of treason -- but don't think you have escaped punished -- you are getting your punishment now -- unfortunatley we who fought for the truth and all of the innocent who have been kept in ignorance of the facts because you failed to spread the word - we all will suffer
Hey buddy, there's no need to use quotes when you say or type my name. I'm not "John Friend", I'm John Friend. Nice to meet you, "Anonymous".
I love how most of the plane huggers thus far have written nothing to refute any of Shack's solidly researched claims about 9/11, just pathetic slanders and ad hominem. And then we have the Anonymous (of course) commenter who links Anthony Lawson's WEAK SAUCE "September Clues - Busted!" video. Let me put this politely... Anthony Lawson is a very talented, righteous man. He has done and continues to do excellent work. But he is 100% wrong about this "no planes" business. And Dr. Fetzer has thoroughly refuted all his nonsense multiple times, read the articles if you have the intellectual honesty to do so.
As for the most recent Anonymous (of course) commenter, who actually tried to explain his position... dude, Shack, Chris Holmes, Fetzer, Killtown and many others have addressed every single issue (and many more) that you raised in your comment. Every single video we have been shown depicting the events of 9/11, especially in NYC, is a proven fraud man. The "planes" are performing feats no real plane could perform, effortlessly entering into a steel and concrete building as if Newton's laws of physics were miraculously suspended on 9/11. Simon Shack's September Clues documentary goes through each and every video and totally debunks them all. Any honest person watching that doc will come to this conclusion.
PLUS, we have all the media insiders and scripted actors planting the idea of a plane hitting the buildings on 9/11 in NYC. Go back and look at the footage and recordings of "eye witnesses" and the individuals "reporting" what they saw on 9/11 - virtually all of them were media insiders, reading from a script, literally. They were instrumental in planting the idea that a plane struck the WTCs. Many legit eye witnesses said they didn't see ANYTHING hit the towers! They just saw an explosion.
I hate to shamelessly promote my blog, but if you go there, scroll down a bit and look on the left hand side. You'll find a section titled, "9/11 Research" with links to a number of good articles and videos explaining all this.
I don't know why people get so hostile and pissed off about this subject - it's always, "You're disinfo! You're a Jew! Blah blah blah..." My god people, you really think a fucking plane can just penetrate steel and concrete buildings as was depicted in all the (fake) videos?! Give me a break!
We may need to bust out the Troll Spray! LOL, allow me to just restate something I've already said:
"I love how most of the plane huggers thus far have written nothing to refute any of Shack's solidly researched claims about 9/11, just pathetic slanders and ad hominem."
SORRY Zapo. But this is a perfect example of why I get FEDUP w/ these dolts. More from Eastman:
An entire brigade of firemen from Jersey were dispatched to the W. Trade Center and as they were headed to their vehicles there eyes were on the burning north tower when they all saw the second plane approach and hit. Grable and Rosalee and Nico Haupt all argued that these firemen, some of whom were to die, all of whom were to lose friends, that they lied -- with no reason for doing so. Also I caught Grable maintaining against my argument that there was a witness who saw the building just explode that -- I showed that indeed this witness did not see the plane because the plane hit south tower on the south side and the witness was north (where he was looking at the north side of the north tower which had been hit by the first plane -- thus he did not see a plane because he was on the wrong side of the building -- he saw debris that was the plane, that was pushed out of the building. Nevertheless this lie stayed in the webfairy websites. The no-planer position was the best funded of all 9-11 truth -- they were on hundreds of websites, lists and blogs -- and hey worked together. They were conscious of getting what Grable, Haupt, Holmgren and Fetzer called the newbies. The attacked me as an agent and a fool. The invented words like "planehuggers" - I countered with "no-planers" --
No pay heed to this. There is not one witness who had the south side of the south tower in view at the moment the explosion occured who did not also see the plane first approach and hit it.
You are not dealing with an honest player. First of all you will notice -- I predict - that the person you are debating does not give his last name. You will also notice that he does not focus on any other thesis -- other than Mary Wood's claim that the buidings were not brought down by thermite -- but by electromagnetic pulse weapons -- none of which fits the evidence of what was seen.
Give me the name of the person who is darkening counsel with no-planer disinformation.
Also ask him where he writes about 9-11 -- go and check and you will doubtless find that no-planes and Judy Wood is all he does -- why has he no interest in the broader issues -- of who is behind it?
I notice that you ask for more help without giving me any of his arguments.
The man exists to waste the time of good people in arguing an abusurdity -- and because the people -- rotten stupid worthless things that they have become -- will not mediate -- but let the real investigators and the "truthers" fight it out. Nico Haupt is an agent of the Netherlands, on assignment, pretending to be crazy but actually working to protect his queen from her role in the crime. She is a Bilderberg and aristocracy wanting the return to monarchy in Europe and elsewhere. I knew him from very early -- he was going after the names of all the investigors - he wanted to be the hub of information. I sent him my Pentagon evidence (shown in my vides) and he indicated that he was passing it on (this was before the Grable-Holmgren meeting that launched 9-11 -- but I later found that he had forwarded nothing and that I had been writing basically for myself for well over a year, etc.
Simon Shack is a genius and a British hero. Just like Ed "Dallas Goldburg" Cherini. Oops, wrong thread. Too late, I already pushed "send".
ReplyDeleteWhoops again, wrong person. "Simon Shmack" it turns out, is a scamming jewish runt. But Ed Charini is still an American hero (compare his ears to Elmer Fudd's).
ReplyDeleteha ha ha ha ha
ReplyDeleteNice try ! Trying to link Shack to that clown Goldbug are you ?
Aren't you desperate ! lol
It's not going to work. Shack's research is as solid as a rock and is 100% backed up with facts:
http://www.septemberclues.info/vicsims.htm
http://www.septemberclues.info/vicsims/9-11-9%20the%20Vicsim%20Report.pdf
http://www.septemberclues.info/vicsims/Vicsim%20List.pdf
Read it & weep sucker.
As far as plane-hugging itself goes, that part is for retards only now.
Plane-huggers can now be debunked in one-fell-swoop with anybody else who believes in the official fable of 9-11 in just 25 seconds:
25 Second 9-11 Truth Test for All Your Friends & Relatives !
The great thing about this is that it will only take around 25 seconds to a couple of minutes of their 'oh-so-precious' time away from watching the crap on their TV, so they will almost always do what you say even to just get rid of you.
Have them watch this 25 second clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjjmvu5ei8
let them watch it a few times if they want and then ask them what the video is asking which is
"If this happened tomorrow, would you believe it ? "
and see what they say.
It should be good for lots of laughs because if they have the brains to recognize this 25 second clip for the complete media fakery and forgery that it so obviously is (by the video maker - complete with fake headlines and CNN logo - CNN: Breaking News - F18 hijacked by Hamas terrorists - Iran is supporting terrorism on U.S. soil, a non-event, & audio transposed from the 9-11 newscasts in the background) then you can just tell them:
Well, this is what you saw on 9-11 as well, so why do you believe that ?
After which you can show them one of the ridiculously fake 9-11 clips such as this one:
http://www.fourwinds10.net/resources/uploads/images/no_plane.gif
and ask them why in the world would they not believe the one they just saw & believe the others from 9-11 ?
Then try not to laugh at the look on their faces as they try every lame excuse in the book to deny their own eyes and logic
hahaha yourself. "shack" is a bigger clown than goldburg ever will be. who do you think you're fooling (besides a buncha braindead bozos)?
ReplyDeleteFACT.
september clues is total disinformation... so see through, i see no need to argue with you jew. hahahaha, back at jew.
ReplyDeleteHere's just a START you derelict whatever:
ReplyDeleteSeptember Clues - Busted!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYSGv5HNPxQ
why don't you respond now with Jim Fetzer?
Yeah, or Gordon "Martian Spaceships" Duff or Jim Fetzer. Come on bro, hit me up with whatever bullshit that you can. Simon Shack = jew.
ReplyDeleteGo get "John Friend".
ReplyDeletejust wrote my friend Dick Eastman, and this is what he said:
ReplyDeleteOne Youtube had 47 different recordings of the crash.
The question is - with all of the cameras on the towers because of the hit on North Tower -- how could "no-plane" plotters possibly controlled for someone in New York City or New Jersey catching a video shot of the south side of the south tower exploding without a plane hitting. Just one such video showing up would expose the entire plot. Then why are there no recordings of South Tower suddenly exploding without the plane hitting.
Also how could they possibly have gotten the same explosion from all those angles -- which is easily confirmed.
And, how come the explosion - as considered from all side - has such powerful south-to-north momentum -- the explosion blasting out big from the north but not leaving a big hole -- whereas the explosion on the south side was much smaller and with no big south-moving momentum to the debris yet the big airplane hole is on the south side?
Also the pieces of steel on the south side are pushed in. So where did all the momentum come from, all the north-headed force?
Also I know very well both of the people who originated the "no-plane" theory -- Rosalee Grable and Gerard Holmgren. Rosalee was arguing that the planes everyone saw were holograms. She was arguing that the plane that hit the North Tower -- because it is only a blur in the famous video -- that it was not a plane -- when in fact if you "believe" that video, then the North Tower had no windows (the resolution was that bad) -- so Rosalee went from one theory to another for attention (and to create diversion) each of which contradicts the other. Holmgren, an Austrailian guitar player, wrote a lot about the Pentagon attack -- but when he came to the US and met Grable in CHicago -- they both suddenly came up with the no-planes idea.
But then guess what? WHo joins them but Jim Fetzer the JFK investigator who tried to debunk the video evidence that disproves the single shooter theory -- Fetzer suddenly backing no planes.
PART 2:
ReplyDeleteAnd then Morgan Reynolds appears. When I was a graduate student in the doctoral program in economics at Texas A & M I knew Reynolds. I became well known in Washington for the evidence I assembled showing that the killer object that hit the Pentagon was not the jetliner that came over the Naval Annex and passed north of the Citgo station -- since the killer object struck down a lamppost well to the south of the path of that plane. But guess what? Morgan Reynolds was at the White House (with Ted Olsen, who lied about getting two phone calls from his wife on Flight 77 before it crashed (no record of the call and the call was impossible) and also Karl Rove, the dirty trickster disinformation artist of the Bush White House -- Reynolds doubtless made it known that he knew me -- and so he was tagged to become a phony "truther" - so he joined the movement --not getting in contact with me, but going right to the no-planers and making common cause with them -- and when I wrote to him making the arguments that I made above -- he attacked me. Reynolds argued that the building was steel and the plane was aluminum so that the crash was impossible. He said that a jetliner is just a flying bus -- but I came back with the fact that mass is not as critical as velocity in adding to the force of a collision -- and that the plane hitting at 500 mph would have had the force of 70 big city buses each hitting the wall at 50 mph. And as for the building being solid steel -- just look at any picture of the towers taken at night with the offices windows all lit up -- the building looks like it is more than half window.
You will tell this to the no-planer and he will brush you off. And he will argue that one faked video proves that all the videos are faked. But there is an answer for that too. One video does show the plane going in with a puff of smoke visible under a wing that should be behind the wing. They take this one video -- which obviously was a photoshopped video -- and use it to discredit everything we know, to prove that all the witnesses were liars and all the cameras were tampered with. But then I read the account of the man who owned that video and the camera that took it. HIS VIDEO WAS CONFISCATED FOR SEVERAL DAYS AND THEN RETURNED TO HIM!! So it seems that the "no-plane" thesis was part of the plan early on -- that they had intended to confuse investigators with this bit of disinformation and all of the confusion the agents could make of it. Remember that Ted Olsen was solicitor general - his job is to protect the president from lawsuits -- legal protection for a presidents crimes. (And he is the man who helped Ryan prepare for the debate last night (which I missed because it was my wifes birthday and she hates politics) -- anyway - for those who can still think - this proves that Reynolds and the leading no-planers are accomplices in the 9-11 crime - they are part of the operation, covering the evidence, concealing the crime - obstructing justice and in fact working with the perpetrators.
And god damn you all who understand this and have never spoken up to those around you -- damn you to bloody hell for you are accomplices too -- you are guilty of misprison of treason -- but don't think you have escaped punished -- you are getting your punishment now -- unfortunatley we who fought for the truth and all of the innocent who have been kept in ignorance of the facts because you failed to spread the word - we all will suffer
Anon 11:08 says:
ReplyDeleteGo get "John Friend".
Hey buddy, there's no need to use quotes when you say or type my name. I'm not "John Friend", I'm John Friend. Nice to meet you, "Anonymous".
I love how most of the plane huggers thus far have written nothing to refute any of Shack's solidly researched claims about 9/11, just pathetic slanders and ad hominem. And then we have the Anonymous (of course) commenter who links Anthony Lawson's WEAK SAUCE "September Clues - Busted!" video. Let me put this politely... Anthony Lawson is a very talented, righteous man. He has done and continues to do excellent work. But he is 100% wrong about this "no planes" business. And Dr. Fetzer has thoroughly refuted all his nonsense multiple times, read the articles if you have the intellectual honesty to do so.
As for the most recent Anonymous (of course) commenter, who actually tried to explain his position... dude, Shack, Chris Holmes, Fetzer, Killtown and many others have addressed every single issue (and many more) that you raised in your comment. Every single video we have been shown depicting the events of 9/11, especially in NYC, is a proven fraud man. The "planes" are performing feats no real plane could perform, effortlessly entering into a steel and concrete building as if Newton's laws of physics were miraculously suspended on 9/11. Simon Shack's September Clues documentary goes through each and every video and totally debunks them all. Any honest person watching that doc will come to this conclusion.
PLUS, we have all the media insiders and scripted actors planting the idea of a plane hitting the buildings on 9/11 in NYC. Go back and look at the footage and recordings of "eye witnesses" and the individuals "reporting" what they saw on 9/11 - virtually all of them were media insiders, reading from a script, literally. They were instrumental in planting the idea that a plane struck the WTCs. Many legit eye witnesses said they didn't see ANYTHING hit the towers! They just saw an explosion.
I hate to shamelessly promote my blog, but if you go there, scroll down a bit and look on the left hand side. You'll find a section titled, "9/11 Research" with links to a number of good articles and videos explaining all this.
I don't know why people get so hostile and pissed off about this subject - it's always, "You're disinfo! You're a Jew! Blah blah blah..." My god people, you really think a fucking plane can just penetrate steel and concrete buildings as was depicted in all the (fake) videos?! Give me a break!
Whatever you say John Friend. My name is Steven Crisp. You have aero credibility thanks to this. But I have zero too, so we're even. Take care.
ReplyDeletezero, not aero. please don't lisp.
ReplyDeleteSteven Marc Crisp, born 08/06/1961. you are a dumbshit or a fraud. which is it? both?
ReplyDeleteShack, Chris Holmes, Fetzer, Killtown, etc. Never mind. You have me checkmated with that (rolls eyes). BYE.
ReplyDeleteJohn Friend = IQ 12
ReplyDeleteNo offense, but you're a dolt.
ReplyDeleteWe may need to bust out the Troll Spray! LOL, allow me to just restate something I've already said:
ReplyDelete"I love how most of the plane huggers thus far have written nothing to refute any of Shack's solidly researched claims about 9/11, just pathetic slanders and ad hominem."
You got nothin' dude, you know it.
Funny that you say that because if I have to ban someone they will be redirected here:
ReplyDeletehttp://crossfitoneworld.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341bf90553ef0133ecb3322d970b-800wi
If they try to comeback at Mami's shit.
I don't want to have to do it though.
SORRY Zapo. But this is a perfect example of why I get FEDUP w/ these dolts. More from Eastman:
ReplyDeleteAn entire brigade of firemen from Jersey were dispatched to the W. Trade Center and as they were headed to their vehicles there eyes were on the burning north tower when they all saw the second plane approach and hit. Grable and Rosalee and Nico Haupt all argued that these firemen, some of whom were to die, all of whom were to lose friends, that they lied -- with no reason for doing so. Also I caught Grable maintaining against my argument that there was a witness who saw the building just explode that -- I showed that indeed this witness did not see the plane because the plane hit south tower on the south side and the witness was north (where he was looking at the north side of the north tower which had been hit by the first plane -- thus he did not see a plane because he was on the wrong side of the building -- he saw debris that was the plane, that was pushed out of the building. Nevertheless this lie stayed in the webfairy websites. The no-planer position was the best funded of all 9-11 truth -- they were on hundreds of websites, lists and blogs -- and hey worked together. They were conscious of getting what Grable, Haupt, Holmgren and Fetzer called the newbies. The attacked me as an agent and a fool. The invented words like "planehuggers" - I countered with "no-planers" --
No pay heed to this. There is not one witness who had the south side of the south tower in view at the moment the explosion occured who did not also see the plane first approach and hit it.
You are not dealing with an honest player. First of all you will notice -- I predict - that the person you are debating does not give his last name. You will also notice that he does not focus on any other thesis -- other than Mary Wood's claim that the buidings were not brought down by thermite -- but by electromagnetic pulse weapons -- none of which fits the evidence of what was seen.
Give me the name of the person who is darkening counsel with no-planer disinformation.
Also ask him where he writes about 9-11 -- go and check and you will doubtless find that no-planes and Judy Wood is all he does -- why has he no interest in the broader issues -- of who is behind it?
I notice that you ask for more help without giving me any of his arguments.
The man exists to waste the time of good people in arguing an abusurdity -- and because the people -- rotten stupid worthless things that they have become -- will not mediate -- but let the real investigators and the "truthers" fight it out. Nico Haupt is an agent of the Netherlands, on assignment, pretending to be crazy but actually working to protect his queen from her role in the crime. She is a Bilderberg and aristocracy wanting the return to monarchy in Europe and elsewhere. I knew him from very early -- he was going after the names of all the investigors - he wanted to be the hub of information. I sent him my Pentagon evidence (shown in my vides) and he indicated that he was passing it on (this was before the Grable-Holmgren meeting that launched 9-11 -- but I later found that he had forwarded nothing and that I had been writing basically for myself for well over a year, etc.
Friend,
ReplyDeleteI believe you may be honest. But you were seriously taken in.
Best of Luck, &c.
Thank you Steve(Fedupusa) for posting something coherent. It's been a while. LOL
ReplyDelete