9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

I am unable find any proof for video fakery on 9/11. I used to think it was plausible when considering there were different trajectories of the plane, nose out, etc.. but after reconsidering the so called evidence I find there is none.

Flight Path Trajectories Resloved:

Nose out is just debris:

There is no moving bridge:

Parallax 4 You:

Although very little, there is a measurement of deceleration:

We can see an engine being ejected from WTC 2 found on the corner of Church and Murray.

Are all the people that saw a plane lying? Are all the pictures fake? Would it be possible to control all the people with a video camera recording the towers that day?

There are many people who witnessed, photographed and recorded on video something hitting the tower that day. It is obsured to say they are all lying!!!



Views: 361

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

sandy rose said:
Bill Smith, if that is your real name, where's your pic? why do you
look like a pair of women's feet in red shoes? i'm really tired of
people coming to a forum about truth and being too afraid to show
their real pics.
using video fakery and the bs story about the planes did split
the 9/11 truth movement, because not everyone has the stones to
even think outside the box. exactly what the criminals had in mind.
i'm certainly not an expert on video or physics or science, but i
was sold long ago on fakery, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist
to look at the videos and see that they are bs.
have you seen the footage of the first hit object at wtc? alias
the flying pig? are you gonna try to say that thing is an airliner?
see web fairy's pic of that, from the naudet snuff film, hopefully
you've already looked at that. i have it over in the photo section.
does that in any way resemble an airliner to you?
also, how were we led by the nose to the no planes theory?
not very many people even seem to stumble upon it, and many
are just plain afraid to look at the videos. i don't notice anyone
leading us by the nose on this one. and your theory would mean
that all our great video experts would have been in on it, and i
won't buy that one even if it's free.

funny how you're trying to talk us into the planes being real.
you may be a real truther, but i'm seeing more red flags here.
we know that 9/11 was an inside job, which means their
whole story was a crock of crap, including the hijackers and
the boxcutters and the whole shebang.
why do you look like a pair of ladies' shoes? that's disturbing.

Hi Sandy Rose. I prefer to be anonymous, That's not a crime and my shoes are my trademark. I normally post on the jref forum and have done for about 18 months- same name,same shoes.I am one of the few real Truthers there so you can check at the flick of a switch whether I am what I say I am.

As regards the fakery...have you ever noticed how terribly badly done it is ? What with a half dozen tapes from different broadcasters with the plane often completely missing and the like ? It's hard to believe that they would have tried to fool us with no-planes and then made such a consistently horrible job of it. My insticts are screaming 'setup'. That's what I mean by us (potentially) being led by the nose.

I could be wrong of course but I am working off that premise for now and trying to use it to find evidence to back it up. Like the bits I've posted today. Do you see no logic in those theories?

Those experts of ours are fully convinced of the video fakery and they are right..it IS fakery but maybe deliberate fakery meant to lead us away from thinking about the possibility I outlined.

Can I post videolinks or is there a minimum amount of posts before I can do that ?
Ahh, the old fake planes to hide the real planes trick. Sounds like an episode of Get Smart.

Where's that damn Shoephone?

As to the videos, post away new friend of the fuck me pumps, tho they are moderated, so keep it below the ankle, lol.

Peace, Shallel
Shallel Octavia said:
Ahh, the old fake planes to hide the real planes trick. Sounds like an episode of Get Smart.

Where's that damn Shoephone?

As to the videos, post away new friend of the fuck me pumps, tho they are moderated, so keep it below the ankle, lol.

Peace, Shallel

lol. That's about the strength of it actually. I guess it might be the only permutation not yet considered but that doesn't mean that it's not worth trying on for size. There are some points on it's side.
I always try to maintain a reasonable level of decorum Shallel.
It's too simplistic to think that they make a mess of everything they do. We know that the opposite is mostly true.Ask Daniel Elsberg. They WANT us to believe that they are too incompetent to do stuff like this.Its an escape route for them.

Missing planes on the videos is too much to believe surely ? They would never never have used this no-planes scenario unless they were 110% certain it would work flawlessly.

They brought out a movie soon after 9/11 'Why the Towers Fell' I think it was. Freeze it rthe second you get an image. Then click it through frame-by-frame till the plane magically appears from behind the building.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6402347900887643799 Nova 4/30/2002

Do you think that the directors missed that somehow- or did they put it out deliberately without comment almost like a mistake ? Do you believe it was a mistake ?

My main point - a theory really- is that they were providing the evidence to indicate to us that there were no-planes. I want to find out why.
Check the blogs. I have posted studies from Pilots, where even NIST confirms that the plane was traveling at 5450 mph, which is an impossible speed. Your remarks about deceleration are off the mark. The plane's velocity should have gone to zero. We are not talking about a subtle phenomenon. The engine part at Church and Murray not only appears to have been planted--FOX News even has footage of FBI agents off-loading something heavy at that intersection before it was discovered--but it is sitting on a sidewalk, which appears to be undamaged, and under a construction scaffolding with an awning. You have been taken in by not actually studying the witness reports or the videos. I featured Scott Forbes on "The Real Deal" recently, and he reported that he was astonished when the building "swallowed the plane", when what took place should have looked a lot like a car hitting a large tree at high speed or an empty beer can colliding with a brick wall. See if you can track down Stefan Grossman's study of impact physics. One of his studies may be found at this location: http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/10-16-03/discussion.cgi.45.html . Some of the other points you make--about parallax and nose out--might be right but do not affect the basic arguments: the impossible speed, the impossible entry, and that the plane passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air, which implies that a 500,000-ton building provided no more resistance than air! We cannot possibly be viewing a real plane, where some form of fakery has to be involved, which I think was a hologram. And I am joined in that view by John Lear, Stefan Grossman, and Stephen Brown, whom I recently interviewed, who had just completed a course of holography at Cambridge. Your intuitions, Jeff, are not good enough. There was video fakery.

The definitive case for no planes and video fakery are in chapters 6 and 7.


How much is it worth to you to finally learn the truth?


9/11 - The Great American Psy-Opera

Reply to Discussion


© 2024   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service