9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

IN MEMORIAM OF GERARD HOLMGREN: The grandfather of No Planes Theory

IN MEMORIAM OF GERARD HOLMGREN: The grandfather of No Planes Theory

by Dennis Cimino

I just got thru watching a YouTube video of Gerard Holmgren presenting what I think at 300 and some odd views, is probably the most important piece of work about the video fakery used on American’s on 9/11 that has to date ever been so cogently put forth in terminology and in explanation that makes it impossible to understand how we got fooled.

First, I am a bit embarrassed to admit that this is my first viewing of this video even when if you put my name into YouTube search engine, Gerard’s video (he is now deceased since 2010) you will see this one pop up in the listings to the right of my stuff there. In all of these months, I had presumed that I had already a good handle on what happened on that day but I have to admit, I had forgotten much of what I couldn’t see clearly as I was not looking at a clear TV picture but a grainy and noisy TV shot in the sub-basement of Lockheed Martin in Eagan where talmudvision reception was pretty crappy no matter what I did to try to get a clearer signal. Mind you that I am in a sub-basement location two floors below the ground level, so I am also in a concrete building with probably a lot of metal rebar in the structure which is making signal penetration on that UHF channel pretty difficult and with a lot of multipath apparent (shadowing) going on. So for me, I was not able to see this stuff till much much later in the day, and to be bluntly honest, I do not think I rushed home to watch TV that afternoon but instead went home and went to bed because I knew that this was absolutely an INSIDE JOB and the mere fact my co-workers were so blindly convinced it was really 19 arab hijackers had me more than moderately depressed.

In any case, that’s important to get out of the way about the relative importance of seeing Holmgren’s video presentation he had done using Skype to a group in New York in 2006, four years before his untimely death. So, today, 20 April, 2013, I am now fully absolutely aware for the first time of the relative timeline for what we saw and what we did not see LIVE that day had we been able to see ‘live’ video which I was barely able to do in that sub-basement, getting much of my info from the audio subcarrier channel which was distorted but not so bad as the crappy video I was seeing. This is sad to me because had I watched this presentation last June when I did my presentation in Vancouver, I would have probably known quite some time ago how imperative it is that the average person understand what Gerard had to say.

In essence, the general gist of his presentation was about the fact that no live image was captured of UA 11 hitting the North Tower at all, and that 18 minutes later, only an image of a plane flying BEHIND the North Tower was shown anyone, but no impact video of UA 175 striking the South Tower was ever broadcast ‘LIVE’ that day. Now, this is important being that we were told many witnesses said they saw both planes in NYC hit those buildings live, but this was not the case. As Gerard states, only ONE eyewitness said he had actually seen the event, and he was a CNN high ranking employee and actually later disqualified because he was not in a position to have seen the impact at all that day. The significance of this is quite intensely major in that in spite of what everyone thought there were no real eyewitnesses who could attest to having seen these impacts occur when they allegedly happened. We saw the Naudet brothers crap later and assumed this was ‘live’ that day but that too was not shown immediately to us meaning it had plenty of time to be fabricated after the fact and could not possibly been LIVE footage based on the time it was shown to us.

Gerard takes a great deal of time addressing the psychological constructs in human psyche’s when power of suggestion is used in a propaganda method I call ‘show and tell and repeat’ where you are shown an event, and told what it was, and then asked or engaged to repeat that or it is In fact shown again and repeated for you till you are now programmed to see that event without even actually watching it on a monitor or TV set any longer. The phenomena actually can be even more effective if you are simply told of an event and then the imagery is presented later because you have already begun to build the neural pathways in your mind for the visual image you have yet to see. Any decent psychologist can tell you this is in fact true and that you can be made to believe you saw what you in fact never did see happen live but only were told of and then later shown maybe just still images or maybe in some cases given good clear descriptive accounts via voice or audio formatted information feeds to you. In time you begin in your own mind to synthesize the visual imagery whether you wish that to be the case or not. It is just the way the human mind works, and we cannot turn that off, it is part of us 24/7, though some of us have more rapid visual construct neural paths already macro’d in our brains that require mere suggestion to let our imaginations give us the rest of it in our mind’s eye.

Why this is so vitally important is that on day one, nobody had seen UA 11 hit the North Tower, not even from the street level. Additionally, only a brief image of a plane briefly passing by the N. Tower and told to us that this was UA 175 hitting the South Tower, had been shown until much much later that evening. So in effect, several hours had elapsed between when we were allegedly seeing LIVE stuff but in effect had not yet seen a single plane impact any building yet…at a time when many eyewitnesses to these events said ‘missile’ or ‘small plane’ was used to do these attacks.

Later that night, finally ‘blobs 11’ is created and aired, showing UA 11 (which is anything but a plane) hitting the N. Tower, and then the very very fake image of UA 175 ‘melting’ into the S. Tower is shown us over and over again. As some of us now know, much much later, it was proven that the trajectory and or flight path of UA 175 to the S. Tower on one video shown in Europe was a diving turning maneuver which would in reality have overstressed any plane traveling at such impossible speeds at that altitude, and broken it before impact, as well as probably compressor stalling the engines due to abruptly maneuvering, and yet another straight in for a long time shot had been shown to American viewers showing the same plane not diving or turning but coming in straight for a long long time. In essence, this is not possible. Only one UA 175 allegedly flew into the S. Tower on 9/11/2001, not ‘two’ of them on different trajectories. So now you have to ask how can this occur? Furthermore, which video is reality? Both wee sold to us as ‘reality’ by the MSM, how can they both exist if this was all on the up and up. The answer is that this cannot exist. The plane could not have two radically different flight paths to the same building impact. That is NOT REALITY.

So, Holmgrens linkage of the timeline and my adding to it the reality of the two flight paths does provide time for the production of the fakery by a large margin. Unfortunately for the MSM, they forgot to only use ONE of these approaches to the S. Tower, not both of them…which they in fact did.

In addition to this, as some of you are aware, the ‘nose’ of UA 175 actually came out the other side of the building more or less ‘intact’ and unchanged, along with about oh, say 100 feet of forward fuselage section and then this whole chunk of nose and fuselage just evaporates in midair in that video clip. Later they move the INFO BAR up to hide the fact that this physically impossible non-reality was actually put on the television for millions to see, only once, by CNN. Now, if you also look at the subsequent shots you will see what would be a wing and engine basically sliding thru the side of the building and what appears to be an engine flip out and tumble in a long arc into the streets below. If you look at the building imagery closer, you’ll notice this could not be because there is no long gouge in the skyscraper where this slice could have taken place and the engine and starboard wing could not have done this because this building used moderately rigid steel exoskeletal structures on the outside, and the outboard starboard wing sections could not have withstood the resistance to allow this to happen, so here again this is a visual clue to something being oh so very ‘wrong’ with UA 175’s building impact, notwithstanding the fact that precision measurements during the impact scene show no deceleration occurred at all as the building swallowed up the plane. So, Newtonian physics were not in play on 9/11 for this to be possible because the plane absolutely would in reality begun to disintegrate and slow down as the building mass absorbed the impact, no matter what speed it flew into the building at.

Many of you are not familiar with the speeds these aircraft were clocked at, but in the case of UA 175, it had been determined by RADES 84 radar track data given us, that a mean value of around 508 knots was the terminal speed of UA 175 striking the S. Tower. This is problematic in that the absolute top speed of ANY WIDEBODY JET at approximately 700 feet above ground level, due to an aerodynamic force known as ‘parasite drag’ made this virtually not possible to be faster than about 380 knots, under any circumstances. Needless to say even Boeing has during a telephone call, absolutely reinforced this as fact. Yet on 9/11/2001, the radar data says something much faster than a Boeing wide body jet hit the building or at least flew to it that day, according to radar data.

Based on hours of research, I had since drawn the conclusion that the only air vehicle which could have sustained the 508 to 512 knots on the terminal flight into the S. Tower as clocked by radar, was an Air Launched or Sub Launched cruise missile, due to it’s modest drag coefficient and it’s nominal 510 knot at 700 foot, cruising speed, but this assumption is with significant risk as it is far from certain that RADES 84 would remain valid for such a small radar cross section or ‘low observability’ on radar, vehicle such as an ALCM or GLCM is, meaning that radar track of such a reduced radar cross section target is so poor even with precision radar, it’s unlikely the ASR-64 terminal radars in the NYC area that day could have adequately tracked a cruise missile with the track consistency in the suspected ‘faked’ RADES 84 data we got.

Gerard Holmgren’s research was not just limited to the NO PLANES theory, and much of his work delves into the fraudulent passenger lists and the government lies about people who allegedly died on these planes that in two cases weren’t even scheduled to fly per the BTS schedule on 9/11. I know of his work mostly thru following a long dialogue between Gerard and another 9/11 Researcher and 7/7 expert by the name of Nicholas Kollerstrom of London, Uk., whom now wears my Seiko pilot’s chronograph as a gift for having used it to time his presentation in Vancouver in June of 2012 when we spoke there.

So, in summary about Gerard’s very excellent presentation, albeit with very muffled audio, it is worth listening to and getting a good handle on from him even post mortem. I now regret not having had the chance to trade information with him before his death.

I have since quit the 9/11 movement, after an 11 year long stretch trying to get my fellow countrymen to wake up. For the most part I had not been too very successful in that effort, even though I did join forces with Professor James H. Fetzer, whom I have co-published many articles now on Veterans Today with and done ‘2’ radio shows on Radio Fetzer with. I had come to the conclusion that a phenomena called; “The Law of Diminishing Returns” had kicked in regarding the telling of truth here, and that spending the rest of my life doing it would be a horrific waste of my time and effort. Am I proud to have spent the time and effort with people like Rob Balsamo and Professor Fetzer and Nick Kollerstrom? Absolutely I am. But the death of another colleague, ‘Splitting the Sky’ also known as John Boncore, of British Colombia, not too long ago, made me realize that life is indeed short and that spending it being the ‘dancing bee’ as I call it was not going to be in the cards for me. It was indeed an honor to have Splitting the Sky come up to me after my presentation in Vancouver and say; “You be the MAN!” over what I put out there, though in reality, seeing his fiery presentation to the group that day was both electrifying and motivating. I will miss this compatriot, and I am certain the world at large will also miss him, as well as Gerard Holmgren.

NOTE: for those who wish to see Gerard’s presentation while it’s still there on You Tube, go to this URL: below:

Views: 896


You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by Dean on April 26, 2013 at 8:57pm

Thank you, Dennis!  We owe a lot to Gerard Holmgren!

© 2021   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service