Saturday, July 2, 2011

Reply to James Fetzer Over No Plane Nonsense

First, the initial article containing my initial response was mixing Pilots for 9/11 Truth references in with the no plane holographic imagery references. That's like mixing cheap ketchup with crawfish etouffee! I don't take issue with information posted on, but I am also not familiar with any member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth that subscribes to the "no plane theory".

In the paragraph underneath the heading "Pilots for 9/11 Truth", you ask "If there were no planes, what happened?" I see Pilots for 9/11 Truth refuting airspeeds, flight data, pilot skill, flight lists and cell technology.but I haven't found Pilots for 9/11 Truth taking planes completely out of the equation. Through Operation Home Run, the planes did not need to be modified to be flown remotely and I suspect Dov Zakheim had a hand in this technology, although a real investigation may confirm or deny this. Concerning the Pentagon, there is a lot of suspicion and strong circumstantial evidence refuting the official story. In addition, Pilots for 9/11 Truth's analysis of the flight data recorder goes further and indeed places the plane well above the Pentagon with two independent altitude readings (both Doppler and barometric). Jeffrey Latas, an ex Gulf war fighter pilot, commercial pilot and a member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, confirms the flight data analysis, but is not entirely convinced himself about the idea that no jet hit the Pentagon. I do not believe Latas is compromised over the issue of 9/11. Obviously, there needs to be a thorough investigation of this theater of 9/11, but it's close to impossible to avoid speculation. This potential pitfall seems to be exacerbated by the FBI's confiscation of 80 or more odd recordings from different security cameras around the area.

I view the Pentagon as a potential honeypot propaganda tactic that attracts as many bees to the hive as possible before destroying the nest. Here, the Pentagon can simply pull or modify evidence they are in control of and use it to discredit (justified or not) the whole movement dealing with all theaters of 9/11. Thankfully, we have New York. As you state in your lectures, it seems like the establishment is asking us not to believe "our own lying eyes".

The following three conditions cannot be explained without explosives:

1. Molten iron in the basements of all three buildings.

2. The complete annihilation of all three buildings.

3. The rate of which all three buildings collapse while they are being destroyed.

It has been demonstrated time and again that the establishment has nowhere to go with this. Presenting these three basic items is the equivalent of placing your hands onto the neck of the establishment and squeezing. They are stuck. The more they dispute it, the worse it gets for them. Instead, trade groups are reduced to committing libel and slander by accusing folks like Richard Gage of anti-Semitism. That means Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are winning - and not the "Charlie Sheen" kind of winning.

All that is left for the establishment shills is deflection. Occupy peoples' time and attention with something like the "no plane theory". Perfect Cass Sunstein material.

In Portland, all of this no plane hologram speculation seems to center around a movie called "September Clues", which is the strongest influence among the no planers. This 90 minute film suggesting holographic imagery, "September Clues", places a great deal of emphasis on issues of timing, pixellation, audio discrepancies, camera angles, building perspectives, lower thirds station I.D.'s, silhouettes, auto-focus, reflections and protruding nose cones.

I already want my time back.

"September Clues" insists that news correspondents on the ground in New York needed to have seen the planes' impacts in order for us all to believe the planes hit the buildings. To be fair, I should mention that it looks like no on-site correspondent witnessed the actual impact of the planes. Every time reporters refer to an explosion, "Clues" cuts to giddy text over pastel colors declaring a moment of deception.

The maker of this film did not like seeing the nose cone popping out of the other side of the building. As the plane explodes with impact, you see all or part of the nose cone of the jet protrude through the other side of the building before it is consumed by the explosion. Apparently, the idea that the cone made it through the building to the other side is "monstrous video trickery". Everyone is supposed to assume that this is impossible. Like there is no way a vertical portion of the cone could make it past the 48 steel beams before exploding from the impact.

What does the editor of this movie do with this image of the emerging nose cone? Smooth out its pixels. Every frame of video footage only has so much information. There are only so many pixels. Bitmap software like photoshop is often tapped to remove the "video look" of a still video frame by smoothing out the pixels. They grab an earlier frame of an unmolested jet nose cone and superimpose it over the part of the nose cone that may have made it through the building. The protruding nose cone is slightly wider, a lot smoother, but matching! It's the fact that they match that we are supposed to realize the video-trickery of it all.

Next in the movie, from a helicopter, a videographer is supposed to have seen the cone's protrusion that brief momentary split second it exists before being consumed by an explosion. (Of course, the footage is in slow motion and there's not a lot of attention devoted to how much you're likely to see in real time). Now, all original footage of this moment has 15 frames of black to help facilitate such trickery. Forget about the idea that you haven't seen this 15 frames of black in rebroadcasts -- that's just 'the man' with doctored footage. According to "September Clues", that blackout is an attempt by videographers or switchers to prevent the audience from seeing the protruding nose cone rear it's ugly head for that one fraction (much less than half) of a second, because, if they did, it would have the same devastating impact on the impressionable audience as WTC7's free fall collapse.

Switchboard operators place a lower thirds title over a live broadcast and it may remain as a live composite even when older footage is played back. One lower thirds design was a little too big and covered up the point of impact of on older footage played back. Another "September Clue"! They were hiding the nose cone! There's no way they forgot that the point of impact may be obscured by the lower thirds I.D. The editor superimposes text: "are we to believe this was "just an accident?". See where this is going?

My question is "should I waste my time any further with this?"

If you are a masochist, you could jump into the pudding and watch "September Clues".

See the vastly different camera angles on huge buildings have a slightly different perspective!

Watch how the text definitively proclaims that the angles don't look right and therefore must be the result of sloppy, doctored footage!

Watch how the average reaction to impact by pundits is 17 seconds and how that could only mean that the announcers are patiently waiting their cue while the video generated holographic imagery is fooling the television public!

See how people in the background seem to disappear! Disappear, of course, when you don't account for the fact there are two fields per every frame of video. If you freeze a frame with two fields, sometimes the edge of a moving image seems to fade into the background.

Hear the discrepancies in the sounds of impact from one angle to another and attribute them to sloppy false flag work instead of basic acoustics!

Assume that oscillating sounds like sirens can never match up in a straight cut, despite the fact your signal hits the same pitch every couple seconds!

Deny there could ever be different contrast ratios from different camera angles, depending upon where you are in relation to the sun!

Refuse to believe that the plane in question could have traveled across the horizon because, when the camera was zoomed out, the plane is not yet in view!

You too will want your time back after watching "September Clues"!

One redeeming quality about "September Clues" is that it helps to find out who is pushing this theory in the first place. Take a good look at this movie and you soon realize that those pushing the "no planes hit the building theory" are compromised. They are simply trying to distract the 9/11 Truth movement and diminish our credibility. It's become the "elephant in the room". I can't help but mourn the loss of my 9/11 activist hoe-downs from past days in Tucson, basking in the spittle of people's beet red conspiracy-baiting temper tantrums of the past. Boo hoo.

If a movement is going to make it on its own, however, it must be able to overcome these incohesive side shows to become stronger and more focused in its message. You can tell that's happening once you're labelled "anti-Semitic" for your views on 9/11 instead of being labelled "kooky".

Thanks to James Fetzer for allowing me to share my take on this matter.

J.T. Waldron

Help Us Transmit This Story

Add to Your Blogger Account
Put it On Facebook
Tweet this post
Print it from your printer
Email and a collection of other outlets
Try even more services


  1. There was much video fakery on 9/11. In fact, probably all of it.

    Killtown has written by far the most persuasive, slam dunk case for this in my opinion:

    Phil Jayhan and Larry McWilliams at Let's Roll Forums have exposed many frauds and discrepancies with many of the passengers and "victims" on 9/11:

    Leslie Raphael has exposed Jules Naudet's film of flight 11 hitting the North Tower as fraudulent:

    I might add that there is a history of video fakery when it involves major conspiracies and events. For instance, the Zapruder film of the JFK assassination has been exposed as a fake:

  2. there was indeed much video fakery on 9/11 and in the days immediately following. in fact notice the very first photo on this very blog post, it is a still taken from a video first aired by CNN. did you think that a real aluminum plane with a plastic nosecone could glide into the side of a massive steel wtc like casper the ghost without evidencing any crash physics whatsoever?
    check out: THE WTC2 MEDIA HOAX

  3. @John Friend

    All you disinfo agents:

    Actually it was SPACE ALIENS who were flying CAMOUFLAGED UFOS made to modify our minds into thinking we were seeing planes. One of them was playing a HAARP that disintegrated the towers before they NUCLEAR DEMOLISHED the whole site and then a bunch of DRONES shots the whole thing up with missiles.

    Dick Cheney himself was seen firing a MISSILE at the Pentagon and saying "THE ORDER STILL STANDS!!!" When MINETA asked him why he said "I DID IT FOR THE LULZ!"

    Listen, you obviously didn't read OP. There was no HD news footage back then. Not on 9/11. Everything was interlaced 480i video subject to years of generation loss and compression artifacts.

    Planes were used to camouflage secondary explosions and create the OS. A 'media hoax' sounds far more interesting obviously but that's fictional. If you truly believe such a thing is possible, you're an idiot. Seriously. Otherwise you are purposely hijacking the truth movement with disinfo like Jim Fetzer. Fetzer did it with JFK and claims to be able to prove it with 'science' except he doesn't use science. He also talks heavily about critical thinking and disinformation. That's a hint by the way. He is admitting his real purpose.

    A plane hit the pentagon, WTC1 and WTC2. Ask yourself why didn't they fake a plane to hit WTC7? It was a huge building. Would've given them an alibi. BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DO SUCH A THING! Flight 93 was originally heading for Sears tower. It was likely on the way back to WTC7 (cause other flights were grounded) and was shot down. Secondary explosions took care of the rest of the Pentagon and WTC buildings (including WTC 3,4,5,6). The evidence is there.

    Israel's Likud thugs together with their intelligence agency Mossad pulled the whole thing off because they infiltrated our justice/defense departments.

  4. Hi acid_claus,

    "A plane hit the pentagon, WTC1 and WTC2."

    Can you please provide evidence to substantiate that claim? I have found very little, in fact none. Maybe you could point me in the right direction?

    Jim Fetzer does great work. The Zapruder film is a hoax, and he was instrumental in exposing this fact. So was this guy:

    The media/video fakery on 9/11 was instrumental in the psyop they pulled off.

    BTW- I'm well aware of who was behind 9/11. Check out my blog if you haven't already. I've got numerous articles there exposing Israel and the Zionist Jews that have control of this government as the real perps.

  5. Fetzer and Friend are proven disinfo distraction. No planes is nonsense.

  6. Oh man, did Waldron really delete a comment proving the Nazi lover John Friend's hero "Killtown" is a Libertarian Loon called Craig Lazo? Fetzer will be by any moment to deny Killtown's identity, even though it's been confirmed by the skeptics forum and Lazo's ex friend Nico Haupt:

    "You didn't point out any facts. And yes... your blaming the jews when there is no evidence they are involved (aliong with your support of Holocaust denier Craig "Killtown" Lazo) makes you an anti-semite."

    If you look at Klowntown's traffic logs from 2007 to 2010, the most frequent visitor is from an IP address Comcast can confirm was paid for by Jennifer Wynhausen.

    ([INPUT DATE HERE].html)

    Gosh if Lazo and his friends could only delete the lies they made up about people they defrauded maybe no one would come by to rub your nose into this sleazy conspiracy failure that you for some reason want to associate with.