Tuesday, September 29, 2015

9/11 Plane Witness Challenge To Debunktards and Truthers


James Henry Fetzer Busted!

None of the video taped witnesses who were filmed talking about the two planes on 9/11/2001 actually support the Official Theory Lie of 9/11.. They never describe the correct plane colors of AA or a UA plane. This fact has been covered up by No Planers and Planers alike i.e (A&E, Judy Wood, James Henry Fetzer) My guess is you the public assume that someone has seen something which supports the Official Lie, well guess again! Only video taped witnesses who were filmed off camera talking or on camera about the two planes on 9/11/2001 are deemed valid responses.. All other replies will be defined as spam.. Administrators should delete the spam replies below which don't meet the outlined conditions above..
    • Daniel M. Plesse
    • Daniel M. Plesse First plane white small, Second plane military larger.. Why do keep making the same mistakes over an over.. Do you get per post or not?

  • Daniel M. Plesse
    • Daniel M. Plesse 9/11 Ricki DeSantis Second Plane
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64iXQjmmiVw

    Here is an example of someone who witnessed a military plane first hand.. part 1

    O'Flaherty, Brian (pdf file)Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.) 1/9/02
    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110431.PDF

    Part 2
    The graphic is an example of how Truth Community's own reading errors has lead them to believe witnesses have supported the Official Lie which fact that is NOT the case..
    I searched 7060 Oral Histories and that document returns only one person who clearly had watched television and had too much details.

    Darnowski, Kevin (pdf file)Paramedic (E.M.S.)
    "Right before the tolls on the Brooklyn
    side heading towards Manhattan at the Battery
    Tunnel, we were sitting in traffic and we watched
    United Flight 175 hit tower two, which was the
    south tower of the World Trade Center."
    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110202.PDF

    9/11 Second Plane photo

    None of the video taped witnesses who were filmed talking about the two planes on 9/11/2001 actually support  the Official Theory Lie of 9/11, They never describe the plane colors of a AA or a UA plane i.e. This fact has been covered up by No Planers and Planers alike i.e (A&E, Judy Wood, James Henry Fetzer)  My guess is you assume someone has seen something which supports the Official Lie, well guess again!


    flight 11

    kkThe official narrative is flight 11 which is a giant silver plane with light grey wings for plane one and flight 175 which is a giant blue plane on the bottom with white wings, red stripe and dark grey..



    Only video tape witness will be accepted as valid replies.. Thanks

    Black Strange Shape Second Plane Evidence
    https://youtu.be/nyEoE2cjyMk

    9/11 Second Plane Black Strange Shape Second Plane Evidence

     
     https://youtu.be/nyEoE2cjyMk

    9/11 Truth Example 


    No Planer Example
    • Thomas Digan
    • Thomas Digan Simon shack has nothing to do with me. Don't tar us all with the same stick.
      Like · Reply · 1 min
    • Daniel M. Plesse
      • Daniel M. Plesse You asked for "Where have no planers covered this up Dan." I answered with video example.. You tarred yourself..


      9/11 Official Theory Example
      • Daniel M. Plesse Sam Haschets Are you agreeing that not a single video taped witness exists which supports the official Theory?

      • Sam Haschets
      • Sam Haschets Are you agreeing you are a brain in a jar?

      • Daniel M. Plesse
        • Daniel M. Plesse Please answer the question..


        • Daniel M. Plesse
        • Daniel M. Plesse You can agree that he's avoiding the question and agree that answer YES or NO is valid.... Maybe he answered with "No I don't" but he misspelled "Don't"..

        • Daniel M. Plesse
        • Daniel M. Plesse I will accept Sam Haschets answer of "No I Don't"

        • Sam Haschets
        • Sam Haschets You are acting like a cry baby, seriously Dan, learn to fight your own battles -- I know you feel extremely over-matched, but if you try, I'll take it easy on you. (editted before Dan can cry)

        • Daniel M. Plesse
          • Daniel M. Plesse Sam Haschets you are misbehaving by not answering clearly, however I already accepted your " No I Don't" " answer..

          If the Official theory is valid, why do you have such a hard time answering questions about 9/11?

          Why do you leave out words and details?

          • Daniel M. Plesse
          • Daniel M. Plesse Sam Haschets You asked me to define "witness".. So I did..

            Can you answer the challenge with valid reply or not?

          • Sam Haschets
            • Sam Haschets Goal posts moved, sorry, when you lie and lose you don't get to reboot.




    //

    Maxwell C. Bridges: Early-Adopter Fourth Generation Nukes on 9/11
    As part of the 9/11 Truth Movement, I've been libeled and slandered as "an industrial-strength 9/11 conspiracy theorist." In reality, I'm just another Blues Brother on a mission from God. My directives concerning 9/11 were very clear. "Feed my sheep."
    maxwellbridges.blogspot.com|By Maxwell C. Bridges

    Posted by at No comments:

    Monday, September 28, 2015

    9/11 No Planers are is silly at best


    • R Damm 3 days ago
      my office was at 315 church street. that was about 8 blocks up from the wtc buildings which were the entire 100 block of church street. i witnessed the entire event. my office was across from the AT&T building at canal street. i watched in horrific slow motion as the first plane went into the first tower. it is forever with me, the "noise" of that plane. i will share with you, there was NO full throttle sound to the plane. it was a modulating sound of "Wurrhhh, wurrh, WURRH, wurrh." before it hit............within 1 minute of the first crash, i ran up to my 2nd floor office and called my sister in canada to let her know that the phone lines might go down as a result of what i just saw. [this was long before it hit the main stream media.] as an aside, i took an incoming call which from a "female patient" of my office, someone who was concerned about her insurance. I was crying. she asked why. i told her what i saw. she told me that she worked in the lower floors of the same tower building. she said the building intercom came on and told them all is good, they were safe, and to stay at their desk. I responded to her "if it was me, i would leave"... [she did, i met her one month later in a tearful meeting where she thanked me for the info which saved her life]..........i then returned to the street. we [all the regular business people i knew along church street] thought it was a massive aviation accident. {the second explosion was thought to be con edison gas main breaks].


    Operation North Woods required planting because that hoax needed something to sell the story, however notice IT DOES SAY fake actors or fake witness.  Why? because people talk.. Case in point 9/11 Confession  

    9/11 Confession   

    • Daniel M. Plesse Norma Rae If I were risk my neck planting things it better be real good and well worth it and it WOULD NOT be an object that carries serial numbers which other people might look at, like the case of the engines.. The plane debris is a big problem for the FBI.. Why would you cause problems for yourself.. Who would want to deal with more stuff? and who did the planting?

    • Norma Rae I don't care WHY they did what they did. If it fails to follow how our world works, then it was staged.

      • Daniel M. Plesse Norma Rae The world works like this: Media companies sold the concept of planes to the public, correct? The public would believe the media companies i.e the talking heads or whatever even without video evidence or without plane debris and without a single witness, correct? The hoaxers don't need anything to convince the public as long as enough people believe their story and they don't have to give a reasons or evidence.. Notice  9/11 debunkers just say "planes" and not any details?  Knowing this, zero effort theory of mine i.e no additional evidence is required, why would groups of people risk anything? Do you really believe that the hoaxers would loose faith in television and needed extra evidence just in case the video hoax didn't work out.. The witnesses so far only say other planes hit the tower.. 100% of the time or missed seeing Plane A or Plane B.. 
        Sorry the NPT is silly at best..
        LikeReplyJust nowEdited

    Maxwell Bridges
    " When we entertain the notion that maybe agents planted evidence -- from passports, to bandanas, to Arabic flight manuals and Korans left in rental cars --, we can also entertain the notion that r    emoving or tampering with evidence could also have been at work. Indeed, after the lock-down by military forces of the WTC compound, many could reasonably argue that all they did was tamper and destroy evidence, by the dump-truck and flat-bed trailer loads! They didn't even test for explosive residue, so hypnotically convincing they were in pegging observed and video-taped real airplanes to explain the pulverization of the entire WTC.

    The engine being photographed under a scaffolding could have been the interrupted efforts of those agents trying to disappear the evidence, because the engine would be found to not be a serial numbered match (or even same model) to the alleged commercial aircraft.    Maxwell Bridges I don't vouch for the veracity of this. But even validating a 1/3 of these is damning.

    Over 350 Passengers Canceled Their Reservations or Didn't Show Up for the Hijacked 9/11 Flights
    http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2014/08/over-350-passengers-canceled-their.html

    Posted by at No comments:

    Sunday, September 27, 2015

    NIST WTC 7 Fraud Albury Smith verses Mr. Cole

    NIST WTC 7 Fraud


    9/11 Blueprint Fraud

    September 28th 2015 at 15:17
    Dear Mr. Cole I got a reply from Albury Smith.. I will be the go between..

    From Albury Smith

    Hi Dan-
    Those so-called "critical structural omissions" were as follows:
    -Two 3/4" X 5-1/2" X 18" WEB stiffener plates (.580" web in A2001 girder) weighing ~21.5# each and totally irrelevant to the NIST collapse sequence, i.e. A2001 web deformation doesn't occur in it.
    -12" bearing vs 11" is only 1/2" e.w., it was the value used in the NIST input data, and 11" was only a typo in NCSTAR 1A.
    -The three W12 X 19 beams were only there to stiffen that one spandrel beam, and were ~50' to more than 60' away from the Col. 79/Girder A2001 connection.
    - I also asked you why Cole, Brookman, and these other 9/11 "experts" haven't run their own NEW AND INDEPENDENT ANSYS & LS-DYNA FEA with these "critical structural omissions" included in their input data.
    Your comment is still there; my replies to it were both removed by Ms. Alexander, an alleged 9/11 "truth-seeker." (I saved this one just in case)
    I certainly should not have to remind Mr. Cole that real experts would already have run ANSYS & LS-DYNA models with these minor structural elements included in their input data, or that attacking someone else's work product does nothing to establish any other hypothesis, but please feel free to send him my comments on these "critical structural omissions," as they're called in Dr. Pepper's letter to Todd Zinser at Commerce:
    http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf

    Winston Smith

    September 28th 2015 at 19:39
    Dan,

    Albury wrote this:

    -Two 3/4" X 5-1/2" X 18" WEB stiffener plates (.580" web in A2001 girder) weighing ~21.5# each and totally irrelevant to the NIST collapse sequence, i.e. A2001 web deformation doesn't occur in it.

    The key to the stiffeners is that they strengthen both the web and bottom flanges.  NIST's failure mode was in the flange.  When they got caught they obfuscated by saying they weren't necessary for the analysis because there was no web crippling.  Duh.  Circular argument.

    Keep thinking critically.

    Dave

    Winston Smith

    September 28th 2015 at 19:23
    Hello Dan,

    No the article did not mention the stiffeners, but they are the factor that defeats the initiation hypothesis.  You'd have to ask Ms. Alexander why she chose to not mention them.  Probably too technical for the average reader.

    Albury fails to recognize that the spandrel beam stiffeners would also stiffen the G3005 beam and in turn work against the girder buckling.

    I am not an engineer, just a layperson who knows how to read blueprints.

    Albury Smith is someone who argues endlessly  defending the NIST report, even though they have been caught several times making serious errors.  Ask yourself why Albury would feel the need to do this.

    The reason no FEA has been run is money.  But stay tuned.

    We are way off the subject:  The NIST reports were used in court.  Donald Stahl contacted me about learning more.  If you want in on this discussion please let me know.  I really don't have time for other things right now.

    Thank you,
    Dave

    From Albury Smith (Who Did not reply above question)
     
    Reply
    The author of the article where you questioned me is still removing my replies to you, but I'm hopeful that your friend Mr. Cole will reply to my comments. If you'd like, here are 2 recent disqus links to similar discussions that aren't censored by deceitful 9/11 "truth" aficionados, and I'll be notified directly if you use the "Reply" link to any of my posts at either one: http://www.mintpressnews.com/911-truth-movement-proposes-honoring-victims-by-questioning-official-narrative/209574/ http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-unedited-truth-why-msnbc-re-airs-911-coverage-3/#comment-2273152383


    Posted by at No comments:

    Friday, September 25, 2015

    AA 757s Do Not Have on board phones


    AA 757s Do Not Have on board phones
    The 9/11 Phone calls  were 904-555-0004 and Todd Beamer dialed  (200) 200-xxxx which are both impossible. Area code 200 does not exist and 555 numbers do not work without 1212... No phones on AA 757's 


    Marvin Sirbu said Phone calls were possible but 

    1.     serving as Special Government Employee MARVIN SIRBU, MEMBER, TECHNOLOGICAL ADVISORY COUNCIL


    2. A call from a plane traveling at 550 mph would need to be transferred to a different cell tower every minute or so, which could explain why some callers were cut off then almost 
    immediately re- establish connections

    3. " But from the air, phones can have a direct path to antenna configured to receive signals from above.. No Cell tower is configured for 550 mph planes



    Post Gazette Publishing Company Sep 13, 2001


    Betty Ong 904-555-0004  Amy Sweeney 904-555-0004
    source T7-B13-Flight-11-Calls-Fdr-Response-From-DOJ-to-Doc-Req-14-Calls-From-AA-11-and-77-and-UA-175-and-93-ATT-Wireless-UA-And-GTE-Airphone-Call-Record

    Barbara Olson 904-555-0004


    Keep in mind that
    2. you can use the airfone for a free call to the reservations desk.. simply dial **44
    3. the Boeing 757 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (757 AMM) dated January 28, 2001. This page states that the passenger phone system for the AA 757 fleet had (by that date) been deactivated.24 According to the 757 AMM, in other words, the onboard phones had been deactivated at least seven and a half months prior to 9/11.
    4. Almost since their installation in 1996, we've seen a dramatic decrease in the use of these phones," said American Airlines spokesman Todd Burke, who added that the service averages about three calls a day per aircraft. ZDNet
    5. Call Domain on some calls lists OSPS and not Claircom   Jacksonville, FL had a OSPS (904-0T) http://www.phworld.org/sounds/modern/attosps/  6. From 9/11 Insider Confessions The planes could have been made from scratch 1. to make calls 2. to explode with nano materials.. Serials numbers removed and but kept the casting numbers.. 7. “We had been notified by the FBI some years ago that the calls made from Flight 11 were charged to our phone calling card,” he [Mike Low] said. ~ Arkansas Online.com
    (From quora.com quora.com might only be looking at Barbara Olson 904-555-0004.. Also quora claimed that (904) area code was from Claircom however also made the claim that some other piece of equipment being was used.. The chances decrease as the explanations increase )
     
    "American had turned off the front-end boxes in late 2000 because they were phasing out seatback phones. Since seatback handsets were non-functional, why do we see calls coming through the system? The back-end box had multiple interface jacks for future expansion with things like WiFi. This call came through a box plugged into port 4. This is not speculation, the evidence above says so. That box could only have been a cellular base station called a picocell (aka microcell).

    This detail is significant because it proves someone other than the hijackers was involved. That party was either spying on or assisting hijackers. The Claircom box and corresponding Verizon boxes were not accessible from passenger compartments.Someone installed picocells in four planes ahead of time."https://www.quora.com/Why-do-9-11-conspiracy-theorists-disbelieve-the-official-story
    From 911blogger Who is completely uninterested in 904-555-0004.. 
    " Phone companies have records for phone calls. The FBI obtained call records for all four 9/11 flights (AAL 77 pp. 11-24) as part of its investigation and provided them to the 9/11 Commission. American Airlines phone calls were carried by Claircom. In reviewing these records for AAL 11 and AAL 77, it is seen that all calls from the two AAL flights had 904-555-0004 as the originating number. " 

    The airfone system 555 phone number from the seat back phones on both flight 11 and some callers on flight 77 (same number) was never assigned to any company.

    The PDF title says "Flight 11 Calls_t7b13.pdf", however it reported on all 23 flight calls so that everything.. Flight 11, 77, 93 and maybe flight 175 all 99% 555 numbers i.e fake as fake can get.

    Source of 555 numbers
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0pxVbXyB9OLemVqcm9tTHJiMjQ/view?usp=sharing

    Team7-Box13-Flight-Call-Notes-and-302s.pdf
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0pxVbXyB9OLUHRMRndBVndPcTg/view?usp=sharing

     "AA automatically records a random number of calls for Customer Service quality control. The SERO system was checked to see if FA Ong's call had been captured in this fashion with negative results. " I.e fake calls..

    18886083-T7-B12-Flight-93-Calls-General-Fdr-5-20-04-DOJ-Briefing-on-Cell-and-Phone-Calls-From-AA-77-408.pdf
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0pxVbXyB9OLY3I5X2toU2FFV3c/view?usp=sharing
    Flight 11 and Flight 77 calls were all made from 904-555-0004 so I asked Nancy at NANPA for help.. Dear Nancy, "555 numbers are in the format 555-XXXX. The line number (XXXX) indicates the particular information service" Now is the XXXX part a "line number" or is that a "Carrier Identification Code" or are they same thing? Could 555-0004 back in 2001 be a computerized informational service like 555-1212 and what happens when you add 904 to the area code part.. Does that mean it was a local information service.. Dan, There is no relationship between CIC 0004 and Tel. 904-555-0004 (555 line number). NANPA is the administrator of the 555 line number resource. I can confirm to you that Tel. 904-555-0004 is not now, nor has it ever been assigned to any company. Nancy Fears - NANPA Nancy - Therefore the number 904-555-0004 is completely made up? thanks Reply (its not a yes or a no) Dan – PLEASE provide your phone number and I will call you. Sometimes it’s easier to explain things in a telephone conversation as opposed to an email. Thank you. Nancy Fears +Gordon Liddy We spoke.. She said call the Baltimore Sun because they had 555-0004 but not for 904 area code... She said only (area) 555-1212 actually works.. Everything else was assigned but not activated..  I asked her why did the DOJ publish this crap and she said "she had no idea.." my guess is no one reads these documents.
    from:Dan xxx dan.xxx@gmail.com
    to:Pub Inq Web Mailbox <pubinqweb@ntsb.gov>
    date:Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 2:05 PM
    subject:Re: 9/11 Plane Parts Were Shipped Out in Secret using Orange Body Bags
    mailed-by:gmail.com
    Susan,

    The goal is to send you photos of your own employees at ground zero doing what you reported didn't happen, i.e no document on your public facing website contains this data. The ideas is with these photos in hand you could start asking these employees what really happened. The FBI refuses to say the boxes are missing.. An NTSB employee already said they looked at the data (flight 11 and flight 175) ..All this was undocumented.  A few other interesting data points about the seat back calls from the flights in question (flight 11, 77, 93, 175) from DOJ (documented).. They all seem to match even across different planes.. Even 555 Administrator believes something is not right..

    1. Betty Ong 904-555-0004
    2. Amy Sweeney 904-555-0004
    3. Barbara Olson 904-555-0004
    4. Many Others

    The airfone system 555 phone number from the seat back phones on both flight 11 and some callers on flight 77 (same number) was never assigned to any company.

    Nancy Fears -
    NANPA : North American Numbering Plan Administration


    What is Hani Hanjour seat number again? 

    Posted by at No comments:
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

    Search