April 10, 2009
April 08, 2009
April 05, 2009
Most pressing question about the Shanksville 'crash'
Where was the bulk of the plane wreckage before the cleanup started?
Remember that the FBI are telling us that they recovered an astonishing "95%" of Flight 93 after is supposedly crashed in the above field.
Also remember that the county coroner Wally Miller commented how "eerie" it was that he never saw a drop of blood at the scene.
(Update 04/06/09: The 'Moussaoui' website has taken down all its 9/11 photos. Source links have been fixed.)
FBI finished with Pennsylvania crash site probe
"The FBI announced Monday that its investigation of the site where a hijacked jet slammed into a field here is complete and that 95 percent of the plane was recovered.
Evidence-gathering was halted Saturday afternoon and the pieces of United Airlines Flight 93 that had been recovered were turned over Sunday to the airline, with the exception of the flight data recorder and the voice recorder, which are being held and analyzed by the FBI, according to FBI agent Bill Crowley." - CNN (09/24/01)
Also remember that the county coroner Wally Miller commented how "eerie" it was that he never saw a drop of blood at the scene.
"It was the most eerie thing," Miller recalled... I've seen a lot of highway fatalities where there's fragmentation," Miller said. "The interesting thing about this particular case is that I haven't, to this day, 11 months later, seen any single drop of blood. Not a drop." - The Age (09/09/02)
(Update 04/06/09: The 'Moussaoui' website has taken down all its 9/11 photos. Source links have been fixed.)
See also:
March 24, 2009
The 'Solid Stainless Steel Plane' Theory
This is my new theory as to why the 2nd plane that is seen entirely penetrating through the South WTC Tower in the videos without crumpling, exploding, or any of the wings and tail section pieces being sheered off, and penetrates with no resistance as if it were passing through a cloud:
It was a Solid Stainless Steel plane!
-----------------
-----------------
D.Duck has a competing theory, the Concrete Plane theory:
How about CPT (concrete plane theory).
The plane was a concrete plane, you can clearly see it with your own eyes that it turns to dust when it hits the south wall.
D.Duck
March 20, 2009
February 21, 2009
Only ONE photo shows alleged Flight 93 debris being excavated . . . and Pat Curley is a moron
On the Jim Fetzer show I did on Feb 11th, Jim and I were discussing how ridiculous it was that a 757 crashed in that empty field in Shanksville. I was mentioning how absurd it was that even though we were told that about 80% of Flight 93 was said to be recovered out of the hole it supposedly made after burrowing underground (even though there wasn't any actual hole visible, but just a crater), only one photo was released to the public that supposedly showed plane debris being excavated out of the ground; a photo of a small rusty-looking engine piece next to a backhoe bucket:
I showed in one of my Hoodwinked at Shanksville episodes that the engine in this photo was not dug out of the ground, but was merely placed in the excavated hole by the very backhoe bucket seen next to it in the photo.
ScrewLooseChange blogger, Pat Curley, apparently caught the show and tries to debunk my claim that only one photo shows any evidence of plane debris being excavated out of ground in Shanksville. He starts out with his well-known infantile name-calling in the blog title to try to character-assassinate me, then posts two photos of alleged recovered Flight 93 debris and asks why I neglected to talk about them.
Killclown on Fetzer
I happened to listen to these two jokers while on a ride this afternoon. I have not listened to the entire segment, but it's laughable how they stick with bogus claims that have been disproven repeatedly. At one point, Killtown talks about how they only pulled one piece of the plane out of the hole in Shanksville, something that looked like a motor.
But of course he neglects to talk about this piece...
Why is that, Killclown?
Well Pat Curley, (or should I call you childish names like "Pat Clown"?), the reason I neglected to talk about those two photo was because I was talking about photos that show plane debris being excavated out of the ground that would offer some evidence to support the official claim that about 80% of Flight 93 was pulled out of that ground, not photos showing pieces of dirt-free plane debris just lying on top the ground moron.
Calling me childish names and trying to ridicule me for this claim, yet you got it totally wrong. How embarrassing for you. Maybe your Mom and Dad should have raised you to be more mature so they wouldn't have to suffer the indignity to see how their grown child behaves.
Now since you mentioned the other two photos, let's do discuss them:
1. Other than a non-governmental website saying so, what hard evidence is there exactly that these two pieces of plane debris are from Flight 93, or that these two photos were even taken at the Shanksville scene?
All I see are a couple of photos that by themselves don't tell me where they were taken (unlike the photo of the engine scrap where you can see it's taken at the Shanksville scene) and of the pieces of debris themselves, how can you be sure those pieces didn't come from some other plane that crashed, or even from ones that were dismantled?
2. Since we were told Flight 93 crashed into a loose and uncompacted field at a whooping 580mph, how did those two big fuselage pieces manage to escape from burrowing underground when most of the plane, including both its black boxes located way back in the tail section were supposedly recovered 15ft and 25ft under?
3. About the window debris, all of its insulation (including its windows) have been totally stripped away from it and from the bent corners that expose its outside surface, its paint looks to be stripped away from it too.
How do you think it managed to get all of its insulation and paint totally stripped off of it, yet it seems to have landed in the forest(?) while most of the rest of the plane supposedly burrowed underground in the field and that other debris piece you showed seems to have all of its paint on its outside surface intact??? Since the window piece's paint scheme is missing on its exposed outside surfaces, how do you even know it comes from a United Airlines plane?
4. Why does the inside of the window piece look dark and rusty, yet the inside of the other piece you show is practically white?
Inside of window piece (left) looks darker and rusty.
Inside of painted piece (right) look practically white.
Is it also a coincidence that this widow piece looks a bit rusted like the engine scrap piece above that I showed how it was planted?!
5. Can you show me on a map where those two pieces were found?
6. If a government did fake a plane crash, do you think you would be able to spot that it's fake?
See if you can answer these questions without childish name calling, snide remarks, or drifting off topic. Remember, your actions reflect on how well your Mom and Dad raised you.
Calling me childish names and trying to ridicule me for this claim, yet you got it totally wrong. How embarrassing for you. Maybe your Mom and Dad should have raised you to be more mature so they wouldn't have to suffer the indignity to see how their grown child behaves.
Now since you mentioned the other two photos, let's do discuss them:
Exh. GX-P200061 (intr'd: 04/11/2006) Photograph of an airplane part found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed. - rcfp.org/moussaoui [hi-res]
Exh. GX-P200062 (intr'd: 04/11/2006) Photograph of an airplane part found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed. - rcfp.org/moussaoui [hi-res]
1. Other than a non-governmental website saying so, what hard evidence is there exactly that these two pieces of plane debris are from Flight 93, or that these two photos were even taken at the Shanksville scene?
All I see are a couple of photos that by themselves don't tell me where they were taken (unlike the photo of the engine scrap where you can see it's taken at the Shanksville scene) and of the pieces of debris themselves, how can you be sure those pieces didn't come from some other plane that crashed, or even from ones that were dismantled?
2. Since we were told Flight 93 crashed into a loose and uncompacted field at a whooping 580mph, how did those two big fuselage pieces manage to escape from burrowing underground when most of the plane, including both its black boxes located way back in the tail section were supposedly recovered 15ft and 25ft under?
3. About the window debris, all of its insulation (including its windows) have been totally stripped away from it and from the bent corners that expose its outside surface, its paint looks to be stripped away from it too.
How do you think it managed to get all of its insulation and paint totally stripped off of it, yet it seems to have landed in the forest(?) while most of the rest of the plane supposedly burrowed underground in the field and that other debris piece you showed seems to have all of its paint on its outside surface intact??? Since the window piece's paint scheme is missing on its exposed outside surfaces, how do you even know it comes from a United Airlines plane?
4. Why does the inside of the window piece look dark and rusty, yet the inside of the other piece you show is practically white?
Inside of window piece (left) looks darker and rusty.Inside of painted piece (right) look practically white.
Is it also a coincidence that this widow piece looks a bit rusted like the engine scrap piece above that I showed how it was planted?!
5. Can you show me on a map where those two pieces were found?
6. If a government did fake a plane crash, do you think you would be able to spot that it's fake?
See if you can answer these questions without childish name calling, snide remarks, or drifting off topic. Remember, your actions reflect on how well your Mom and Dad raised you.
February 11, 2009
Guest on 'The Real Deal' with Jim Fetzer (Wed 11th)
(Update: Archive)
The Real Deal
Host: Jim Fetzer
Wed. Feb 11, 2009
5-7 pm CST
Call in:
1-877-REVERE-0
(1-877-738-3730)
----------------------------------
TV Fakery test runs minutes before live 2nd WTC hit?
Hezarkhunning - 3 more clues...
Air vs. Skyscraper
The 2urists
9/11 planes melted into WTC just like in Flight Simulator
Article: Why They Didn't Use Planes To Hit The WTC
The Real Deal
Host: Jim Fetzer
Wed. Feb 11, 2009
5-7 pm CST
Call in:
1-877-REVERE-0
(1-877-738-3730)
----------------------------------
TV Fakery test runs minutes before live 2nd WTC hit?
Hezarkhunning - 3 more clues...
Air vs. Skyscraper
The 2urists
9/11 planes melted into WTC just like in Flight Simulator
Article: Why They Didn't Use Planes To Hit The WTC
January 12, 2009
Guest on Revere Radio's 'The Final Round' with 'SoulReal' -- (Friday 16th)
(Update: Full archive. Partial archive below:)
The above is a partial archive of most of the relevant parts of the show regarding the discussion about the No-Planes @ WTC theory. The full archive is over 2 hours. I'll post the link when the host uploads the show to his website.
-------------------------------------
The Final Round
Host: Karl (a.k.a. "SoulReal")
Friday Jan 16, 2009
10-12 pm EST / 7 - 9 pm PST
Call in:
1 - 877 - REVERE - 0
(1-877-738-3730)
Host: Karl (a.k.a. "SoulReal")
Friday Jan 16, 2009
10-12 pm EST / 7 - 9 pm PST
Call in:
1 - 877 - REVERE - 0
(1-877-738-3730)
January 05, 2009
'Low Rider' gets 'Fairy Tail' axed at YouTube
A copyright owner has claimed content in one of your videos
Sunday, January 4, 2009Dear WelcomeToKilltown,
Video Disabled
A copyright owner has claimed it owns some or all of the audio content in your video Hoodwinked at Shanksville: Fairy Tail. The audio content identified in your video is Low Rider by War. We regret to inform you that your video has been blocked from playback due to a music rights issue.
Replace Your Audio with AudioSwap
Don't worry, we have plenty of music available for your use. Please visit our AudioSwap library to learn how you can easily replace the audio in your video with any track from our growing library of fully licensed songs.
Other Options
If you think there's been a mistake, or you have other questions, please visit the Copyright Notice page in your account.
Sincerely,
The YouTube Content Identification Team
Don't worry though, you can watch Hoodwinked at Shanksville: Fairy Tail (which has never been debunked) with it's original soundtrack still:
December 23, 2008
Jennifer Spell gets 'Laser Light' myth video axed at YouTube
A little over two weeks after "Shure" from PumpItOut.com posted on Dec. 4 that he called Jennifer Spell, who filmed the 2nd WTC crash video infamous for creating the "laser light" theory (it was just a piece of piece of paper), Ms. Spell goes on a rampage and gets all copies of her 2nd crash video taken down at YouTube, including one of mine:
Dear Member:
This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by Jennifer Spell claiming that this material is infringing:
The 'Laser Light' @ the WTC Myth (ver 2): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7PFnChoCXs
Please Note: Repeat incidents of copyright infringement will result in the deletion of your account and all videos uploaded to that account. In order to prevent this from happening, please delete any videos to which you do not own the rights, and refrain from uploading additional videos that infringe on the copyrights of others. For more information about YouTube's copyright policy, please read the Copyright Tips guide.
If you elect to send us a counter notice, please go to our Help Center to access the instructions.
Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification may be subject to liability.
Sincerely,
YouTube, Inc.
Here is the "Laser Light" myth video that was axed at YouTube:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
