March 27, 2008

Year anniversary of Shanksville local claiming 'Flight 93 plume photo' is fake

Some of you still might not know this, but one year ago, a local Shanksville resident, who was one of the witnesses who reportedly saw Flight 93 in the air before it allegedly crashed, confirmed that Val McClatchey's infamous "End of Serenity" photo is fake:

Jeff: Val McClatchey... she has a famous photo.
Ms. Leverknight: It was a fake photo, because it didn't have a mushroom cloud.
Jeff: It what?
Ms. Leverknight: There was no mushroom cloud.

Jeff: So it was a fake photo?
Ms. Leverknight: Yeah.
Jeff: Her photo's faked?
Ms. Leverknight: Yeah.
Jeff: For what? For money?
Ms. Leverknight: Yeah.
Jeff: Why, do you know that for sure?
Ms. Leverknight: Yeah!

Mega props to DJ Shure for making that call!

March 23, 2008

War Profiteering


(Scanned from: The Nation "The Costs of War" pg 25, March 31, 2008)

War means a windfall for CEOs

While policymakers in Washington wrangle over how much progress the U.S. has made in Iraq, one thing is clear: The war on terror is making some people rich.

Bush's military build-up has caused defence-contractor revenue to double, triple and even more during the past five years, and their executives have reaped huge bonuses and stock windfalls as the companies' share prices have jumped.

Take a look:

-CEOs at top defence contractors have reaped annual pay gains of 200% to 688% in the years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.


"In the most privatized war in history, lucrative opportunities abound for chief executives of defence contractors," says Sarah Anderson of the Institute for Policy Studies.

March 11, 2008

Is Sandia Labs' F-4 Phantom rocket sled test a hoax?

(Update 03/13/08: MythBusters pulls my challenge to them to replicate the results of the SNL F-4 crash test.)

Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) performed a test on April 19, 1988 where they took an F-4 Phantom jet fighter and crashed it head-on into a fortified concrete barrier to, they say, measure the impact force of a fighter jet. The F-4 was mounted on a track with a separate rocket attached underneath it that propelled it into the wall at 480mph. SNL said that they used water in the plane's fuel tanks to simulate the mass of jet fuel, because "the effects of fire following such a collision was not a part of the test."

The observed end result of this test was quite astonishing in that the F-4 appeared to have "atomized" from striking the wall.

What was even more astonishing, to me at least, was that the F-4 also appeared to have met no resistance as it crashed. It did not appear to slow down, its fuselage didn't crumple, its cockpit window didn't crack or shatter, and its wings and tail fins didn't jolt forward after it started crashing into the fortified barrier.

This test has recently been brought up again by skeptics as evidence as to why little plane debris is seen at the Pentagon. Skeptics and even planehugging truthers have used this crash test in the past to try to debunk no-plane at the Pentagon (and even at the WTC!).

What really struck me about this crash test (other than it seemed to re-write the laws of physics as I knew them) is that I found it extremely odd that I had never seen, or heard about this test with such remarkable (and unbelievable) results before 9/11 even though it was supposedly conducted 13 years prior. From the best that I could tell, SNL didn't even put this amazing crash test up on its website until mid-March 2005. I can find only one instance on the net which had reported this test before 9/11 and that was back in 1995.

I mean doesn't it seem a little too convenient that this crash test, which is one of the few experiments SNL features on their video gallery page, came out of no where and has been used by planehuggers to help try to debunk the claims that no plane hit the Pentagon, or the Twin Towers?

A couple of other things I find odd about this test crash is that SNL never showed what the results of the crash looked like after the dust settled down. The F-4 was said to have penetrated only 2.4 inches into the concrete wall. Why didn't they show what the damage to the barrier afterwards? I'm not the only one who has asked to see what the concrete wall looked like afterwards and how much plane wreckage was left.

I also find it odd they would try to simulate a jet fighter crash without fuel. You would think they would want to include the forces of the jet fuel exploding in their test.

SNL apparently conducted another test where they crashed a TF-30 plane engine into a concrete barrier. Why haven't they released photos or videos of that test?

So a simple question:

Have you ever seen another experiment where a mostly-hollow metal object, such as a plane, basically turned to dust after crashing into a harder object without the rest of it exhibiting any signs of meeting any resistance as it crashed?

I sure haven't.

That test was supposedly done 20 years ago, so find it quite remarkable, or should I say, unbelievable that I haven't seen, or heard of a another independent test conducted that confirms the extraordinary results of this SNL crash test. Surely some organization would have conducted a similar test to see if they can replicate the results. It shouldn't be that hard or expensive. All someone would have to do is crash a toaster oven into a fortified wall at a really high speed and it should produce the same results, right?!

I don't want to think that this test was a hoax that was made for some nuclear industry propaganda. I don't want to think this footage has been brought out of the storage room to be used as part of the psyops to help convince people that real planes struck the Pentagon and WTC. I want to believe the SNL test crash is real and not a hoax!

I makes sense to me that the reason SNL didn't show what the concrete wall looked like afterward and didn't use jet fuel in their test is because their test was a hoax.

So please...

Show me another crash test experiment that confirms SNL's!

If no other tests have ever been done to confirm SNL's test, then their test results should be thought of as unreliable until someone can conduct a similar test that produces the same results.

That's good science.

Vote on whether you think SNL's plane crash test is a hoax at

March 10, 2008

TV Fakery is absurd

It's too hard to fake a plane crash video.

Clip found here at 6:35. Hat tip to Staatsgevaarlijk.

March 05, 2008

Banned at Randi Rhodes forum

The Randi Rhodes forum says their forum is provided to promote free speech.

The Randi Rhodes Show Message Forum Rules


1) This forum is provided to promote free speech and lively political discussion. Anyone is eligible to join. We do not discriminate on the basis of philosophical, political, or religious affiliation or opinion.

However, pinned at the top in their 9/11 section is a thread about forbidden websites and authors:

List Of Websites, Authors Not Acceptable for the RRMB

Posted by: Libertas Aug 10 2006, 10:27 PM

American Free Press
Christopher Bollyn
Daryl Bradford Smith
Republic Broadcasting Network
Michael Collins Piper
Eric Hufschmid
Jeff Rense (
american defense league

I thought they were being a hypocritical with their rules, so I questioned them on it. Admin "Libertas" apparently didn't like me questioning their hypocritical stance, so he closed my thread because "these websites are not open to discussion."

Doesn't "free speech" entail the ability to question authority?

So I started another thread entitled "So much for free speech" and just wrote "closed" in the body with that word linked to my thread Libertas closed to protest him closing my thread, but apparently Libertas wasn't amused so he took it upon himself to delete my thread and then banned me for helping to "promote free speech."

I'm really not surprised Libertas did this because he is biased towards skeptics. One of the biggest piece of shit skeptic there rarely posts without insulting or smearing truthers. I had complained numerous times to the admins about this POS skeptic's behavior, because his posts only provoked fights. Libertas had responded to my complaints saying he didn't see anything wrong with that POS skeptic's behavior. So I started responded to that POS skeptic that way he responds to truthers and almost immediatly I would get punished with having my posts require mod approval for a couple of days.

Libertas is a true hypocrite
. The Randi Rhodes forum would be wise to de-admin him.

And the censorship list keeps growing and growing and...