Discussion about 09/11/2001: [911InsideJobbers] Digest Number 402

Sunday, February 26, 2006

[911InsideJobbers] Digest Number 402

There are 25 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. My second piece on 9/11 & Katrina as Inside Jobs published -SF Bay View
From: Cathy Garger <savorsuccesslady@yahoo.com>
2. The Lying M$M, The Alternative Gatekeepers and Their Respective Flocks
From: "perpetualynquisitive" <perpetualynquisitive@yahoo.com>
3. @ Nico
From: "grolode" <grolode@yahoo.com>
4. Re: The Lying M$M, The Alternative Gatekeepers and Their Respective Flocks
From: "alexldent" <alexldent@yahoo.com>
5. Re: The Lying M$M, The Alternative Gatekeepers and Their Respective Flocks
From: "alexldent" <alexldent@yahoo.com>
6. Is "Terrorize" down for good?
From: "alexldent" <alexldent@yahoo.com>
7. Is "Terrorize" down for good?
From: "alexldent" <alexldent@yahoo.com>
8. Re: The Lying M$M, The Alternative Gatekeepers and Their Respective Flocks
From: Rosalee Grable <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>
9. Re: Is "Terrorize" down for good?
From: Rosalee Grable <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>
10. Re: @ Nico
From: "grolode" <grolode@yahoo.com>
11. Re: More thoughts on 911Scholars at Noory
From: "ron_winn" <ron_winn@lineone.net>
12. Re: The Lying M$M, The Alternative Gatekeepers and Their Respective Flocks
From: "perpetualynquisitive" <perpetualynquisitive@yahoo.com>
13. Re: First fragmental analysis splitscreen FOX/CNN live 9/11 footage
From: "alexldent" <alexldent@yahoo.com>
14. Re: The Lying M$M, The Alternative Gatekeepers and Their Respective Flocks
From: "Lynn Ertell" <lynnertell@comcast.net>
15. Why controlled demolition ? To cover-up "no planes".
From: "Lynn Ertell" <lynnertell@comcast.net>
16. Re: Why controlled demolition ? To cover-up "no planes".
From: "perpetualynquisitive" <perpetualynquisitive@yahoo.com>
17. Re: Re: @ Nico
From: "Nico Haupt" <nicohaupt@gmx.li>
18. Reversed "invisible" CGI 'aircrafts'
From: "Nico Haupt" <nicohaupt@gmx.li>
19. Re: Re: Why controlled demolition ? To cover-up "no planes".
From: Rosalee Grable <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>
20. Re: Reversed "invisible" CGI 'aircrafts'
From: Rosalee Grable <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>
21. Re: Reversed "invisible" CGI 'aircrafts'
From: "Nico Haupt" <nicohaupt@gmx.li>
22. Re: Reversed "invisible" CGI 'aircrafts'
From: "alexldent" <alexldent@yahoo.com>
23. Blowing in the wind.
From: "ron_winn" <ron_winn@lineone.net>
24. Re: Re: Reversed "invisible" CGI 'aircrafts'
From: "Nico Haupt" <nicohaupt@gmx.li>
25. [Fwd: The hunter becomes the hunted]
From: Rosalee Grable <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 04:00:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Cathy Garger <savorsuccesslady@yahoo.com>
Subject: My second piece on 9/11 & Katrina as Inside Jobs published -SF Bay View

Just a note to share that my second piece that compares Katrina to 9/11 as yet another Inside Job was published in the SF Bay View . Here's an excerpt:

Well, my friends listen up. This is the same toxic garbage they are now trying to feed us with Katrina. Governmental claims of mock ignorance and ineptitude along the lines of "Oh, we just clearly were not prepared for such a storm and failed to take the required 'initiative' to act" are just not going to cut it this time.

Yeah, they sure fooled us, well, some of us, with 9/11. But the second time around?

Unfortunately for the malevolent in power, we are not so stupid or as naive as to be fooled yet again. Dirty deeds can only go on for so long before, as they say, "the jig is up."

"Shades of 9/11 All Over Again":
http://www.sfbayview.com/neworleans/shadesof911022206.shtml

Also at My Town column: http://mytown.ca/garger/

Another article I wrote about Katrina and 9/11 as both Inside Jobs:
http://www.sfbayview.com/021506/purposefulgenocide021506.shtml

Also featured at:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Resources.html

Cathy Garger
Maryland
Writer/Activist
Associate Member
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org
Column My Town

The world can only be redeemed through action--movement -- motion. Uncoerced, unbribed and unbought, humanity will move toward the light.
Alice Hubbard's introduction to An American Bible (1912)

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

[This message contained attachments]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 14:40:53 -0000
From: "perpetualynquisitive" <perpetualynquisitive@yahoo.com>
Subject: The Lying M$M, The Alternative Gatekeepers and Their Respective Flocks

The Lying M$M, The Alternative Gatekeepers and Their Respective Flocks
When discussing 9/11 'Conspiracy Theories', the guillibility of many
supposed 'critical thinkers', will never cease to amaze me. There are
many people that claim that they 'don't believe' the Official Fairy Tale
given to us by the M$M and THEN parrotted by government officials.

These people have many different theories of what really happened, from
LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) to plane-swaps by the military. There
is even a very, very small group that maintains the no planes reality,
myself included.

Most of the theorists have at least one common denominator, The PLAINS
PLANES.

Some examples of the theories.

Village Voice <http://villagevoice.com/news/0608,murphy,72255,6.html>

Popular Mechanics
<http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html>

We will we will FLOCK YOU.

Now get this, there has supposedly been a 'division' created in the
'9/11 Truth Movement' over the issue that some people maintain a no
planes perspective. This small group is being blamed for 'turning off'
Joe 6-Pack from looking into the anomalies of 9/11.

This is patently ubsurd. Do you really believe that a group of less than
100 people that post on forums, run a few obscure blogs or put up a web
page or two are having ANY influence on the average citizen?

The M$M & the Gatekeepers are the ones that influence Joe 6-Pack, not a
small group of internet users with a different perspective. The people
that have bought into this myth have shown that their mental fortitude
has about as much stamina as single-ply tissue in a hurricane.

It is very difficult to get the average person on the street to go from
'foreign terrorists' to LIHOP. To make the leap from terrorists to faked
media psyop is therefore impossible.

Seeing that this is the case, Who Really Gains From Disseminating IT?
There seem to be so few that support the no planes perspective, Why such
the BIG fuss about us?

Who created it? Webfairy? Dr. Grossman? Brianv? Me?

The Gatekeepers are the ones that created this 'division' as a way to
keep their flocks in check. It is great fortune for the M$M & the
Gatekeepers that their flocks never question the 'information' that they
provide or the MOTIVES for providing that 'information'.

Why are the Gatekeepers so intent on discrediting the no plane
perspective? If it truly had no merit, it would never be discussed or it
would be debunked and tossed down the memory hole, as was the "Raelian
Cult Clones" story.

The fact that they have brought it up and put such a negative view to
this perspective is encouraging, at least to me. For the 'pre-emptive
strike' shows that this is an issue that they are afraid to have openly
and freely discussed.

To make matters even more ironic is the fact that most of the people
that attack the no plane perspective, partly support it by saying there
was no plane at the Pentagon or Shanksville.

WTF? Talk about sitting on the fence, the Official Fairy Tale says four
planes, yet these theorists claim there was only two, because they have
pictures & videos to prove it. Well I have pictures & videos of Aliens
detroying the Earth, big deal.

I guess the fence sitting is like being 'kinda pregnant'.

I challenge you 'flock-stars' to go out and ask 20 people that you do
not know if they have ever even heard of the no planes at all
perspective in regard to the events of 9/11.

I'll bet that you don't find 2 that have, never mind enough to say the
majority of Joe 6-Packs don't pay attention to the issues 9/11 for they
had heard the no planes perspective and it "turned them off of
conspiracy theories."

The Branch Davidians are a small, obscure sect of Christianity. Can you
imagine Billy Graham, Oral Roberts or Pat Robertson going on national
T.V. for the purpose of denouncing the Davidians for "Creating a
Division in the Christian Movement?"

Or how about this:

"Please Gloria, don't wear the work boots, you'll divide the feminist
movement."

FWIW, the sky is NOT blue, the sun will NOT rise tomorrow but I will
still be discussing my perspectives whether I face Gatekeeper/Flock-star
flak or not.

P.S. I spoke to the clerk at a local gas bar this morning about 9/11. He
works the night shift, 11pm - 7am and listens to Coast 2 Coast, which
was on when I entered the kiosk around 4am.
He told me he listens to that show 5 nights a week when he is at work
and he said that he had never heard of the no planes perspective, though
he also admitted that he doesn't here every minute of each show.

We talked about last night's show with James Fetzer, David Ray Griffin
and Morgan Reynolds and he was still having a hard time digesting that
information, to try to convince him that no planes were used would have
been an exercise in extreme futility, as he can barely accept the idea
of 'insider' complicity, but the fact that I brought it up didn't make
him automatically 'discard' the information that he had heard on C2C.

Original source <http://perpetualynquisitive.blogspot.com/>

[This message contained attachments]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 16:36:41 -0000
From: "grolode" <grolode@yahoo.com>
Subject: @ Nico

Wow !

This is a great piece of work:
http://www.team8plus.org/forum_viewforum.php?23

I did not read it yet, but I sniffed into it.

I will probably translate it into German, so if you meet John Doe (or
whatever his name ist) ... tell him I admire him for his job :)

Even Broeckers and the 'sceptic against sceptics' Andreas Hauss linked
it ... Hauss named it a 'must Reading'.

What I really found very interesting are the videos of the airplane
paths from the team8plus HP .... especially the path of AA77 ...

I will defenitely link the team8plus HP from grolo.de ... it's worth it.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 17:04:45 -0000
From: "alexldent" <alexldent@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: The Lying M$M, The Alternative Gatekeepers and Their Respective Flocks

Excellent post! My sentiments exactly, except I'm not sure what you meant by
"The PLAINS PLANES" and "We will we will FLOCK YOU."

--- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, "perpetualynquisitive" <
perpetualynquisitive@...> wrote:
>
> The Lying M$M, The Alternative Gatekeepers and Their Respective Flocks
> When discussing 9/11 'Conspiracy Theories', the guillibility of many
> supposed 'critical thinkers', will never cease to amaze me. There are
> many people that claim that they 'don't believe' the Official Fairy Tale
> given to us by the M$M and THEN parrotted by government officials.
>
> These people have many different theories of what really happened, from
> LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) to plane-swaps by the military. There
> is even a very, very small group that maintains the no planes reality,
> myself included.
>
> Most of the theorists have at least one common denominator, The PLAINS
> PLANES.
>
> Some examples of the theories.
>
> Village Voice <http://villagevoice.com/news/0608,murphy,72255,6.html>
>
> Popular Mechanics
> <http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html>
>
> We will we will FLOCK YOU.
>
> We will we will FLOCK YOU.
>
> Now get this, there has supposedly been a 'division' created in the
> '9/11 Truth Movement' over the issue that some people maintain a no
> planes perspective. This small group is being blamed for 'turning off'
> Joe 6-Pack from looking into the anomalies of 9/11.
>
> This is patently ubsurd. Do you really believe that a group of less than
> 100 people that post on forums, run a few obscure blogs or put up a web
> page or two are having ANY influence on the average citizen?
>
> The M$M & the Gatekeepers are the ones that influence Joe 6-Pack, not a
> small group of internet users with a different perspective. The people
> that have bought into this myth have shown that their mental fortitude
> has about as much stamina as single-ply tissue in a hurricane.
>
> It is very difficult to get the average person on the street to go from
> 'foreign terrorists' to LIHOP. To make the leap from terrorists to faked
> media psyop is therefore impossible.
>
> Seeing that this is the case, Who Really Gains From Disseminating IT?
> There seem to be so few that support the no planes perspective, Why such
> the BIG fuss about us?
>
> Who created it? Webfairy? Dr. Grossman? Brianv? Me?
>
> The Gatekeepers are the ones that created this 'division' as a way to
> keep their flocks in check. It is great fortune for the M$M & the
> Gatekeepers that their flocks never question the 'information' that they
> provide or the MOTIVES for providing that 'information'.
>
> Why are the Gatekeepers so intent on discrediting the no plane
> perspective? If it truly had no merit, it would never be discussed or it
> would be debunked and tossed down the memory hole, as was the
"Raelian
> Cult Clones" story.
>
> The fact that they have brought it up and put such a negative view to
> this perspective is encouraging, at least to me. For the 'pre-emptive
> strike' shows that this is an issue that they are afraid to have openly
> and freely discussed.
>
> To make matters even more ironic is the fact that most of the people
> that attack the no plane perspective, partly support it by saying there
> was no plane at the Pentagon or Shanksville.
>
> WTF? Talk about sitting on the fence, the Official Fairy Tale says four
> planes, yet these theorists claim there was only two, because they have
> pictures & videos to prove it. Well I have pictures & videos of Aliens
> detroying the Earth, big deal.
>
> I guess the fence sitting is like being 'kinda pregnant'.
>
> I challenge you 'flock-stars' to go out and ask 20 people that you do
> not know if they have ever even heard of the no planes at all
> perspective in regard to the events of 9/11.
>
> I'll bet that you don't find 2 that have, never mind enough to say the
> majority of Joe 6-Packs don't pay attention to the issues 9/11 for they
> had heard the no planes perspective and it "turned them off of
> conspiracy theories."
>
> The Branch Davidians are a small, obscure sect of Christianity. Can you
> imagine Billy Graham, Oral Roberts or Pat Robertson going on national
> T.V. for the purpose of denouncing the Davidians for "Creating a
> Division in the Christian Movement?"
>
> Or how about this:
>
> "Please Gloria, don't wear the work boots, you'll divide the feminist
> movement."
>
> FWIW, the sky is NOT blue, the sun will NOT rise tomorrow but I will
> still be discussing my perspectives whether I face Gatekeeper/Flock-star
> flak or not.
>
> P.S. I spoke to the clerk at a local gas bar this morning about 9/11. He
> works the night shift, 11pm - 7am and listens to Coast 2 Coast, which
> was on when I entered the kiosk around 4am.
> He told me he listens to that show 5 nights a week when he is at work
> and he said that he had never heard of the no planes perspective, though
> he also admitted that he doesn't here every minute of each show.
>
> We talked about last night's show with James Fetzer, David Ray Griffin
> and Morgan Reynolds and he was still having a hard time digesting that
> information, to try to convince him that no planes were used would have
> been an exercise in extreme futility, as he can barely accept the idea
> of 'insider' complicity, but the fact that I brought it up didn't make
> him automatically 'discard' the information that he had heard on C2C.
>
> Original source <http://perpetualynquisitive.blogspot.com/>
>

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 17:11:26 -0000
From: "alexldent" <alexldent@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: The Lying M$M, The Alternative Gatekeepers and Their Respective Flocks

Excellent post! My sentiments exactly!

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 6
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 17:15:12 -0000
From: "alexldent" <alexldent@yahoo.com>
Subject: Is "Terrorize" down for good?

Is has been off-line ofr me for several days now.

:( :( :(

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 7
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 17:17:20 -0000
From: "alexldent" <alexldent@yahoo.com>
Subject: Is "Terrorize" down for good?

It has been off-line for several days now, at least for me.

:( :( :(

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 8
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 11:25:56 -0600
From: Rosalee Grable <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>
Subject: Re: The Lying M$M, The Alternative Gatekeepers and Their Respective Flocks

As long as they have been putting on Orwellian "Truth" Globalist Reptile
Conferences I have been called "A Danger to the 911 Truth Movement". The
Toronto Peak Oil 911 Big Lie Conference apparently appropriated some
money to have me taken down, cos this is when the flock of halftruthers
and bigliars went off on an anti-webfairy PR binge.

Actually I am impressed that an at-the-time homeless person with a
laptop could create such a stir.
It is a proof of the Butterfly Wing effect, since my obscure postings on
obscure groups and a few list emails that were never published widely
had such a dynamic impact.

People are still trying to get mileage out of the "impossibility" of
holograms, even after Madonna Performed Live On Stage in front of an
audience with the accompaniment of a Holographically Projected Cartoon Band.
Now, I don't believe they used holographics to stage the second hit. Not
because it was impossible, but because they knew people were so
suggestible that they would "see" what they were told they saw anyway.

http://www.orwelltoday.com/stagedevents.shtml
911 was a media hoax soap opera. Not my fault, I didn't do it, I just
noticed that was going on.

One of the (many) reason they didn't use planes was so the truth would
appear preposterous on it's face, and rejected out of hand. All lies
work the same, so it's been the typical fight of the factions to
establish the primacy of their lie as the "truth" -- "truth" being
whatever the strongest gang says it is.

perpetualynquisitive wrote:
>
>
> The Lying M$M, The Alternative Gatekeepers and Their Respective
> Flocks
>
> When discussing 9/11 'Conspiracy Theories', the guillibility of many
> supposed 'critical thinkers', will never cease to amaze me. There are
> many people that claim that they 'don't believe' the Official Fairy
> Tale given to us by the M$M and THEN parrotted by government officials.
>
> These people have many different theories of what really happened,
> from LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) to plane-swaps by the military.
> There is even a very, very small group that maintains the no planes
> reality, myself included.
>
> Most of the theorists have at least one common denominator, The PLAINS
> PLANES.
>
> Some examples of the theories.
>
> Village Voice <http://villagevoice.com/news/0608,murphy,72255,6.html>
>
> Popular Mechanics
> <http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html>
>
> We will we will FLOCK YOU.
>
> We will we will FLOCK YOU.
>
> Now get this, there has supposedly been a 'division' created in the
> '9/11 Truth Movement' over the issue that some people maintain a no
> planes perspective. This small group is being blamed for 'turning off'
> Joe 6-Pack from looking into the anomalies of 9/11.
>
> This is patently ubsurd. Do you really believe that a group of less
> than 100 people that post on forums, run a few obscure blogs or put up
> a web page or two are having ANY influence on the average citizen?
>
> The M$M & the Gatekeepers are the ones that influence Joe 6-Pack, not
> a small group of internet users with a different perspective. The
> people that have bought into this myth have shown that their mental
> fortitude has about as much stamina as single-ply tissue in a hurricane.
>
> It is very difficult to get the average person on the street to go
> from 'foreign terrorists' to LIHOP. To make the leap from terrorists
> to faked media psyop is therefore impossible.
>
> Seeing that this is the case, Who Really Gains From Disseminating IT?
> There seem to be so few that support the no planes perspective, Why
> such the BIG fuss about us?
>
> Who created it? Webfairy? Dr. Grossman? Brianv? Me?
>
> The Gatekeepers are the ones that created this 'division' as a way to
> keep their flocks in check. It is great fortune for the M$M & the
> Gatekeepers that their flocks never question the 'information' that
> they provide or the MOTIVES for providing that 'information'.
>
> Why are the Gatekeepers so intent on discrediting the no plane
> perspective? If it truly had no merit, it would never be discussed or
> it would be debunked and tossed down the memory hole, as was the
> "Raelian Cult Clones" story.
>
> The fact that they have brought it up and put such a negative view to
> this perspective is encouraging, at least to me. For the 'pre-emptive
> strike' shows that this is an issue that they are afraid to have
> openly and freely discussed.
>
> To make matters even more ironic is the fact that most of the people
> that attack the no plane perspective, partly support it by saying
> there was no plane at the Pentagon or Shanksville.
>
> WTF? Talk about sitting on the fence, the Official Fairy Tale says
> four planes, yet these theorists claim there was only two, because
> they have pictures & videos to prove it. Well I have pictures & videos
> of Aliens detroying the Earth, big deal.
>
> I guess the fence sitting is like being 'kinda pregnant'.
>
> I challenge you 'flock-stars' to go out and ask 20 people that you do
> not know if they have ever even heard of the no planes at all
> perspective in regard to the events of 9/11.
>
> I'll bet that you don't find 2 that have, never mind enough to say the
> majority of Joe 6-Packs don't pay attention to the issues 9/11 for
> they had heard the no planes perspective and it "turned them off of
> conspiracy theories."
>
> The Branch Davidians are a small, obscure sect of Christianity. Can
> you imagine Billy Graham, Oral Roberts or Pat Robertson going on
> national T.V. for the purpose of denouncing the Davidians for
> "Creating a Division in the Christian Movement?"
>
> Or how about this:
>
> "Please Gloria, don't wear the work boots, you'll divide the feminist
> movement."
>
> FWIW, the sky is NOT blue, the sun will NOT rise tomorrow but I will
> still be discussing my perspectives whether I face
> Gatekeeper/Flock-star flak or not.
>
> P.S. I spoke to the clerk at a local gas bar this morning about 9/11.
> He works the night shift, 11pm - 7am and listens to Coast 2 Coast,
> which was on when I entered the kiosk around 4am.
> He told me he listens to that show 5 nights a week when he is at work
> and he said that he had never heard of the no planes perspective,
> though he also admitted that he doesn't here every minute of each show.
>
> We talked about last night's show with James Fetzer, David Ray Griffin
> and Morgan Reynolds and he was still having a hard time digesting that
> information, to try to convince him that no planes were used would
> have been an exercise in extreme futility, as he can barely accept the
> idea of 'insider' complicity, but the fact that I brought it up didn't
> make him automatically 'discard' the information that he had heard on C2C.
>
> Original source <http://perpetualynquisitive.blogspot.com/>

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 9
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 11:29:30 -0600
From: Rosalee Grable <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>
Subject: Re: Is "Terrorize" down for good?

It came back for a few brief blessed minutes before vanishing again.
I don't know, but it's my hunch/hope that they ran out of bandwidth and
will reappear next month.
I've got all their files spidered down, but my software appended .txt to
the name of every .wmv file and there's dozens of them hidden in many
different directories.
Else I'd have it up by now.

alexldent wrote:
> Is has been off-line ofr me for several days now.
>
> :( :( :(
>
> http://www.terrorize.dk/911/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 10
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 17:25:25 -0000
From: "grolode" <grolode@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: @ Nico

--- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, "grolode" <grolode@...> wrote:
>
> Wow !
>
> This is a great piece of work:
> http://www.team8plus.org/forum_viewforum.php?23

Translated conclusion is online

http://www.grolo.de/index.php?id=8,97,0,0,1,0

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 11
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 17:20:58 -0000
From: "ron_winn" <ron_winn@lineone.net>
Subject: Re: More thoughts on 911Scholars at Noory

When the BTS database was mentioned in respect of 77 and pointed out
that it records the timings of flights and the database was for
purposes of liability [presumably, airline liability - do the airlines
have any liability re flight times and such?] it was bordering on the
no planes scenario.

Did you guys think it was not thoroughly gone into? The host didn't
ask for more details and I'd imagine that the ordinary listener would
not have seen the significance of this BTS evidence. IMO the BTS
database could be submitted in a court of law to shift the onus of
proof to the defendent. It wasn't spelt out on the show. It should
have been.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nico Haupt" <nicohaupt@gmx.li>
To: <911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:19 AM
Subject: [911InsideJobbers] More thoughts on 911Scholars at Noory

> ...just finished finally listening to CoasttoCoast
>
> I have no final opinion on the Noory show yet.
> Some thoughts:
>
> 1)
> Generally the 9/11 scholars did a good job to corner Noory,
> who wasn't convincing at all, when he tried to turn around
> the wheels as usual.
>
> 2)
> The political message was slightly increased
>
> 3)
> Personal disappointment here, that Reynolds didn't mention
> the wtc-aircraft research yet and seemed to me careful to go there.
> See also quotes below
>
> 4)
> Only a little bit nonsense compared to other interviews of Jim
Fetzer.
> The few low lights, compared with 2 hours strong emotional interview
> (without commercials), in the minority:
>
> -Fetzer supports A3 Sky Warrior drone theory at Pentagon
> -Some distractions on global warming again..
>
>
> 5)
> Morgan was generally okay. Some highlights:
> Morgan Reynolds mentions that AA77 wasn't in BTS-database.
> No 757 at Shanksville.
> commercial aircraft possible in the area, but debris seems to be
somewhere
> else...
>
> There isn't "any straight flight manifest on any of these 4
flights..."
>
> Then Noory still tried to educate him, that he still believes
> in some "idiots ..they found as hijackers..."
> Believes also, that Al-Quaeda does exist.
> Morgan and the other scholars did a good job to correct Noory.
>
>
> Then Morgan Reynolds on WTC and the possible real fate of the
passenger :
> (paraphrased) "...There are various ideas, that people had been
gassed...
> or planes being remote controlled or substitute with drones..."
> [this is a]contagious region of 9/11 research..."
>
> then corrected by Jim Fetzer:
> "...flight path programmed into the planes..."
>
> So this was the weakest act of the show. The idea of remote
controlled
> wtc-aircrafts
> appeared as the final clue of the Scholars....
>
>
> More notes:
>
> Fetzer said, an ukrainian editor and BBC was in contact with him.
>
> Asked by Noory, on possible criticism against the group, Fetzer
didn't
> mention
> my internal analysis of this group, but apparently just refered on
> every 100 positive responses there are "3 non-believers"
>
>
> Then WING TV called in, apparently allowed and scheduled to do
so...
> Basically applauding the show so far and the 9/11 Scholars.
> Until that point i would also give them 7 from 10 thumbs up points,
> but it had some bad taste in it, though minimal.
>
>
> Then some call-ins, who got educated on PNAC.
> An idiot, who asked for Barbara Olsen, then educated on physics by
Fetzer.
> Also, well done, having the callers under control.
> Weak: When confronted with Clinton, Fetzer only refers to Bush
> Administration regarding 9/11. The usual leftgatekeeping mistake,
but
> whatever....
>
>
> Then a caller, pushing the incompetence crap of this government.
>
> I didn't listen carefully to all of fetzer responses, but another
weak low
> light
> was the promotion for the book "House of saud, house of lies" by
limited
> hangouter Unger (WTF??!).
>
>
> Then this BS about missing paper trails for e-voting machines,
> where i really get upset, because it doesn't come to the problem at
all.
> Also, BS influence from Bev Harris, who totally ignored the military
> background
> of all other e-voting producers, including their ties with Accenture
and
> Lockheed.
> Bev, a former republican was a puppet, to distract from
investigative
> research on e-voting, like from Lynn Landes. She also pushed too
many red
> herrings and this kind of crap still manipulates many so called
e-voting
> activists...
>
>
> Some callers have been kinda informed and supported the idea of
controlled
> demolition, including "removing bomb-sniffing dogs" prior 9/11...
>
> Then some discussion about Bent Scowcroft, who was on some Bush
advisory
> boards.
>
>
> Noory still tried to re-promote Bin Laden, but was corrected by
Fetzer, that
> he was just a "boogieman". Not sure, if Fetzer won this argument, it
was a
> bit lame for me from his side.
>
> Noory said, he couldn't agree with everything what the scholars said
but
> pointed out,
> that there are many "anomalies"...
>
> Noory seems to be still an idiot.
>
> He also had the final thought, that he believes that Al-Quaeda
exists, then
> in informed
> by Fetzer about the CIA-taliban connection...
>
> Also, one more dumb caller at the end, that 9/11 was a "surprise
attack" and
> Noory supported the idea, that Bush is incompetent.
> This caller also bashing Clinton and his intelligence apparatus and
the so
> called
> "non partisan" view of 911scholars was not very convincing at that
point...
>
>
>
> Again, the general PR of the 911Scholars on standard '9/11 truthling
stuff'
> plus science, appeared to me okay, especially against dickhead
Noory,
> who wasn't strong enough at all and less counterproductive as usual.
>
>
> What other missing stuff depends i am still not sure...
> There was no real 'screw-up", but some low-lights, but not too many
> to turn it against this group. Improval is from need, especially
reg. "9/11
> VR".
>
>
> I hope, that Reynolds will release his new article pretty soon (i
read a
> fascinating draft), to figure out and prove, if he really is much
more
> progressive and credible than the other scholars...
>
> --
> DSL-Aktion wegen großer Nachfrage bis 28.2.2006 verlängert:
> GMX DSL-Flatrate 1 Jahr kostenlos* http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 12
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 17:37:28 -0000
From: "perpetualynquisitive" <perpetualynquisitive@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: The Lying M$M, The Alternative Gatekeepers and Their Respective Flocks

Just some personal satire, The Plains strikethrough is meant to
represent the ordinary view, the mainstream view, the 'majority'
accepted view and my rejection of that 'mass trance' in regard to 9/11
and most other issues of importance for that matter.

We will we will flock you is a take on Queens' We Will Rock You.

A tribute soundbite for the Flock-$tar$.

In the words of Rudolph from MadTV's Raging Rudolph, "I guess I'm just
******* misfit."

Raging Rudolph clip here <http://www.megaupload.com/?d=14BS9RHB>
(remember to close the Ad Box as it covers the download button)
--- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, "alexldent" <alexldent@...>
wrote:
>
> Excellent post! My sentiments exactly!
>
> --- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, "perpetualynquisitive" <
> perpetualynquisitive@ wrote:
> >
> > The Lying M$M, The Alternative Gatekeepers and Their Respective
Flocks
> > When discussing 9/11 'Conspiracy Theories', the guillibility of many
> > supposed 'critical thinkers', will never cease to amaze me. There
are
> > many people that claim that they 'don't believe' the Official Fairy
Tale
> > given to us by the M$M and THEN parrotted by government officials.
> >
> > These people have many different theories of what really happened,
from
> > LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) to plane-swaps by the military.
There
> > is even a very, very small group that maintains the no planes
reality,
> > myself included.
> >
> > Most of the theorists have at least one common denominator, The
PLAINS
> > PLANES.
> >
> > Some examples of the theories.
> >
> > Village Voice
<http://villagevoice.com/news/0608,murphy,72255,6.html>
> >
> > Popular Mechanics
> > <http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html>
> >
> > We will we will FLOCK YOU.
> >
> > We will we will FLOCK YOU.
> >
> > Now get this, there has supposedly been a 'division' created in the
> > '9/11 Truth Movement' over the issue that some people maintain a no
> > planes perspective. This small group is being blamed for 'turning
off'
> > Joe 6-Pack from looking into the anomalies of 9/11.
> >
> > This is patently ubsurd. Do you really believe that a group of less
than
> > 100 people that post on forums, run a few obscure blogs or put up a
web
> > page or two are having ANY influence on the average citizen?
> >
> > The M$M & the Gatekeepers are the ones that influence Joe 6-Pack,
not a
> > small group of internet users with a different perspective. The
people
> > that have bought into this myth have shown that their mental
fortitude
> > has about as much stamina as single-ply tissue in a hurricane.
> >
> > It is very difficult to get the average person on the street to go
from
> > 'foreign terrorists' to LIHOP. To make the leap from terrorists to
faked
> > media psyop is therefore impossible.
> >
> > Seeing that this is the case, Who Really Gains From Disseminating
IT?
> > There seem to be so few that support the no planes perspective, Why
such
> > the BIG fuss about us?
> >
> > Who created it? Webfairy? Dr. Grossman? Brianv? Me?
> >
> > The Gatekeepers are the ones that created this 'division' as a way
to
> > keep their flocks in check. It is great fortune for the M$M & the
> > Gatekeepers that their flocks never question the 'information' that
they
> > provide or the MOTIVES for providing that 'information'.
> >
> > Why are the Gatekeepers so intent on discrediting the no plane
> > perspective? If it truly had no merit, it would never be discussed
or it
> > would be debunked and tossed down the memory hole, as was the
> "Raelian
> > Cult Clones" story.
> >
> > The fact that they have brought it up and put such a negative view
to
> > this perspective is encouraging, at least to me. For the
'pre-emptive
> > strike' shows that this is an issue that they are afraid to have
openly
> > and freely discussed.
> >
> > To make matters even more ironic is the fact that most of the people
> > that attack the no plane perspective, partly support it by saying
there
> > was no plane at the Pentagon or Shanksville.
> >
> > WTF? Talk about sitting on the fence, the Official Fairy Tale says
four
> > planes, yet these theorists claim there was only two, because they
have
> > pictures & videos to prove it. Well I have pictures & videos of
Aliens
> > detroying the Earth, big deal.
> >
> > I guess the fence sitting is like being 'kinda pregnant'.
> >
> > I challenge you 'flock-stars' to go out and ask 20 people that you
do
> > not know if they have ever even heard of the no planes at all
> > perspective in regard to the events of 9/11.
> >
> > I'll bet that you don't find 2 that have, never mind enough to say
the
> > majority of Joe 6-Packs don't pay attention to the issues 9/11 for
they
> > had heard the no planes perspective and it "turned them off of
> > conspiracy theories."
> >
> > The Branch Davidians are a small, obscure sect of Christianity. Can
you
> > imagine Billy Graham, Oral Roberts or Pat Robertson going on
national
> > T.V. for the purpose of denouncing the Davidians for "Creating a
> > Division in the Christian Movement?"
> >
> > Or how about this:
> >
> > "Please Gloria, don't wear the work boots, you'll divide the
feminist
> > movement."
> >
> > FWIW, the sky is NOT blue, the sun will NOT rise tomorrow but I will
> > still be discussing my perspectives whether I face
Gatekeeper/Flock-star
> > flak or not.
> >
> > P.S. I spoke to the clerk at a local gas bar this morning about
9/11. He
> > works the night shift, 11pm - 7am and listens to Coast 2 Coast,
which
> > was on when I entered the kiosk around 4am.
> > He told me he listens to that show 5 nights a week when he is at
work
> > and he said that he had never heard of the no planes perspective,
though
> > he also admitted that he doesn't here every minute of each show.
> >
> > We talked about last night's show with James Fetzer, David Ray
Griffin
> > and Morgan Reynolds and he was still having a hard time digesting
that
> > information, to try to convince him that no planes were used would
have
> > been an exercise in extreme futility, as he can barely accept the
idea
> > of 'insider' complicity, but the fact that I brought it up didn't
make
> > him automatically 'discard' the information that he had heard on
C2C.
> >
> > Original source <http://perpetualynquisitive.blogspot.com/>
> >
>

[This message contained attachments]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 13
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 17:43:47 -0000
From: "alexldent" <alexldent@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: First fragmental analysis splitscreen FOX/CNN live 9/11 footage

Thanks for the cool synopsis.

Why did they do this though? It's weird. Are they trying to PROVE the plane
caused the explosion? And why did they need to highlight plane in that one
clip? Were they just goofing around while they waited for the other clips to be
produced?

>>CNN is showing first clip again, then apparently "halting"/freeze framing
the plane
at outside the tower, zoom in, then let it 'continue', from that angle not
buttering,
but gliding into the building, followed by an immediate explosion at OUTSIDE
of building.

They do the same special effect a second time. Plane freeze frame from the
right,
continuing the movie, freeze framing outside building, a zoom into, then a
go and glide,
then explosion....

Now 3rd time (i personally recall this special effect from that day):
Footage is darkened, plane is surrounded by white round background and
followed
with this white 'snowball' effect, with same halt-, stop- and glide
effect....<<<

--- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, "Nico Haupt" <nicohaupt@...>
wrote:
>
> ...wow, wow, wow...
> damn i'm so excited, hunting for the complete live CNN footage from both
> hits now 4.5 years and i still could only see half of it, coz mutiple d/l
> again... :)
>

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 14
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 18:33:47 -0000
From: "Lynn Ertell" <lynnertell@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: The Lying M$M, The Alternative Gatekeepers and Their Respective Flocks

I could not have said it better myself.
If the "no planes" perpspective is so "marginal", then why would the
gatekeepers be spending so much time, money, effort and hysteria to
"debunk" it or smear it ?

Because they know the logical implication of "no planes" = MEDIA HOAX .

And the gatekeepers #1 priority (which is really the #1 COINTELPRO
strategic objective) is to PROTECT THE CREDIBILITY AND LEGITIMACY OF
THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA.

To protect the whole Hollywood plot-line of "Al Qaeda terrorists"
embodied in every SUBSEQUENT serial false-flag "terrorist" event:

1) Bali bombing
2) Madrid train bombing
3) London transport bombing
4) Amman hotel bombing ...

and... in all likelihood, the most recent example of yet one more
false-flag state-sponsored "terrorist" attack:
the latest bombing of the great mosque in Samarra ...
... which is being spun by that same controlled media as the pretext
for their strategy in Iraq: programmed chaos and CIVIL WAR.

After all, how else could the 9/11 perps continue to brainwash the
public with a CONTINUOUS campaign of false-flag events and media hoaxes ?

That is the true evil of the 9/11 gatekeepers:
The gatekeepers are shielding the 9/11 perps, so as to enable those
perps to launch yet MORE psy-ops next week or next month ...in an
Orwellian cycle of TERROR > MEDIA HOAX > MORE WAR AND REPRESSION.

It is the CONTINUOUS ONGOING character of the 9/11 psy-op, the
permanent "frameup of humanity", the permament "war" on freedom ...
that the 9/11 gatekeepers and their COINTELPRO media controllers are
scrambling to conceal and obscure.
THAT IS THEIR GREATEST CRIME.

--- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, "perpetualynquisitive"
<perpetualynquisitive@...> wrote:
>
> The Lying M$M, The Alternative Gatekeepers and Their Respective Flocks
> When discussing 9/11 'Conspiracy Theories', the guillibility of many
> supposed 'critical thinkers', will never cease to amaze me. There are
> many people that claim that they 'don't believe' the Official Fairy Tale
> given to us by the M$M and THEN parrotted by government officials.
>
> These people have many different theories of what really happened, from
> LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) to plane-swaps by the military. There
> is even a very, very small group that maintains the no planes reality,
> myself included.
>
> Most of the theorists have at least one common denominator, The PLAINS
> PLANES.
>
> Some examples of the theories.
>
> Village Voice <http://villagevoice.com/news/0608,murphy,72255,6.html>
>
> Popular Mechanics
> <http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html>
>
> We will we will FLOCK YOU.
>
> We will we will FLOCK YOU.
>
> Now get this, there has supposedly been a 'division' created in the
> '9/11 Truth Movement' over the issue that some people maintain a no
> planes perspective. This small group is being blamed for 'turning off'
> Joe 6-Pack from looking into the anomalies of 9/11.
>
> This is patently ubsurd. Do you really believe that a group of less than
> 100 people that post on forums, run a few obscure blogs or put up a web
> page or two are having ANY influence on the average citizen?
>
> The M$M & the Gatekeepers are the ones that influence Joe 6-Pack, not a
> small group of internet users with a different perspective. The people
> that have bought into this myth have shown that their mental fortitude
> has about as much stamina as single-ply tissue in a hurricane.
>
> It is very difficult to get the average person on the street to go from
> 'foreign terrorists' to LIHOP. To make the leap from terrorists to faked
> media psyop is therefore impossible.
>
> Seeing that this is the case, Who Really Gains From Disseminating IT?
> There seem to be so few that support the no planes perspective, Why such
> the BIG fuss about us?
>
> Who created it? Webfairy? Dr. Grossman? Brianv? Me?
>
> The Gatekeepers are the ones that created this 'division' as a way to
> keep their flocks in check. It is great fortune for the M$M & the
> Gatekeepers that their flocks never question the 'information' that they
> provide or the MOTIVES for providing that 'information'.
>
> Why are the Gatekeepers so intent on discrediting the no plane
> perspective? If it truly had no merit, it would never be discussed or it
> would be debunked and tossed down the memory hole, as was the "Raelian
> Cult Clones" story.
>
> The fact that they have brought it up and put such a negative view to
> this perspective is encouraging, at least to me. For the 'pre-emptive
> strike' shows that this is an issue that they are afraid to have openly
> and freely discussed.
>
> To make matters even more ironic is the fact that most of the people
> that attack the no plane perspective, partly support it by saying there
> was no plane at the Pentagon or Shanksville.
>
> WTF? Talk about sitting on the fence, the Official Fairy Tale says four
> planes, yet these theorists claim there was only two, because they have
> pictures & videos to prove it. Well I have pictures & videos of Aliens
> detroying the Earth, big deal.
>
> I guess the fence sitting is like being 'kinda pregnant'.
>
> I challenge you 'flock-stars' to go out and ask 20 people that you do
> not know if they have ever even heard of the no planes at all
> perspective in regard to the events of 9/11.
>
> I'll bet that you don't find 2 that have, never mind enough to say the
> majority of Joe 6-Packs don't pay attention to the issues 9/11 for they
> had heard the no planes perspective and it "turned them off of
> conspiracy theories."
>
> The Branch Davidians are a small, obscure sect of Christianity. Can you
> imagine Billy Graham, Oral Roberts or Pat Robertson going on national
> T.V. for the purpose of denouncing the Davidians for "Creating a
> Division in the Christian Movement?"
>
> Or how about this:
>
> "Please Gloria, don't wear the work boots, you'll divide the feminist
> movement."
>
> FWIW, the sky is NOT blue, the sun will NOT rise tomorrow but I will
> still be discussing my perspectives whether I face Gatekeeper/Flock-star
> flak or not.
>
> P.S. I spoke to the clerk at a local gas bar this morning about 9/11. He
> works the night shift, 11pm - 7am and listens to Coast 2 Coast, which
> was on when I entered the kiosk around 4am.
> He told me he listens to that show 5 nights a week when he is at work
> and he said that he had never heard of the no planes perspective, though
> he also admitted that he doesn't here every minute of each show.
>
> We talked about last night's show with James Fetzer, David Ray Griffin
> and Morgan Reynolds and he was still having a hard time digesting that
> information, to try to convince him that no planes were used would have
> been an exercise in extreme futility, as he can barely accept the idea
> of 'insider' complicity, but the fact that I brought it up didn't make
> him automatically 'discard' the information that he had heard on C2C.
>
> Original source <http://perpetualynquisitive.blogspot.com/>
>

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 15
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 19:59:25 -0000
From: "Lynn Ertell" <lynnertell@comcast.net>
Subject: Why controlled demolition ? To cover-up "no planes".

The complete implausibility of the Towers collapsing in perfect
free-fall symmetry, has been an obvious Achilles heel of the 9/11
psy-op from the very first day.

And surely, the perps must have anticipated the problem of
rationalizing and explaining the apparent controlled demolition of the
Towers.

So why do it that way ?

We can come up with any number of banal or dramatic motives for taking
the Towers down so perfectly and completely:

1) The various insurance scams at play.
2) The theft of the gold stocks and other valuables stored there.
3) The avoidance of costs for asbestos removal and clean-up.
4) The sheer shock-value of the total collapses - pure trauma and
brainwshing...

But, after some reflection, I have arrived at an idea that has
probably occurred to some of you already:
TO COVER UP THE FACT THAT THERE WERE NO PLANES.

I first thought about this after someone in the group posted a story
about a drawing done by a little school kid, as part of some
therapeutic exercise to "excorcise" the chilhood trauma of that
morning's events.
The child's drawing showed a building with a plane sticking out of it.

I think it was either Holmgren or WEBFAIRY (or maybe both) who pointed
out that, ironically enough, the child's intuitive understanding of
the Tower hits was actually much closer to the reality of what SHOULD
have "happened", had planes really crashed into the behemoth Towers.
Airplane wreckage, wings, fuselage, luggage, etc., would have been
scattered on the streets below, certainly... but, scientifically
speaking, a plausible impact scene might easily have shown airplane
wreckage and debris "hanging" out of the building itself.

The Towers would have smoldered for a while; firemen would enter and
put out the remaining fires ...
and one would expect to find PLENTY OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE ..ESPECIALLY
DNA EVIDENCE remaining in the smoldering Towers.

The absence of such evidence would be very difficult to explain, if
the Towers had remained standing ... as we all know they should have.
That much is a no-brainer.

But controlled demolition eliminates the whole problem of physical
evidence for "planes crashing" into the Towers.
Along with the chaos, confusion, complete control of the crime scene
and hasty removal of debris, thus preventing any close examination of
the crime scene.

Ergo: our logic should proceed along the following simple lines:

Complete controlled demolition of the Towers -> impossibility of
gathering forensic evidence -> no planes necessary.

Just fake it by media hoax.

Anyone see any flaws in my logic ?

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 16
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 20:31:04 -0000
From: "perpetualynquisitive" <perpetualynquisitive@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Why controlled demolition ? To cover-up "no planes".

Ergo: our logic should proceed along the following simple lines:

Complete controlled demolition of the Towers -> impossibility of
gathering forensic evidence -> no planes necessary

That is the most plausible reason for the demolitions, to lose control
of the crime scenes and evidence would have meant, HOAX OVER.
--- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, "Lynn Ertell" <lynnertell@...>
wrote:
>
>
> The complete implausibility of the Towers collapsing in perfect
> free-fall symmetry, has been an obvious Achilles heel of the 9/11
> psy-op from the very first day.
>
> And surely, the perps must have anticipated the problem of
> rationalizing and explaining the apparent controlled demolition of the
> Towers.
>
> So why do it that way ?
>
> We can come up with any number of banal or dramatic motives for taking
> the Towers down so perfectly and completely:
>
> 1) The various insurance scams at play.
> 2) The theft of the gold stocks and other valuables stored there.
> 3) The avoidance of costs for asbestos removal and clean-up.
> 4) The sheer shock-value of the total collapses - pure trauma and
> brainwshing...
>
> But, after some reflection, I have arrived at an idea that has
> probably occurred to some of you already:
> TO COVER UP THE FACT THAT THERE WERE NO PLANES.
>
> I first thought about this after someone in the group posted a story
> about a drawing done by a little school kid, as part of some
> therapeutic exercise to "excorcise" the chilhood trauma of that
> morning's events.
> The child's drawing showed a building with a plane sticking out of it.
>
> I think it was either Holmgren or WEBFAIRY (or maybe both) who pointed
> out that, ironically enough, the child's intuitive understanding of
> the Tower hits was actually much closer to the reality of what SHOULD
> have "happened", had planes really crashed into the behemoth Towers.
> Airplane wreckage, wings, fuselage, luggage, etc., would have been
> scattered on the streets below, certainly... but, scientifically
> speaking, a plausible impact scene might easily have shown airplane
> wreckage and debris "hanging" out of the building itself.
>
> The Towers would have smoldered for a while; firemen would enter and
> put out the remaining fires ...
> and one would expect to find PLENTY OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE ..ESPECIALLY
> DNA EVIDENCE remaining in the smoldering Towers.
>
> The absence of such evidence would be very difficult to explain, if
> the Towers had remained standing ... as we all know they should have.
> That much is a no-brainer.
>
> But controlled demolition eliminates the whole problem of physical
> evidence for "planes crashing" into the Towers.
> Along with the chaos, confusion, complete control of the crime scene
> and hasty removal of debris, thus preventing any close examination of
> the crime scene.
>
> Ergo: our logic should proceed along the following simple lines:
>
> Complete controlled demolition of the Towers -> impossibility of
> gathering forensic evidence -> no planes necessary.
>
> Just fake it by media hoax.
>
> Anyone see any flaws in my logic ?
>

[This message contained attachments]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 17
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 21:33:45 +0100 (MET)
From: "Nico Haupt" <nicohaupt@gmx.li>
Subject: Re: Re: @ Nico

> --- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ---
> Von: "grolode" <grolode@yahoo.com>
> An: 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: [911InsideJobbers] Re: @ Nico
> Datum: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 17:25:25 -0000
>

thx :)
I assume, that Andreas Hauss (though medienanalyse.com links to us) doesn't
like the "no flight" research from team8plus.org, which is however less
easier to belittle or discredit than the "no plane" research, which isn't
our focus at team8...

Our other focus on discrediting the plotline however also doesn't get picked
up. Multiple Attas and other alleged 'hijackers' are not welcome in
gatekeeper 'able danger' land :)

>>>--- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, "grolode" <grolode@...> wrote:
>
> Wow !
>
> This is a great piece of work:
> http://www.team8plus.org/forum_viewforum.php?23

Translated conclusion is online

http://www.grolo.de/index.php?id=8,97,0,0,1,0<<<

--
DSL-Aktion wegen großer Nachfrage bis 28.2.2006 verlängert:
GMX DSL-Flatrate 1 Jahr kostenlos* http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl

[This message contained attachments]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 18
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 21:42:35 +0100 (MET)
From: "Nico Haupt" <nicohaupt@gmx.li>
Subject: Reversed "invisible" CGI 'aircrafts'

...i did this last night, just woke up here -:)

I hope, we get it also up as a fast loading flashie.
It's a prototype. There is a way to get it even better or bring it into
a more absurde level.
This is the most professional 'aircraft' clip, which CNN or FOX did not show
on TV during the first hour.
I still have to watch PerpINq's rest of the footage to get the timecode,
when they finally showed it (and then never again!)

Lemme know what you think about 'my version'.
It might load slow, so i have to get it up with less size.

I'm just playing with the imagination
and it isn't professional at all.
But it was also kinda easy to produce.

Watch the first clip first , then the second one :)

http://www.911closeup.com/nico/invisible_reverse_gc_aircraft1.GIF
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/bizarro_aircraft2.GIF

--
Lust, ein paar Euro nebenbei zu verdienen? Ohne Kosten, ohne Risiko!
Satte Provisionen für GMX Partner: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/partner

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 19
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 14:48:12 -0600
From: Rosalee Grable <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Why controlled demolition ? To cover-up "no planes".

Check out near the end of the Great Debate URL
how poorly the official story/accidental collapse story fares despite
all they can throw at it.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/01/332076.html

perpetualynquisitive wrote:
> /Ergo: our logic should proceed along the following simple lines:
>
> Complete controlled demolition of the Towers -> *impossibility of
> gathering forensic evidence* -> no planes necessary
> /
> That is the most plausible reason for the demolitions, to lose control
> of the crime scenes and evidence would have meant, HOAX OVER.
> --- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, "Lynn Ertell"
> <lynnertell@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The complete implausibility of the Towers collapsing in perfect
> > free-fall symmetry, has been an obvious Achilles heel of the 9/11
> > psy-op from the very first day.
> >
> > And surely, the perps must have anticipated the problem of
> > rationalizing and explaining the apparent controlled demolition of the
> > Towers.
> >
> > So why do it that way ?
> >
> > We can come up with any number of banal or dramatic motives for taking
> > the Towers down so perfectly and completely:
> >
> > 1) The various insurance scams at play.
> > 2) The theft of the gold stocks and other valuables stored there.
> > 3) The avoidance of costs for asbestos removal and clean-up.
> > 4) The sheer shock-value of the total collapses - pure trauma and
> > brainwshing...
> >
> > But, after some reflection, I have arrived at an idea that has
> > probably occurred to some of you already:
> > TO COVER UP THE FACT THAT THERE WERE NO PLANES.
> >
> > I first thought about this after someone in the group posted a story
> > about a drawing done by a little school kid, as part of some
> > therapeutic exercise to "excorcise" the chilhood trauma of that
> > morning's events.
> > The child's drawing showed a building with a plane sticking out of it.
> >
> > I think it was either Holmgren or WEBFAIRY (or maybe both) who pointed
> > out that, ironically enough, the child's intuitive understanding of
> > the Tower hits was actually much closer to the reality of what SHOULD
> > have "happened", had planes really crashed into the behemoth Towers.
> > Airplane wreckage, wings, fuselage, luggage, etc., would have been
> > scattered on the streets belo w, certainly... but, scientifically
> > speaking, a plausible impact scene might easily have shown airplane
> > wreckage and debris "hanging" out of the building itself.
> >
> > The Towers would have smoldered for a while; firemen would enter and
> > put out the remaining fires ...
> > and one would expect to find PLENTY OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE ..ESPECIALLY
> > DNA EVIDENCE remaining in the smoldering Towers.
> >
> > The absence of such evidence would be very difficult to explain, if
> > the Towers had remained standing ... as we all know they should have.
> > That much is a no-brainer.
> >
> > But controlled demolition eliminates the whole problem of physical
> > evidence for "planes crashing" into the Towers.
> > Along with the chaos, confusion, complete control of the crime scene
> > and hasty removal of debris, thus preventing any close examination of
> > the crime scene.
> >
> > Ergo: our logic should proceed along the following simple lines:
> >
> > Complete controlled demolition of the Towers -> impossibility of
> > gathering forensic evidence -> no planes necessary.
> >
> > Just fake it by media hoax.
> >
> > Anyone see any flaws in my logic ?
> >

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 20
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 14:52:25 -0600
From: Rosalee Grable <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>
Subject: Re: Reversed "invisible" CGI 'aircrafts'

I have to turn these gifs into bitmaps and then reanimate the bitmaps
before I can make flashies.
I have yahoo dsl at a really cheap price, and they recently announced an
"upgrade" to twice the speed, first cutting the speed in half for their
schnookie customers to pay more for.
They should be ready tonite.

Nico Haupt wrote:
> ...i did this last night, just woke up here -:)
>
> I hope, we get it also up as a fast loading flashie.
> It's a prototype. There is a way to get it even better or bring it into
> a more absurde level.
> This is the most professional 'aircraft' clip, which CNN or FOX did not show
> on TV during the first hour.
> I still have to watch PerpINq's rest of the footage to get the timecode,
> when they finally showed it (and then never again!)
>
> Lemme know what you think about 'my version'.
> It might load slow, so i have to get it up with less size.
>
> I'm just playing with the imagination
> and it isn't professional at all.
> But it was also kinda easy to produce.
>
> Watch the first clip first , then the second one :)
>
>
> http://www.911closeup.com/nico/invisible_reverse_gc_aircraft1.GIF
> http://www.911closeup.com/nico/bizarro_aircraft2.GIF
>
>

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 21
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 22:02:49 +0100 (MET)
From: "Nico Haupt" <nicohaupt@gmx.li>
Subject: Re: Reversed "invisible" CGI 'aircrafts'

> --- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ---
> Von: Rosalee Grable <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>
> An: 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: Re: [911InsideJobbers] Reversed "invisible" CGI 'aircrafts'
> Datum: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 14:52:25 -0600
>

I still have not the best wifi connection at my apartment and our cable
computer didn't allow me to install FTP, but i can transfer you the original
BMPs on the server via my notebook, which i used.
I let you know, when they're up.

>>>>I have to turn these gifs into bitmaps and then reanimate the bitmaps
before I can make flashies.
I have yahoo dsl at a really cheap price, and they recently announced an
"upgrade" to twice the speed, first cutting the speed in half for their
schnookie customers to pay more for.
They should be ready tonite.
<<<

--
DSL-Aktion wegen großer Nachfrage bis 28.2.2006 verlängert:
GMX DSL-Flatrate 1 Jahr kostenlos* http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl

[This message contained attachments]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 22
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 21:13:09 -0000
From: "alexldent" <alexldent@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Reversed "invisible" CGI 'aircrafts'

That's pretty farking weird. Though I'm not clear what you were trying to do--
just show you could manipulate the image?

--- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, "Nico Haupt" <nicohaupt@...>
wrote:
>
> ...i did this last night, just woke up here -:)
>
> I hope, we get it also up as a fast loading flashie.
> It's a prototype. There is a way to get it even better or bring it into
> a more absurde level.
> This is the most professional 'aircraft' clip, which CNN or FOX did not show
> on TV during the first hour.
> I still have to watch PerpINq's rest of the footage to get the timecode,
> when they finally showed it (and then never again!)
>
> Lemme know what you think about 'my version'.
> It might load slow, so i have to get it up with less size.
>
> I'm just playing with the imagination
> and it isn't professional at all.
> But it was also kinda easy to produce.
>
> Watch the first clip first , then the second one :)
>
>
> http://www.911closeup.com/nico/invisible_reverse_gc_aircraft1.GIF
> http://www.911closeup.com/nico/bizarro_aircraft2.GIF
>
> --
> Lust, ein paar Euro nebenbei zu verdienen? Ohne Kosten, ohne Risiko!
> Satte Provisionen für GMX Partner: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/partner
>

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 23
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 20:58:59 -0000
From: "ron_winn" <ron_winn@lineone.net>
Subject: Blowing in the wind.

Prior to 8:43 in the North Tower people were arriving and going up to
their offices, some were even already there may be and some people
were even on their way down. A guy, named Chris Young was on his way
down.

So it was a normal day so far as the use of the elevators are
concerned. After 8:43 strange things started to happen to the
elevators. One safety feature was that if the cabling broke an
elevator would [only] travel down to the next lowest floor.

The elevator in which Chris Young was coming down [the express
elevator from the 78th floor], jerked, screeched to a halt and
bounced. He discovered he was in the lobby. A miraculous twist of fate
that at the time of flight "11" hitting the north tower the next floor
at which his elevator was to visit was the lobby.

He had arrived at the 99th floor at 8:40 and made his drop-off and was
in the express lift from the 78th floor reaching the lobby by around
8:43. Had the cables been severed that was connected to this elevator
and did the safety feature get activated? There is just one other case
of people trapped in an elevator having got themselves out. That too
was miraculous.

There was no conserted effort to release anyone from any trapped
elevator from "locked" elevators in the north tower. There is no
report of any concerted effort of the fire service trying to open the
elevator door(s).

A gush of wind blew dust through the elevator Chris Young was in, not
once but twice. The second time was after a rumble and this time the
dust was yellow.

So what pulverized the concrete also shot down the elevator shafts.
Now, why wouldn't anyone, particularly the fireman have a plan to
rescue anyone in the north tower who was trapped in elevators?

You don't need a physicist to know which way the wind blows or what
was blowing in the wind.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 24
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 22:29:28 +0100 (MET)
From: "Nico Haupt" <nicohaupt@gmx.li>
Subject: Re: Re: Reversed "invisible" CGI 'aircrafts'

> --- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ---
> Von: "alexldent" <alexldent@yahoo.com>
> An: 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: [911InsideJobbers] Re: Reversed "invisible" CGI 'aircrafts'
> Datum: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 21:13:09 -0000
>

...well, i was playing. I tried to show how easy "import" or "export" of an
aircraft into a real scenery is. I should have removed more aircraft frames,
but my point was that only a short sequence is needed to let the plane
appear or vanish.

Maybe a final gig would be to remove the aircraft COMPLETELY in this clip,
but then first time watchers don't get the point. It's a series.
If i have time, i might produce more bizarro planes or more holes.
I don't know yet, which effect is more convincing....

PS: I'm also not the best photoshopper but i was fascinated how close
the color code was around the aircraft during "15 FRAMES!!!" =
that's a complete building length . Is that 45-60 feet??

>>>>>That's pretty farking weird. Though I'm not clear what you were trying
to do--
just show you could manipulate the image?

--- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, "Nico Haupt" <nicohaupt@...>
wrote:
>
> ...i did this last night, just woke up here -:)
>
> I hope, we get it also up as a fast loading flashie.
> It's a prototype. There is a way to get it even better or bring it into
> a more absurde level.
> This is the most professional 'aircraft' clip, which CNN or FOX did not
show
> on TV during the first hour.
> I still have to watch PerpINq's rest of the footage to get the timecode,
> when they finally showed it (and then never again!)
>
> Lemme know what you think about 'my version'.
> It might load slow, so i have to get it up with less size.
>
> I'm just playing with the imagination
> and it isn't professional at all.
> But it was also kinda easy to produce.
>
> Watch the first clip first , then the second one :)
>
>
> http://www.911closeup.com/nico/invisible_reverse_gc_aircraft1.GIF
> http://www.911closeup.com/nico/bizarro_aircraft2.GIF<<<<

--
Telefonieren Sie schon oder sparen Sie noch?
NEU: GMX Phone_Flat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/telefonie

[This message contained attachments]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 25
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 16:02:56 -0600
From: Rosalee Grable <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>
Subject: [Fwd: The hunter becomes the hunted]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: The hunter becomes the hunted
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 08:59:00 +1100
From: Gerard Holmgren <holmgren@iinet.net.au>

Sky King project update.

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/11/1722079.php

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/04/1691636.php

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911InsideJobbers/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
911InsideJobbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion about 09/11/2001

Sunday, February 26, 2006

[911InsideJobbers] Digest Number 402

No comments:

About Me

Last posts