WTC & Hutch (JJ)
Erin & Field (erin)
Billiard Balls
Qui Tam Case
Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Supporting Evidence for No-Planes and DEW (exotic weapons)

Note: A sincere attempt has been made to reproduce the posts as they appeared on the forum. Forum discussions tend to be casual and typographical errors are not unusual.

"Ace Baker's" post
Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 3:10 am    
Post subject: Additional evidence for no planes

The recent documentary on History Channel "9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Fact or Fiction?" was a standard media hit piece on the truth movement. The obvious strategy was to have a truther make a "conspiracy claim", then bring on the "expert" to set us straight. Clearly the idea was to make the truth movement seem as weak and foolish as possible.

Alex Jones, Steven Jones, the Loose Change Boys, Webster Tarpley, David Ray Griffin were all there.

Conspicuously absent were Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds and any mention of no planes or exotic weapons.

If there really were planes, and 'no plane theory' is really so far out, then the producers would have presented it, and had their guys knock it down. The fact that they completely ignored it speaks volumes to me.

"Ace Baker's" post
Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 2:13 am

No Planes and Exotic Weapons are certainly two separate issues, with possible overlap. For example, perhaps exotic weapons were used to blow the plane shaped holes in the towers.

I mentioned them both in the OP, because they were both conspicuously absent from the History Channel hit piece. Clearly, the intent of the program was to discredit the truth movement. Clearly it was produced by expert documentarians with a strong agenda.

Why would they leave out 'no planes' and/or why would they leave out 'exotic weapons'? If those are so easily debunked, why would they not put Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds on, then have their guys debunk them, the way they did to Avery, Griffin, Jones, Jones, Tarpley and the rest?

Explain it to me, please. I didn't see the recent BBC hit piece, but I suspect it was much the same. Were 'no planes' and/or 'exotic weapons' in that on either? Why not?

If you were making a hit piece on the 9/11 truth movement, what would you include? Why?

"gruts's" post
Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 12:54 pm

sadly, the "ignore them and they'll go away" principle won't work against such a well organised disinfo campaign, but it's funny how low they have to sink to find any degree of validation for their "theories", given the lack of real evidence for what they're claiming.

a few weeks ago when the New York Post ran a story about how ellen mariani was being harassed via the "911 researchers" website and referred to them as the "911 skeptics' lunatic fringe", one poster on here was excitedly claiming that being discussed in this way by a tabloid newspaper was a major breakthrough for NPT.

similarly when Eric Salter showed that Ace Baker's chopper 5 study was a worthless pile of crap, the very fact that he had taken the trouble to do so was apparently a sign that Ace must be on to something....

so when a History Channel hitpiece fails to mention NPT it's not suprising that this is interpreted - rather desperately - as somehow being "additional evidence" for NPT. it's just like David Icke saying "I have stated in public that Tony Blair is a shape-shifting lizard and he didn't sue me so it proves that I must be right!".

illogical thinking + irrational bias = bullshit

"Ace Baker's" post
Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 12:33 am

Gruts, please do the following very simple exercise. Download the Chopper 5 video clip, and step through frame by frame. Pay attention to the twin towers, and their apparent motion. See if you agree with me that between some frames they move significantly, between other they move a little, and between others they move hardly at all.

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/summaryimages/fox11secondhitexce rpt.mov

After you confirm this scientific observation, I'll explain why this is significant to understanding why Eric Salter's piece is the unscientific one. While you're at it, perhaps you can think of answers to these questions:

Why has Eric Salter concealed his stabilization data from us?
Why has Eric Salter failed to provide control cases to support his margin of error?


"gruts' " post
Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 11:47 am

Ace - the answers to your questions have already been provided by eric salter....


so why bother asking them?

by the way - I have a theory that both of the WTC towers were pulverised by a huge, invisible holographic banana. my extensive research has confirmed that all the evidence supports this theory, but the History Channel didn't mention it - so it must be true. I also emailed NIST about my theory and they haven't responded, which speaks volumes about how scared they are of the fact that I have uncovered THE smoking gun of 9/11.

if this theory continues to be ignored I will take it as conclusive proof that an ExoTech Stealth Banana was used....

"Ace Baker's" post
Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 7:23 pm

No, Salter did not answer my questions yet. In an email, he has said he has "no problem" honoring my requests, but as yet has not.

He asks us to believe the Chopper 5 shot was perfectly stable, and that the camera drifted steadily to the left, and that stabilizing the shot has no effect on the apparent motion of the plane.

My data clearly show otherwise.

Salter does not give his stabilization data, so we cannot test his assertions. He claims a particular margin of error, but does not supply any control cases to back it up.

Have you downloaded the clip at stepped through it for yourself yet?

Please, I'm looking for an honest answer to a simple question:

In Chopper 5, is the apparent motion of the twin towers constant, or does it vary?

It will take less than 5 minutes to do this exercise.

RFC: What Happened was Not Inevitable (6.5 Mb)
Supplement#1 to RFC submitted earlier (28 kb)
MEMORANDUM To: Dr. Judy Wood (232 kb)
DEW Information Request Letter, with comments
Supplement#2 to RFC submitted earlier (320 kb)
DEW Information follow-up letter to response from the Office of Public Affairs, Directed Energy

Response from Juventino R."Rich" Garcia via fax (original, more readable, enlargement)
Extension of NIST review for Dr. Judy Wood Request
Response to Request for Correction from Dr. Judy Wood, dated March 16, 2007 
APPEAL of NIST initial denial dated July 27, 2007 (7.9 MB pdf), 22 August 2007, by Dr. Judy Wood

(Other information available here.)

WTC & Hutch (JJ)
Erin & Field (erin)
Billiard Balls
Qui Tam Case

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the articles posted on this webpage are distributed for their included information without profit for research and/or educational purposes only. This webpage has no affiliation whatsoever with the original sources of the articles nor are we sponsored or endorsed by any of the original sources.

© 2006-2007 Judy Wood and the author above. All rights reserved.