After listening to the “debate” with “Mike Delaney & Scott Roberts versus John Friend & Tom in CT”, I am now certain that the 9-11 No-Planes Theory & September Clues are both completely bunk. After watching September Clues it’s clear to me that none of it makes any sense. There is no reason for the Jews to have turned New York into a giant movie set in order to carry out 9-11, nor is there any way they could have done this and gotten away with it, without thousands of New Yorker’s noticing something strange that day. The whole Simon Shack scenario is so bizarre that, like Scott Roberts said, the official story of 19 Arab Hijackers is far more plausible. Think about it. Just because the Jews own the TV doesn’t mean that normal people in New York “all of a sudden” were completely incapable of recognising or bearing eyewitness to something fishy, like Jews filming a 9-11 movie.
The only valid concept put forward by the “No Plane” crowd is that of “Media Fakery“. Video footage can be faked, digitally altered, superimposed, etc. They could have used faked videos, but there was really no reason when they could film the real thing! Dov Zakheim – Systems Planning Corporation – remote control planes – fly into towers – and there you go.
This is Simon Shack:
Regarding the “debate” itself; it wasn’t much of a debate. It was basically Mike and Scott telling it like it is, and to hell with everyone and everything else. I firmly believe that Mike’s film ‘Missing Links’ is spot on, and the only 9-11 documentary worth watching, so I can understand Mike’s fierce defence of its rock-solid thesis. John Friend was barely given a chance to state his case, therefore the whole thing was completely unfair to him. For a “debate” to be done right, it needs a moderator, especially when both sides are likely to get heated! Tom in CT surprised me with how well he explained the “Media Fakery/ Psyop” aspects of 9-11 (or any given case), whilst agreeing with Mike and Scott’s underlying theme of always exposing the Jew and looking at the bigger picture.
Finally, this point should have been raised, but it wasn’t:
- Ken Feinberg ran a victims compensation fund of $7 billion. 97% of victims’ families took the money and waived their right to demand a real investigation into 9-11. Why bother with a compensation fund if there were no real victims?
That fact alone is a smoking gun. It tells us that the Jews clearly knew there were going to be real victims AND that the reason for a lack of victim’s family members demanding real answers is because the Jews put up irresistibly high sums of money as compensation to keep their mouths shut.
I stand by my earlier article about this issue. It sums up what I think and it’s the truth. I don’t really care to investigate this topic anymore; I’m done with it.
Hopefully there’s no bitterness between John Friend, Mike Delaney and Scott. It was a necessary thrashing out of the issue. It’s done now, so everyone can get back to focusing on what matters: The White Race and defeating the eternal Jew! (Anyone who can’t work that last bit out isn’t worth a pinch of shit)
– BDL1983
Basically, the argument coming from the no planers is “well, it’s possible.” And no one can prove it isn’t possible. It is the same thing that the fakery people do with everything – “can you prove this is impossible?”
Exactly, and they are all full of shit!
Your summary up there on the DS nails it too… I wish John Friend would snap out of this jew disinfo trap. I think he’s a good guy and just needs to acknoledge that he’s been had. Then he can get back to doin’ all the good work he also does
Well I am a no planer and I don’t think I’m too full of shit LOL
I think there could have been some minor media fakery, perhaps some minor video editing, but I think the Simon Shack version is absurd. If they had faked the entire event, there would presumably be some compelling evidence to support a conspiracy of such magnitude and as far as I’m aware there is none.
As for no-planes perhaps I can offer some logic that is a bit more substantial than “well, it’s possible”.
Actually let me clarify that I have seen evidence that suggests that some kind of drone was flown into the first tower. I don’t think anyone in the public sphere knows exactly what it was, but it certainly did not look like a Boeing 757.
Let me refer you to the “Web Fairy”‘s analysis (an excellent 9/11 website by the way).
http://webfairy.org/flyingpig/index.htm
In the second “attack”, I’m not sure if anything at all hit the tower, but there was certainly something visible seen approaching the tower in the shape of a plane, as it was captured on multiple video cameras. It may have been a missile or some kind of “Black” military holographic technology the public is unaware of.
Whatever it was, the reason I don’t think it was a plane is that a real plane hitting the tower would have crumpled into a ball and fallen to the ground. The tail and wings of an aircraft are actually quite delicate and would break off easily on contact with a solid steel object, yet there is no evidence of wings or tail snapping off in the videos.
All we are shown is a bizarre silhouette of the wings on the side of the building in the aftermath of the supposed crash.
This video shows you how delicate the tail of an airplane is. The wings are quite delicate too as I understand it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXVmsm_pmUo
A real plane wouldn’t do this, a light aluminum plane would not penetrate solid steel and concrete! Yet the plane was portrayed as penetrating one side of the building and coming out out the other side! (not to mention finding its way past the central “pillar” of the building which was pretty solid as I understand it)
Further the plane “debris” seems to have had a strange magnetic attraction to construction scaffolding. Quite convenient for hanging a canopy over!
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/index.htm