Explaining Conspiracy Theory to the Proverbial Man from Mars

     When we’re asked to explain something to a person who has no concept of the thing being explained, we’re sometimes told, “Suppose somebody dropped in from Mars. How would you explain it to him?”

     I recently found myself facing a more daunting challenge. What if the man from Mars came from a culture with a long history of never questioning authority figures? How would you explain conspiracy theory to him? After all, conspiracy theory is based on the idea that authority figures sometimes lie, and that we should question them.

     Just how I accomplished this task may be useful to many of y’all. This article is a brief description of how I handled these challenges.

     I began by saying that I would ask them a question about what they saw. I showed them the following video clip and asked them if the building had fallen by accident or if professionals had brought it down. All of them correctly said that the building had come down as the result of an accident. I then asked them the reasons for their answers.

      I showed them the next video clip and asked the same questions.  To keep them from seeing the words "controlled demolition," I had to advance the video to the 2:13 mark.  All the students correctly said that professionals had brought the building down, and they said why they believed this.

     I then explained to them what the term controlled demolition meant, but I didn’t tell them what they should expect to see when a controlled demolition takes place. Then I showed them the next video clip and asked them the same questions I had asked them before.

     All of them said that it was a case of controlled demolition and said why they believed it. I then told them that the building in question was World Trade Center Building 7, and that the U.S. government had said that it wasn’t a controlled demolition. We further discussed it.

    Then I showed them the following video clip and asked them two questions about it.

     The first question was, “In which direction did President Kennedy’s body fall, forward or backward?” I had to explain to some of them what the words forward and backward meant. They all said that his body had fallen backward. The second question was, “From which direction did the bullet come, a or b (indicating back or front)?” They all said that the bullet had come from the front. I then told them that the U.S. government had said otherwise, and we discussed it.

     Only then did I introduce the matter of conspiracy theory.

     First, I gave the legal definition of conspiracy: “Two or more people involved in a plan to do something that’s against the law.”

     Do government officials conspire? I showed them a slide depicting the covers of two books: Sun Tzu’s The Art of War (which was familiar to all of them), and Machiavelli’s The Prince. The latter, I said, is as important to politics as the former is to military science. According to Machiavelli, “Politics, by its very nature, is conspiratorial,” and, “There have been many conspiracies.”

     Then I hit them with a dilemma: Newspaper reporters are authority figures you’re conditioned to trust. Government officials are also authority figures you’re conditioned to trust. What happens when newspaper reporters and government officials say the opposite of one another? They can’t both be right.

 I showed them two pictures; one was a pair of newspaper reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein; the other was of Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman, who had played Woodward and Bernstein in the movie about these events. (Yes, I appealed to their trust in movies, which are another authority figure.) Step by step, I led them through the story. Woodward and Bernstein were, by definition, conspiracy theorists.

 I showed them the men who were arrested and mentioned that one of them had a White House telephone number on his person. They were arrested for burglary, attempted wiretapping, and—what was the other? Oh, yes—conspiracy. At a click of a mouse, the word guilty flew onto the screen and, one by one, stamped itself on the suspects’ faces.

     The next slide showed seven men who worked directly for President Nixon. Four were charged with conspiracy, some with obstruction of justice, some with both crimes. I had to explain the legal terms. Again, the word guilty stamped on the faces of six of the seven. The seventh, Charles Colson, received the Latin words nolo contendre, meaning “uncontested.” Colson, too, went to prison for conspiracy.

     Next, it was former Attorney General John Mitchell’s turn: “perjury, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy: GUILTY.”

     Then came the President of the United States Richard Nixon with eleven articles of impeachment, several of which involved conspiracy: “Resigned to avoid impeachment,” and “Pardoned by President Ford.”

     Considering that their own former president is languishing in a local prison, all this information struck a familiar chord.

     I then had them try a little experiment. I showed them a picture of Renaissance painting of a really ugly woman and said, “She’s a really ugly woman!”

     I instructed them to reply, “Oh, that’s just a conspiracy theory!” Then we’d see if calling my remark a conspiracy theory automatically made it untrue. At those words, I clicked the mouse, and the ugly woman faded into a picture of Cameron Diaz. We tried it again with another picture, and the ugly woman faded into a picture of one of their teachers, who is somewhat pretty.

     I said, “Hmm. Let’s try something different.” I showed them a picture of the beautiful actress Gabriella Anwar and said, “She’s a really beautiful woman!” When the students responded as instructed, the picture faded into a picture of one of the students present. “Is she really, really ugly?” I asked them. They didn’t comment, but I’m sure that they agreed that she was pretty.

     Having nailed this one down, we turned to a seemingly unrelated topic: causes and cures for cancer. You can imagine where that discussion led.

Why Would Reporters Lie about 9/11 if the Truth is Worth a Pulitzer Prize?

     A 9/11 fact denier named Jonathan Kay recently came up with an age-old counter-conspiracy theory for denying the facts of 9/11: When the facts are against you, keep your opponent’s attention fixed on theories. Here’s how it works:

     Instead of addressing the facts your opponent has presented, insist that he come up with a theory for you to debate. If your opponent fails to come up with a theory and prove it to your satisfaction—of course you should continue to profess yourself unsatisfied—then use that failure to “prove” that his facts are incorrect. Once you’ve found real or imagined weaknesses in your opponent’s theory, you then claim that the weaknesses in his theory, by default, prove your own theory. By that time, innocent bystanders have completely forgotten that all the facts are against you.

     Specifically, Mr. Kay has written something like the following: If the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and an abandoned mineshaft in rural Pennsylvania were an inside job, our thoroughly professional and honest corporate media would be clambering for the chance to win a Pulitzer Prize by telling us the truth. That no one in the corporate media has done so, in Kay’s mind, proves that the corporate-owned media’s conspiracy theory is correct.

     Below, I present a simple diagram of how to prove an assertion or find the answer to a question. Then you use reason or agreed-upon premises to determine how or whether those facts support the belief or theory, or answer the question. If they don’t completely answer the question, this is a limitation. You adjust your theory accordingly.

     Nowhere in that graph do you see that you can prove a theory by disproving someone else’s theory. To prove your theory, you must use facts and reason.

This doesn’t mean, though, that Mr. Kay wouldn’t have a point if everything he said were true. In fact, he’s wrong on two points:

1. He’s assuming that no reporters for the corporate-owned media observed any anomalies.

2. He’s also assuming that reporters for the corporate-owned media are answerable to no power other than their individual convictions.

     Here’s where the rubber meets the road. There have been numerous instances when corporate-owned reporters expressed doubts, only to backpeddle after learning that their questions were verboten by their corporate bosses.

     Let’s take the alleged crash into the Pentagon. CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre was on the scene. McIntyre was visibly mystified. He claimed that he had inspected the grounds and even the hole and had found no indication that a plane had crashed “anywhere near the Pentagon.” (video)

     In a later broadcast, McIntyre claimed that his inspection had yielded the opposite results. He said he had seen “the wreckage,” and he scoffed at “conspiracy theorists” who questioned whether a plane had crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. He also made excuses for the federal government’s confiscation of the 84 security tapes around the Pentagon. He claimed that the tapes were withheld from the public only because they were evidence in the trial of alleged “20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui. McIntyre expressed confidence that the tapes would be released in their “full and unedited form” once the trial was over. (video) The trial ended five years ago, and we’re still waiting.

     Another reporter quoted an eyewitness as saying that he’d seen a “US Air 737” at the Pentagon. The instant the words left the reporter’s lips, his microphone was cut off.

Reporter's mic cut off after saying a "US Air 737" at Pentagon on 9/11.  (video)

     Mike Walter, a reporter for USA Today (another corporate-owned media source) went on camera for CNN and claimed to have seen a commercial airliner crash into the Pentagon. When an independent investigator checked his story and proved that he could not have seen anything from his alleged vantage point, he went on camera for a second time. That time, he was obviously embarrassed to stand before the camera telling a story that no one in his right mind could believe.

     Chew on that one for a moment. Here we have someone doing the exact opposite of what Jonathan Kay says that every reporter would be eager to do. Far from running down a story that might get him a Pulitzer Prize he actually stood there making a fool and a liar of himself in front of millions of people by spinning a yarn that’s more risible than the claim that cookies are baked by elves in hollow trees.  

(First video, confidently lying)

(Later video, uncomfortably lying)

     What about the commercial airliner that allegedly crashed straight down into a ten-foot by twenty-foot abandoned mine shaft in rural Pennsylvania?  The mayor of Shanksville inspected the site and, on local television, announced that there was no airplane there. (video)

    A reporter for Channel 5 News, and another reporter for Fox News (sic) were on the scene. The first reporter said that it’s shocking “how little debris” could be found at the site of the supposed crash—nothing larger than a phone book. The Fox News (sic) reporter said, “[B]asically, there’s nothing there—just a hole in the ground.”  (video)

9 11 Flight 93 crash site no plane

     For comments on the collapse of WTC buildings 1 and 2, we go to the legendary Dan Rather himself. CBS talking head Dan Rather, I hasten to add, was the heir to Walter Cronkite, acclaimed as “the most trusted man in America.”

     Dan Rather said that the collapse of the World Trade Center—including, apparently, WTC building 7—looked like “controlled demolitions.” (video)

     For hours, Dan Rather harped (no, that’s not a play on words) on the probability that an attack of that “sophistication” strongly suggested “the involvement of a state.” He said it at least three times. (video) (video) I haven’t been able to locate the third video, in which a high-level source squelched further talk of that possibility, though I did see the video a few months ago.

     Oh, let’s not forget the report on WTC7, although the 9/11 Commission Report never mentioned it. In case you’ve been living in Plato’s cave for the past ten years, WTC7 was a 47-story building reinforced with over 40 tons of steel specifically designed to withstand collapse. No plane hit WTC7, and the only damage done to it was when a piece of one of the WTC towers broke off 12 feet of parapet.  In spite of all these facts, WTC7 collapsed an nearly free-fall speed.

     BBC had all the proof they needed that 9/11 was an inside job. Instead of spilling the beans in hopes of posthumously receiving a Pulitzer Prize, they had a reporter announce that WTC7 (a.k.a. the Salomon Brothers building) had already collapsed. The problem was, they made this announcement twenty minutes before the collapse occurred. The entire time the reporter talked about the collapse already having occurred, viewers could see WTC7 standing proudly in the background. Five minutes before WTC7 really did collapse, the BBC conveniently lost contact with the reporter. Otherwise, viewers would see the event take place twenty minutes after it had been reported.  (video)

     It isn’t necessary for me to come up with a theory as to why world-famous journalists would choose to tell transparent lies than receive a Pulitzer Prize. The facts speak for themselves.

     I would like to ask a question, though: Would they really receive a Pulitzer Prize; or would they, like dozens of truthful eyewitnesses, receive a tombstone? (video) 

     Or would they prefer to follow the example of Dan Rather in November 1963? When President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, Dan Rather was just another reporter on the scene in Dallas. Apparently not realizing that the Zapruder film of the assassination would be made public, Rather appeared on television and claimed to have seen on the film that the fatal shot caused JFK’s head to jerk forward. This lie supported the "official" story that Kennedy had been shot from behind. We all now know that Kennedy fell back and to the left, indicating that the fatal bullet had been fired from the grassy knoll. (video)

     Was Dan Rather disgraced as a result of this lie? No, far from it. He went on to New York and rose to the top of his profession. He won seven Peabody awards, several Emmys, and a slew of honorary awards. For a false witness, a successful career like that beats a tombstone any day.

     I had intended for the previous paragraph to be the final paragraph of this article.  Then I ran across the video clip Psychologists Help 9/11 Truth Deniers Accept the Facts.  At first, I thought it was a spoof, but it's not.  It's the real deal, and it's important for people who want to understand the paradigm that causes people to resist the evidence that our government (and, as many of us believe, the Israelis) was involved.

     Please watch it.
For more articles on the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Tha Phantom Victims of 911, Part 2

     In the first part of this series, I presented an edited version of an interview with Phil Jayhan and Larry Williams.  On those audio clips, Jayhan and Williams point out that there were an inordinate number of millionaires, billionaires, and other politically well-connected individuals on the that allegedly were hijacked on September 11, 2001.   I pointed out that they made errors in logic in that they assumed that, if the deaths on the airliners were faked, the deaths at the Pentagon and the World Trade Center must also have been faked.  

     From what I've read of the Let's Roll Forums since then, there's reason to suspect that Let's Roll Forums is part of an MSM disinformation campaign.   Whether the suspicion is correct, however, doesn't disqualify information that they present.  Most of what disinformation agents present is true because an abundance of true statements tends to give credibility to the lies they tell.  Even Hitler was quoted as saying, "Tell the truth as often as you can; so that, when you lie, you're more likely to be believed."

     Regardless of whether Let's Roll Forums is a disinfo site or a sincere effort to uncover the truth, it's the reader who bears responsibility for assigning credibility.  When I presented the first part of this series, I admitted that I hadn't investigated their claims but saw their claims as important enough to pass along to you for your consideration.

     Today, I'm presenting the rest of the clips I developed from their four-hour-long, two interviews.  In the first of these, they suggest that flight attendants Carolyn Mayer Beug and Barbara Arestegui did not exist. 

      In the next clip, they point to several anomalies concerning Mark Bingham and Todd Beamer, supposedly on Flight 93.  You're probably familiar with several.  Jayhan and Williams point to yet another: the peculiar behavior of Bingham's "mother" on Good Morning, America.  They way they put it, she smiled all the way through the interview, "looking more like a nervous actress than a grieving mother."  Here's a link so you can judge for yourself. (link)

     Jayhan and Williams also point to facial similarities among many of the supposed 911 victims.  In the absence of other evidence, physical similarities prove nothing, but they do tend to support other evidence.  I checked the photos in a lot of sources other than Let's Roll Forums and found the similarities fascinating.

     The following audio clip is particularly compelling.  Gwendolyn Briley Strand, who claimed in a "documentary" called The Falling Man that her brother was killed at the World Trade Center, was in fact a paid actress.   I checked her web site and verified Jayhan's claims concerning her.
     It's surprising just how many people in the acting profession, and how many false witnesses (such as the "Harley Guy") have been wheeled out to support the official conspiracy theory concerning 911.

     Finally, there's the "911 Memorial Wall," as it is called.  That's the curious event of more than a thousand people spontaneously attaching "lost dog" style, have-you-seen-my-relative posters, contrary to common sense.  Oddly enough, most of them used the same kind of tape.
     From this observation, Jayhan and Williams take the position that very few people actually died at the World Trade Center that day.  That's where I definitely part company with their conclusions.  
     They present compelling evidence that fewer people died than was stated.  It doesn't naturally follow that no more than a few dozen people (my take on their remarks) died.  Judging from what evidence had to be presented for 1,600 of the death certificates issued that day, I'm convinced that at least that many people died in the attacks, mostly at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

     That's the last of the audio clips I've edited from four hours of interviews, but it's not likely to be the last of my remarks concerning the phantom victims of 911.  

     As far as justice is concerned, we blew it on the Kennedy Assassination.  Over the last 47 years, it has faded from a criminal case to a historical curiosity.  In those days, though, there was no Internet, and communication was slower.  

     Let's Roll Forums tends to steer clear of certain lines of inquiry that may be productive.  We shouldn't.  As long as the Internet remains free, and the citizens remain active and interested, we have the prospect of bringing the 911 criminals to justice.
Back to "The Phantom Victims of 9/11: Part 1"

 Other September 11, 2001, articles in this blog   
    

The Phantom Victims of 911

     In a previous article ("What Happened to Flight 77's Passengers?"), I presented compelling evidence that one of Flight 77's alleged passengers was still alive and had assumed a new identity.  In yet another article ("The Lion, the Witch, and the World Trade Center"), I proved beyond any reasonable doubt that some, and possibly all, of the videos of planes hitting the World Trade Center were computer-generated fakes.

     If no planes hit the World Trade Center or the Pentagon, then there were no passengers to be killed at the World Trade Center or the Pentagon.  What happened to the passengers?

     In an attempt to answer that question, at least in part, I've spent the past few weeks editing four hours of audio clips down to less than one hour.  I found them on a web site called Let's Roll Forums.  Jim Fetzer the host of a radio  program called The Real Deal interviews Phil Jayhan and Larry Williams, researchers for Let's Roll Forums.  

     In the following clip, they offer curious facts concerning alleged Flight 11 passenger (and billionaire donor to political causes) Sonia Morales Puopolo.   They repeat themselves in parts of the clips because my edited versions of the clips came from two interviews held a week apart.

     The researchers interviewed here take the position that some of the "victims" never existed, some faked their deaths and assumed new identities, some (Daniel Lewin comes to mind) were spies who were being reassigned, some had already died, and other fit other profiles.

     I believe that the researchers overstate their position by suggesting that very few people actually died in the faked 911 "attacks."  My take on their research is that at least 1,600 (out of the official count of almost 3,000) were killed that day, mostly at the World Trade Center towers and Building 7.  Jayhan and Williams seem to suggest that the actual victims number in the dozens at most.

     Regardless of the count, we agree that there were probably very many fake victims among the real ones.

     Don't accept or reject their ideas as complete packages.  Jayhan and Williams are researchers who have found something important and admit that they are still searching for answers, the same as many of the rest of us.  As likely as not, they are partly right, though they're likely mistaken in some areas. 

     Over the next few days, I intend to upload all of my edited versions of the interviews.  I encourage you to check out some of the articles on Let's Roll Forums.  If you do, do so with awareness that Let's Roll Forums is a collection of researchers who are bouncing facts and ideas around, sifting through them as well as they can, and who often disagree with one another.  They don't pretend to have definitive answers.  

     The search for truth and justice continues.  In the search for truth, skepticism is one of your most effective allies. 
Forward to "The Phantom Victims of 9/11: Part 2"

 Other September 11, 2001, articles in this blog   

     

How Disinformation Specialists Hijack Freedom Movements

     You may have had this experience: You receive a feel-good email message that expresses something you’ve been feeling for years. Sure, there are one or two points that don’t quite fit your beliefs, but a few points in a two- or three-page article may be overlooked. It’s the overall, feel-good message that counts. You forward it to others on your email list and forget all about it.

     But wait. What if you re-read the message before passing it on, only this time in a more critical frame of mind? On the second reading, you may realize that, in two or three pages, none of the feel-good passages say anything new. The only new material is in the one or two points that you found disagreeable.

     Welcome to the world of idea placement advertising. It’s kind of like product placement advertising, except that ideas rather than products are being peddled.

     Our minds have a guard at the gate. Each time a message comes to the gate, the guard decides whether the message is true. If it’s considered true, the message is allowed into the short-term memory and, with good behavior, it will be allowed into the long-term memory. At that point, it’ll be hard to erase.

     Try this experiment: Find someone whose name isn’t George and start calling him George. No matter how many times you call him George, the guard at his mental gate will reject the suggestion that that his name is really George.

     The guards at gates, however, can be fooled in a variety of ways. If the guard can be fooled into thinking that it’s not really a message—that it’s really entertainment—the message goes straight to the long-term memory where it becomes one of that person’s core beliefs.

     Remember also the Russian proverb, “The best place to conceal a knife is in plain sight, with a spoon and fork.” That’s one of the ways that the corporate media and other disinformation specialists slip their messages past our brains’ guards at the gate.

     To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Allow me one example: I recently read a feel-good article supposedly written to promote a sense of national unity among Americans but containing a hidden message to support the agenda of the global elite.

     In a recent article, neoconservative propagandist Michelle Malkin wrote an article called “We, the unhyphenated Americans: Meet my people.” Right away, the title of the article makes us feel good.

     From my own perspective, it was pleasing to know that the author is a native Filipina. I lived in the Philippines for four months and formed a fondness and admiration for Filipinos that has endured for 40 years. Many Filipinos attend my church. Thus, for me, Michelle Malkin’s heritage enhances the impressiveness of her article’s title.

     After the first few paragraphs, though, I got suspicious and did a quick Internet search of her professional credentials. Here are some comments I later made concerning what I had found in the article and the Internet search:

     “Michelle Malkin, the author of the...article falls into the same trap (or more likely sets the trap) as the people she derides. In the article, she pretends to be inclusive of all Americans, but "her people," as she calls them, are exclusively Republicans. Don't forget that the Dubya Bush administration and their co-conspirators gave us 9/11, the USA PATRIOT Act, TSA groping and high-tech voyeurism, the Department of Homeland Security, torture, the end of habeas corpus, the end of posse comitatus; and endless wars against literally millions of innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere.

     “Are those criminals "her people"? Apparently so, since she posits everyone who opposes these wars, abuses, and usurpations are people who have no argument beyond accusations of Islamophobia.

     “It's supposed to be an urban legend that people slip razor blades into Halloween candy, but Ms Malkin has given it a new twist and made it a fact. She's slipping poison into a highly agreeable concept.

     “That should not be surprising when you look at her career.

     “She worked in Washington, DC, as a journalism fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Never heard of it? They're funded by the Ford Motor Company Fund, CFR co-founder Exxon Mobile, CFR premium member Pfizer, and the Earhart Foundation. The Earhart Foundation is noted for funding such neocon schemes as the American Enterprise Institute which, in turn, gave us the Project for the New American Century, which favored "a new Pearl Harbor" several months before 9/11.

     “She hasn't forgotten who has been feeding her all these years. During her career of barking for her supper, she has barked at the tables of MSNBC, the Boston Globe, and Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel.

     “In 2004, when Vietnam War hero John Kerry was running for President against a selfish coward who had pulled strings and even broken a lawful contract to avoid the draft, Michelle Malkin derided Kerry for not being as big a war hero as Kerry had claimed. Through clever wording, she said that Kerry's "wounds were self inflicted." When asked by Chris Matthews whether Malkin's comment implied that Kerry had wounded himself to get a Purple Heart, she ducked the question but allowed the suggestion to stand.

     “Michelle Malkin is clearly a RINO neocon operative whose money trail leads back to the Rockefellers, Goldman Sachs, the disaster capitalists, and other threats to peace and freedom. Be very careful when--or if--you read one of her feel-good articles. Her candy is likely to be laced with arsenic or razor blades.”

     Michelle Malkin is only one of many Trojan horses in the freedom movement. I singled her out only because it was her article that was forwarded to me—not by a disinformation specialist or a paid Internet troll but by an innocent dupe. 

     Remember that the devil comes to us as an angel of light.  Pray for wisdom and freedom from manipulation; and read with care.

The Lion, the Witch, and the World Trade Center

     In the British movie The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, children are shown stepping into a wardrobe and magically finding themselves in a wondrous land called Narnia.

     In series of British movies, Harry Potter and his friends are shown walking through the wall of a train station, harming neither themselves nor the wall. Of course it was done through the magic of computer technology. They then find themselves at Hogwarts, a school for aspiring witches and wizards.

     What about Boeing 757's? Do you think that airplanes in real life can pass through walls that easily? I'll address that question later in this article.

     The most tenacious theory of events occurring on September 11, 2001, is the planes theory: the theory that commercial airliners struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This theory comes in two species. The first is the theory that novice pilots were flying some of the most sophisticated aircraft on Earth and flawlessly executed some highly difficult maneuvers. The second version is that the planes were navigated by remote control.

     A flaw in the second theory was revealed when three professional commercial airline pilots, using computer simulation, attempted to duplicate the official version of the strikes on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Only one in three was able to duplicate an attack on the World Trade Center. None of them were able to duplicate the attack on the Pentagon because it's impossible for a commercial airliner to fly 20 feet above the ground for over a mile at 530 miles per hour.

     What about the "ball" theory? At the moment that the second tower was struck, a news camera, shooting from a helicopter, on live television, showed what looked like a ball moving toward the South Tower. It was moving at a steep angle, and at a speed too slow to be a commercial airliner.

     No, I'm not going to tell you what the ball was. That's beyond my expertise.  Richard Hall, a former aerospace engineer with remarkable computer skills, has thoroughly examined the question and provided his answers. I, on the other hand, will for now stick to eliminating the impossible.

     My "eureka" moment came at the 3:26 mark of the second part of his video, "9/11 - Fake Plane 3D Analysis Proof of an inside job - Pt 2."  That's when I noticed something that Hall didn't seem to have noticed. In fact, I'm not aware that anyone has ever mentioned it.

     At that point, the video shows, in slow motion, the alleged footage of a commercial airliner passing into WTC 2. In this slow motion video, you can see that no glass shatters; no concrete pulverizes, and there are is no explosion. Even more surprising, both wings disappear into the building—supposedly crashing into steel-reinforced concrete at 590 miles per hour—without even slightly buckling. Take a look here.

     After all these years of wondering what happened to the planes—and being told by the 911 Commission that burning jet fuel (kerosene) had vaporized them—I can offer you a more reasonable conclusion: They safely landed at Hogwarts or in Narnia.

     Flight 77, which flew over—not into—the Pentagon, was not seen fading into a building. An unexpected and unrecorded tornado must have snatched it away to the land of Oz, where it suddenly landed on Nancy Pelosi's sister.

     But let's get back to the World Trade Center videos.

     At the 4:24 mark part 1 of the video ("9/11 - Fake Plane 3D Analysis Proof of an inside job - Pt 1,") Hall shows a side-by-side comparison of a live shot of the "ball" hitting WTC2 and an almost identical shot from the NBC Evening News. I say "almost" because, in the NBC footage, both the ball and the background are matted out; and the image of a commercial airliner is inserted.  (Link)

     There can be no mistake that the second video clip is a doctored version of the first.

     What about all the witnesses who claim they saw a plane crash into WTC 2?   Only 20% of the witnesses say they saw or heard a plane. Only 5% say they saw and heard a plane. In Les Miserables, Victor Hugo wrote that, if a crowd of people is told that such-and-such happened, you can always count on someone claiming that he saw it.

     Just to make sure that witnesses would claim they saw it, a D-list actor was hired for the job. He remembered his lines in spite of the unrealistic dialogue that was designed to promote the "official" version of events. (Link)

     Okay, so I've presented proof that two of the videos are fakes and that one of the witnesses is a fake. What about the others?  If the other videos and the other witnesses were legitimate, then there was no need to generate fakes—but they did generate fake videos and false witnesses. Since the powers that be saw a need to generate fake videos and false witnesses, then we must reject the theory that commercial airliners crashed into the World Trade Center.

In other articles, I presented abundant evidence against the theory that a commercial airliner had hit the Pentagon.

http://americanactionreport.blogspot.com/2010/09/official-story-of-911-fairy-tale.html

http://americanactionreport.blogspot.com/2010/12/world-records-that-guinness-never.html

http://americanactionreport.blogspot.com/2010/11/how-easily-fooled-are-you.html

and

http://americanactionreport.blogspot.com/2010/07/what-happened-to-flight-77s-passengers.html

     In one of these articles, I asked, "What happened to Flight 77's Passengers?"  If no planes hit the World Trade Center, we should ask, "What happened to the passengers of Flights 11, 175, and 77?"

     Reports vary as to how many crew members and passengers were on each of the four planes. If we take the highest number, there were 266 total. That's 233 passengers, 25 flight attendants, and 8 pilots. (Link) 

     The seating capacity (not counting seats available for crew members) for Flight 93, the only one of the planes for which substantial wreckage was found, was 182. Wikipedia gave a higher figure: 289, which I doubt. In either case, I believe that 266 prisoners and Judas goats could have been transported by that one plane.

     In a previous article ("World Records that Guinness never Mentioned") I gave evidence that Flight 93 didn’t crash; it was shot down by a missile.

     Yes, I'm getting into the theory that the planes were switched. Actually, I don't have to go that far.  My theory is that the passengers were switched.

     I'm not going to make the mistake of trying to theorize just how the switch was made. If I did, the theory would become the issue. Any flaw in the theory would give the conspiracy deniers an excuse to draw attention away from the facts.

     Other researchers have offered copious facts supporting their theories, but they were still theories. No, instead of dwelling on theory, I'll simply state the facts.

     On March 13, 1962, the CIA presented then-President Kennedy with a proposal called Operation Northwoods. Operation Northwoods was a planned false flag operation designed to blame Cuba for terrorist acts against the United States, thus providing an excuse for an American invasion of Cuba.

     There are two points to consider here. The first is that the CIA had proposed false flags similar to 911 and for the same purpose as 911: to start a war to advance government policy.

     The second point is that Operation Northwoods envisioned the switching of planes to carry out some of the terrorist acts. It isn't necessary to prove that the CIA really could switch planes on 911; it's necessary only to show that the CIA seriously believed that they could switch planes and that they had the will to do so. (Link) 

     It's not likely that all the passengers were shot out of the sky. In a time of panic and confusion, some passengers would have been needed as Judas goats to herd the innocent passengers onto Flight 93.

     I've already provided compelling evidence that at least one September 11 passenger is still alive and living under another name. ("What Happened to Flight 77's Passengers?") If my theory is correct, there are likely others. Many researchers have noted that all four flights carried an unusual number of government and military insiders. Some of them may have been the Judas goats, and they may be alive somewhere.  Other researchers are already at work on this issue.