Strong Evidence Of Fake Planes And A Media Hoax On 9/11

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Alex Hidell wrote:Sorry Boys and Girls there is NO evidence of fake planes hitting WTC.I watched it in real time when it happened and have watched it over and over again to refersh my memory.You're going to have to look real hard under your bed or in your scary, spooky basement to find another boogie-man to be afraid of.No fake planes, no media hoax on 911 WTC.What happened is exactly what everyone reported happened, at the time.Two passenger jets were flown into the WTC's.I cannot say, for sure, who was piloting those jets but I can tell you this- They were real jets doing real damage.There were no fake planes, no media hoax."Move on, nothing to see here" Frank Drebbin- "Naked Gun" The truth is just a gift that keeps on giving, eh? This is what "Alex Hidell" won't talk about. See the pictures below to see what I mean. The videos can easily been seen right here on this topic in earlier posts. For those of you reading this, take a good look at what "Alex Hidell" won't talk about. Then ask yourselves WHY he won't talk about it? If he has a point to make, why doesn't he make his point? Simply saying something doesn't make it the truth. What is "Alex Hidell's" agenda? For example, there's not only a problem with the supposed path of the airplane, but the backdrops are different. In one, the supposed plane is small and coming from above. In the other the plane is large and there's no background behind the buildings. I posted this information earlier in this topic where you can clearly see videos of the supposed second tower hit. For the rest of you, take a look, and ask yourselves why "Alex Hidell" won't discuss any of those issues?

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Here's an excellent website to go to for more information on the media hoax on 9/11.http://www.septemberclues.info/

[kenmurray]

Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:Here's an excellent website to go to for more information on the media hoax on 9/11.http://www.septemberclues.info/Excellent indeed Pasquale!

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

kenmurray wrote:Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:Here's an excellent website to go to for more information on the media hoax on 9/11.http://www.septemberclues.info/Excellent indeed Pasquale! Thank you, Ken.If you think this is good, take a look at the documentary I just posted on the other topic "Israeli Involvement in 9/11..."It's called The Khazarian Conspiracy. The link is from 911scholars.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Here's an example of image fakery that is very blantant. Look at how easy it is for them to just remove someone from an image and put in fake imaging to make up the difference. It seems that when that Navy Seal raid went on, a Jewish newspaper posted a picture where Hilary Clinton and another woman were removed from the picture. I attached both pictures to show you all in case you don't want to read the whole story. From the article, the "Ultra-Orthodox Hasidic broadsheet Der Tzitung, published in Brooklyn. The paper photoshopped Clinton, as well at the only other woman who could be seen in the room--Audrey Tomason, the national director of counterterrorism--out of the frame."The term "photoshopped" is misleading. What they appear to have done is they removed both women and then filled in the missing places in the photo with obviously fake imaging. For example, the man sitting behind Clinton has about half of his shirt obscured by Clinton. Notice that his shirt is completely visible after they removed her from the picture. This is media fakery, don't you think? http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutlin ... ouse-photo

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

It seems that there is more and more image and video faking going on.A neighbor identified the man in the Pentagon Bin Laden video as his neighbor. Another man said there has been faking of images going on using computer graphics. Interesting, eh? http://youtu.be/FWL68EZhJtY

[kenmurray]

Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:It seems that there is more and more image and video faking going on.A neighbor identified the man in the Pentagon Bin Laden video as his neighbor. Another man said there has been faking of images going on using computer graphics. Interesting, eh? http://youtu.be/FWL68EZhJtYPasquale, this neighbor is a poor substitute for Bin Laden.

[Mike Ellwood]

Sorry, not talking about fake planes, but in this posting:http://forum.jfkmurdersolved.com/viewto ... p6222dated Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:25 am Wim said fairly forcibly the thesis that the Twin Towers were taken down by controlled demolition had been disproven.(See below for complete posting)I was not aware that it had either been proven or disproven, but was still open to debate. Can anyone give me a link to anywhere where it is disproven? (Please note: I am not talking about Building 7). Thank you.I didn't say that 9/11 and the JFK coup are not related, or bear no similarities. That doesn't mean the JFK forum should become a 9/11 forum, especially not when credence is given to long disproven theses like a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, like the Twin Towers were taken down by controlled demolition, (building 7 was, not the towers), like mysterious military planes hit the Twin Towers and the commercial flights were made to dissapear .... etc, etc. Yes, it can be quite irritating to counter such diehard myths time and again, the more so if they have nothing to do with JFK, and take away from the core issue that 9/11 was NOT a surprise attack.

[Deborah]

[quote="Mike Ellwood"]Sorry, not talking about fake planes, but in this posting:http://forum.jfkmurdersolved.com/viewto ... p6222dated Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:25 am Wim said fairly forcibly the thesis that the Twin Towers were taken down by controlled demolition had been disproven.(See below for complete posting)I was not aware that it had either been proven or disproven, but was still open to debate. Can anyone give me a link to anywhere where it is disproven? (Please note: I am not talking about Building 7). Thank you.Dear ForumEngineers the world over describe the implosion of the Twin Towers and Building 7 as controlled demolitions. Any discussion of 9/11 is to my mind, incomplete without having viewed the information put forth by Dimitri Khalezov. Watch Series 1-26 youtube videos of the four hour interview with Dimitri Khalezov. Thermonuclear Demolition including Building 7, vis a vis underground thermonuclear demolition plan required to be in place under Twin Towers and Building 7 before they were allowed to be built according to former Russia nuclear intelligence officer Dimitri Khalnezov. (Sears Tower presumeably has same thermonuclear demolition plan in place). First video in the series is herehttp://youtu.be/eAV_BUQoGBw

[Mike Ellwood]

Thanks for the link Deborah; intriguing.See also this one (first clip of 4):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VKhdZTeaZsI must say I watched the 1st 3 or 4 clips from Deborah's link, in pretty much complete disbelief of Dimitri Khalezov (his thick, hard-to-understand accent didn't help). However, by the end of the 26 clips, I was convinced at least that his theory was plausible, i.e. that it could have been the result of pre-planned nuclear devices in the bases of the 3 buildings (1, 2 and 7), and that the US government might, just might, have decided to "press the red button" because they honestly believed there were much bigger nukes (500 kilotonne) up high in the 2 towers, delivered by the Granite missiles (the first of which had earlier destroyed part of the Pentagon, although without triggering its nuke), in order to prevent a much worse tragedy - the possible destruction of most of New York City and several million people.At this stage, it would be almost impossible to prove that the pre-planned (150 kilotonne) nukes had ever been there (unless some official US government documents were leaked or released).However, what should be trivial to prove or disprove, is whether the city of New York ever insisted on a demolition programme to be planned before allowing such skyscrapers to be built. This would surely not have been a secret. (They would not have insisted on a nuclear demolition programme of course, but presumably that is what the engineers of the time came up with, and in the climate of the time (according to Khalezov) this was deemed acceptable (although not trumpeted from the rooftop of course).So what we have is the WTC being totally destroyed, not by terrorists, not by renegade CIA operatives, not by the US government, but by a piece of city planning legislation! (well, indirectly, of course). hmmm......There is also the issue of Sears Tower in Chicago. If he is correct, there is presumably still a 150 kt nuke under that as well, unless it was hurriedly removed after 9/11.Anyway, up to a point, I find he has made at least a plausible case.When I listened to the 4 other pieces, the first of which I have posted a link to (a radio interview), it starts to get more tricky. This is where he names one Mike Harari, as having been responsible for the actual missile attack. It seems that Mike Harari had befriended him (when they were both living in Thailand) specifically in order to find out whether the Soviets had known about the pre-planned Emergency Nuclear Demolition facility underneath the WTC (which they did, according to Khalezov). Mike Harari is supposed to have more or less warned Khalezov that something big was going to happen which probably would affect the value of the US dollar (so he was told to change all his dollars beforehand), and then after 9/11, MH is supposed to have celebrated, and also told DK that he was responsible.And who was he doing it on behalf of? I will list them, like in the old beauty contests, in reverse order:3. The French (motive, unclear)2. The Israelis (I can see that some Israelis might have had a motive, but they would have been mad to do it)1. Wait for it....The Freemasons....(MH is supposed to be a Freemason....he was also in his 70s at the time of 9/11).At that point, Dimitri Khalezov's credibility began to go down somewhat in my view.Despite that, I still think that the idea of relatively small (150 kt) nuclear explosions having been responsible for the sudden collapse of the 3 towers does seem to best explain what we saw.Who exactly did it and exactly why is still an open question in my mind, as is the actual perpetrators of the initial attacks, whether they were with aeroplanes or missiles.BTW, does anyone know the name of the person in the TV interview with Khalezov (Deborah's link)? He sounds English, but his face is not familiar to me; he is not a well-known TV personality here, at least not one that I know.