9/11 Live Airplane Composite Theory

[Kyle Burnett]

I don't think the thesis is that no planes hit the Towers.

From the blog entry you quoted in the opening post:

No airplane crashed into either Twin Tower.

[Ed Jewett]

I don't think the thesis is that no planes hit the Towers.

From the blog entry you quoted in the opening post:

No airplane crashed into either Twin Tower.

Yes, great, but the posting of an entry doesn't mean that I am wedded to every word in it, or even its main thesis. It means "Gee, isn't this interesting? What do you make of this?" Then, on the basis of additional information gathered and presented, presumably we can know what to do with that thesis. In the long term, we can know what to do with that source of information. [This concept of mutual exploration and weighting has already been presented by me:

-- in the post about collaborative online media in the thread about teamwork;
-- here, where I asked (though no one answered) about acquring critical thinking skills (though Dr.Fetzer elsewhere recommended two books I've acquired); and
-- here, in a 57-page white paper which discusses the creation of effective online communities and some of the available tools online.

I even recall proposing a method of evaluating and weighting the validity of media sources and Internet, though I can't find it, and perhaps it did not survive the prior tremors that shook this place.


Maybe we could all collaborate on a gigantic kaleidoscopic Venn diagram.

[Kyle Burnett]

Yes, great, but the posting of an entry doesn't mean that I am wedded to every word in it, or even its main thesis. It means "Gee, isn't this interesting? What do you make of this?"

What part do you find interesting? Best I can tell it's all nonsense, much like the Greer shot Kennedy crap.

[Charles Drago]

Mr. Burnett, please tell us all you know about the "Greer shot Kennedy crap," including your analyses of its origins and impact.

[Ed Jewett]

Kyle, the part that I find interesting about it is simply this: steps would need to be taken, and perhaps were taken, to enable a maskirovka. [I assume you are familiar with the Russian word, or the concept of a Potemkin village, the use of rubber tanks on the shores of the UK to fool the Luftwaffe into thinking there was a massed army venturing to land at Calais, etc.] Why would it be important to mask an airplane people had clearly seen, from street level or nearby buildings, plow into the WTC? Well, at about 550 mph at distances that varied, it might be very difficult to identify precisely what type of aircraft it was. "A large jet", in most cases, "like a commercial jet", would suffice, especially in light of the power of the media to tell the tale, and in light of the skills already in place in making things appear, or appear to be different, in various intelligence agencies. But on TV, with wide screens, high density, replay, and frame-by-frame retro-analysis, there might be certain features we wouldn't want recognizable. Keep in mind no plane parts with trackable ID tags have been made part of the forensic record.

There are theories out there -- I'm sure you've seen them, as an ardent student of 9/11 -- that suggest that the flights in question never took off, never boarded, etc. Some of these have been addressed or posted here or in other threads. But if you will look to a map and find the spot near where a cabal was involved in a military act of pressure, causing the commander-in-chief to wear his spectacles for the first time in front of his troops and avert the matter with a passionate appeal, you may find further clues right nearby. I speak of the winter encampment of the Continental army in Newburgh, NY, right near the spot where the two airplanes that hit the Towers were alleged to have 'almost collided', right near an airport with a very long runway and an interesting history, and located just 60 miles above Manhattan. [Let's see, at 500 mph, 60 miles would take less time than you will reading this post and its links.]

The air facility in question used to be a USAF base
(http://dmna.state.ny.us/forts/fortsQ_S/s...ceBase.htm)
and is now both a National Guard facility
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_Air...Guard_Base)
and a privatized airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_Int...al_Airport).

The near-collision (http://911anomalies.wordpress.com/2007/0...orce-base/) is alleged in some circles to actually have been the switcheroo (which shell is the pea under?).

The mechanism and actors involved in the switched are explained by the controversial investigator Christopher Bollyn here: http://www.bollyn.com/the-planes-of-9-11-2 ....

Is Bollyn right?

Go back and re-check the web site for the International Airport and see who maintained a hangar there. (You may find some wolves, keys and bones in the archives.)

The activity involved in the switcheroo gambit could easily have been masked in part because "Stewart was one of the many regional airports to be used during the Emergency Ground Stop after the September 11th Attacks, taking in dozens of planes forced to land."

[Kyle Burnett]

Mr. Burnett, please tell us all you know about the "Greer shot Kennedy crap," including your analyses of its origins and impact.

As I've no doubt you know more about that subject than I do, I see no point in recounting what I do know of it to you. That said, if you suspect I might not be familiar with any notable details on the matter, I'd be happy to hear those suspensions out as I'm always glad to learn something new.

By the way, please stop addressing me as "Mr.", I abhor such having such formalities applied to me.

[Kyle Burnett]

Kyle, the part that I find interesting about it is simply this: steps would need to be taken, and perhaps were taken, to enable a maskirovka.

My question was in regard to the blog entry which you posted specifically. What, if any of the claimed evidence of video fakery there do you find compelling?

[Charles Drago]

Mr. Burnett, please tell us all you know about the "Greer shot Kennedy crap," including your analyses of its origins and impact.

As I've no doubt you know more about that subject than I do, I see no point in recounting what I do know of it to you. That said, if you suspect I might not be familiar with any notable details on the matter, I'd be happy to hear those suspensions out as I'm always glad to learn something new.

By the way, please stop addressing me as "Mr.", I abhor such having such formalities applied to me.

Sorry, Kyle, but bait-and-switch doesn't work here.

When you compared the Greer-shot-Kennedy fiction to another (unrelated) theory, you implied that you enjoy a familiarity with the former sufficient to justify its use in your comparison.

Your readers have every right to ask you to demonstrate your bona fides. Such is the point -- the valid and as yet unaddressed point -- in asking you to recount in full what you do know about Greer.

And so, sir, I ask you again.

[Kyle Burnett]

The vast majority of what little I know about Greer has nothing to do with my comparison, and anyone who takes a moment to google "Greer shot Kennedy" will find all the information by which I justify the comparison and more on the JFK Lancer page that comes up as the top search result. So, recounting all of that won't demonstrate any notable bona fides, and most of it is completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

[Ed Jewett]

I find the question compelling, Kyle... the question of what happened that day, and why 3,000 deaths (including those of my brethren in the emergency response community) went down without a coherent official inquiry as to who did it.

The post was made to an open discussion board filled with people who are interested in exploring the critical issues of deep political events; I thought perhaps the post held some evidence or inquiry-- even if flawed, it may lead to re-thinking and re-inquiry -- that might be useful in securing some answers to an event I found (and my daughter found) deeply traumatizing.

I apologize if somehow the thesis or the evidence isn't to your liking; as noted, you have the opportunity to knock it down, prove it wrong, or prove another thesis, or generate your own line of inquiry.

I am not in the business of arguing for every post I make, nor do I feel compelled to, nor do I feel compelled by you to do so. Yes, as time goes on, we all learn, and gain some wisdom and insight. I try to do that regularly, mostly by reading. One such book arrived today, about people who have a certain arrogance.

I suspect your answer and mine will lie somewhere between your deep hunger and your deep gladness.

Kyle, the part that I find interesting about it is simply this: steps would need to be taken, and perhaps were taken, to enable a maskirovka.

My question was in regard to the blog entry which you posted specifically. What, if any of the claimed evidence of video fakery there do you find compelling?

Kyle, the part that I find interesting about it is simply this: steps would need to be taken, and perhaps were taken, to enable a maskirovka.

My question was in regard to the blog entry which you posted specifically. What, if any of the claimed evidence of video fakery there do you find compelling?