email: alan_folsom@yahoo.com
Ridicule is the sincerest form of disgust. __Alfred E. Neuman
Wynonna Judd
FAVORITE LINKS
QUESTION AUTHORITY
Funny, you don't look Jewish.
Obama debates Obama
By James Sloan from The Real News Online
Whilst the idea of no planes at the World Trade Center was floated as early as 2001 by Nico Haupt and others, the hypothesis wasn't taken "seriously" until around late 2004, 2005 and early 2006. Right around a year before September Clues was released. Of course, there had been many challenges to the very official idea that passenger jets collided with the World Trade Centre, usually taking the form of Plane Switch theories, Pods and Flashes, the idea the planes were real but Modified fuel tankers and suchlike. With hindsight, it is very easy to lump all these theories together, but out of respect, they were due diligently researched at the time by many dedicated researchers, and infact almost all had their own followers, they weren't all postulated by the same groups of researchers. The Pod theory came from Lets Roll Forums for example, and was in regards to the second impact. In Plane Site, released in 2004, borrowed heavily from LRF research, however went one step further and suggested Flight 11 also had a Pod, but this was debated at LRF. Many sub sets believed things ranging from a Missile hitting the North Tower, a modified DC 10, and other ideas. It must be born in mind it was much easier to suggest that a plane didn't hit the North Tower at the time, because as only one clear video of that event existed, and the plane was hardly very clear in the shot, the postulators were hardly suggesting media fakery was involved, so long as of course they suggested a missile impact or some other technology. Something physical of course. This has always been the LRF angle. Something physical as oppose to video manipulation. Of course, much good research had been done there and in other places about the idea the Naudet film was a set up, and of course watching what could only be described as a perfect swing of the camera by Jules Naudet, as well as many other perfect zoom in and zoom outs on all crash shots, and tower demolition shots, it was always presumed the cameramen or women had foreknowledge of what was about to happen. However, the idea the images were real was never challenged. That is what has been, and as I will go into further detail, what will always be, protected, at all costs. You can believe the Naudet story was a scam, you can believe there were 300 or more camera men or women out in the street who all captured the event perfectly and knew what was going to happen. As long as you didn't challenge the validity of the footage that was fine. That is as far as it was ever taken on LRF, probably the most liberal truth forum up until that point. As long as there was a camera person in the street who filmed what happened, it really did not matter if you suggested it was a passenger jet, an orb, a blimp, a hot air balloon, or even a baseball. Just as long as the film was authentic. Protect the media at all costs.
Whilst it is very hard to argue anyone in 2012 who believes any planes were used at all is a serious top flight researcher, this was not always the case. Many people (myself included) were at the most 50-50 on the issue for a very long time, because we never knew any better, and there were so many rabbit trails to go down. It must be said though, people were not totally ignorant of all the issues with "planes". People understood the physics of the crashes were in the very least suspicious, the idea an aluminum plane could penetrate the aluminum cladding, steel curtain wall, thick safety glass, and with a wingspan of at least 7 floors, many layers of 4 inch thick concrete, steel decking, webs of trusses, and office furniture, going all the way from one side of the tower to the other, AND THEN, the engines having enough energy to penetrate through the safety glass, steel curtain wall and aluminum cladding (all without leaving a hole in the other side of the tower), well, the idea was far fetched in the least. So enter the Pod theory, where a bulge on the underside of the craft fired a missile at or just before impact, which I guess cleared the path for the plane. Quite bizarre in itself really given the videos showed none of this, except a small flash at impact. But this idea was taken seriously by many. LRF even went as far as to produce merchandise including but not limited to t-shirts to promote this theory. This idea was also sometimes coupled with other ideas, such as the plane was packed to the brim with explosives, and or the impact floors of the building were blown out with their own explosives, at or just prior to impact. The last two ideas are actually more plausible than the Pod idea itself, in theory anyway. But once again, all photos and videos were authentic.
Enter early 2006. A new influx of "researchers" started appearing on 9/11 forums, promoting a new idea, that (at least) the second impact was fraudulent, no plane hit WTC 2. It was either a missile, or a bomb, or nothing. Subsequently, for the first time, the images were being challenged. Many of these posters were probably legit and clung on to the new refreshing idea, but many were also obvious plants designed to stir up emotions and essentially ruin the idea. LRF was notorious for banning this research or limiting it, the Admin Phil Jayhan banning MANY posters for promoting the idea no plane hit WTC 2. This was in obvious conflict with their precious Pod theory, and he was having none of it. The research was eventually allowed, however often relegated to sub sections of forums such as "No plane, No brain" sections, mocking the idea and making it clear it was a fringe theory, not to be discussed seriously. Laughable really given Jayhan himself is now a No Planer, his previous Pod theory now totally incompatible with his new empty towers stance. If Jayhan had even a modicum of respectability in the glory years of LRF, it is not totally gone. Which is ironic and deliberate given his latest stance is as close to the truth as his website has ever been in the past. His website is almost dead now with very few new threads. During my tenure there I witnessed a great many legitimate posters be banned and harassed for posting no plane research, even at the point wherehe agreed with them in theory. It was pathetic to watch and I no longer wanted any part of it.
So of course, by the time September Clues came out in 2007, the idea was already viewed as hogwash by many. Every 9/11 guy out there told you not to look at it, Alex Jones made a comparison to Mental Illness, and guys like Ace Baker, Nico Haupt and others deliberately made themselves look crazy whilst promoting the "fringe idea". A real shame too that Clues was not narrated, and had an amateurish feel to it, as previously slick productions like Loose Change Second Edition trumped it in many peoples eyes. So much of the 9/11 audience simply refuse to take the idea seriously, but as I will layout, there is more motivation to protect this idea than EVEN the idea the official story is untrue. Even websites like WTC7.net started putting disclaimers on their site as early as 2007 saying "we do not promote no jetliner theories, or incivility." Molding the two together, assuming no planers are there to start trouble and infighting, as many of the plant posters in 2006 did. They ruined the idea before it got to the mainstream. But on with the show... continued
Editor's Note:
The public should know that all of the 9/11 videos of Flight 175, the plane that supposedly hit WTC2, have been examined scientifically and have been proven to be video fakes. Computer analysis of most of the known videos show the plane(s), supposedly Flight 175, to have different flight characteristics in every video, i.e., speed, elevation, angle of approach, etc. They should all be exactly alike, not different, if these video were really photographing the same airplane.
Some of them are obvious fakes...to not only video experts, but to physicists and engineers. The close-up pictures to the left show the ridiculous picture of an aluminum airplane slicing through a steal and concrete building like a hot knife through butter. And have the nose come out the other side.
The hardest thing I've ever had to do what accept the ugly truth that our own government was complicit in this brutal slaughter. What's important is that it was used as a trumped-up excuse to restrict our liberties, conduct massive, unwarranted spying on everyone, invade innocent Muslim countries, steal their oil, and slaughter their people.
You've been had, folks. What are you going to do about it?
Alan Folsom