Sunday, December 23, 2007
He explains how jetliners COULD NOT have it the towers at low altitude with the reported speeds.
The audio interview (pumpitout) is much better than the transcript...
" Joseph Keith is a retired 76-year-old software engineer who worked in the aerospace industry and just resigned from a professional group known as the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE) founded by Canadian scientist, A.K. (“Kee”) Dewdney. The website is www.physics911.net. Curious about why he resigned (I’m still a SPINE member), I interviewed him from his home in southern California.
Q: Why did you resign from SPINE?
A: Well, I was a founding member in 2002 but I have little patience. With all the arguments I have gone through with Kee, I’ve spent so much time with Kee, it’s led nowhere. A plane never hit the second trade center tower, WTC 2, that’s what started our disagreement about 4 years ago.
Leonard Spencer first came out with what I thought was a smoking gun, the pod. I thought that pod must be a smoke screen device to hide the fact that a real airliner flew by but did not hit the building. And then editors doctored the tape after the fact.
Later on I decided the pod was a distraction since I determined that the video was fake. Case closed.
Q: Why is the video phony?
A: The video is phony because airliners don’t meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them!
Q: Why would the establishment elite pull off a phony video?
A: The video had to be phony because the Illuminati, or whatever we want to call them, had to eliminate all possibilities of a foul up. They needed the hijacking scam to implicate the Muslims, but they couldn’t afford any risk. They had to Keep-It-Simple-Stupid so they faked the crashes.
Since we know that the rich will always hang together, have their children intermarry, and do anything to protect their wealth, they must have an organization, an interlocking directorate, if you will, that is compartmentalized. I could have done a better job, but they faked the video in an amateurish way. A friend of mine could have done a much better job of faking an airplane crash—break a wing off, break a part of the body, throw some fluff in and then I wouldn’t have noticed anything wrong.
Q: When did you realize something was amiss about 9/11?
A: I watched 9/11 on TV that day and my next-door neighbor is a pilot for SkyWest Airlines. We were good friends and when 9/11 happened I called up right away and said, “Turn on the TV.” He came over to my house. I said, “It’s fake.” “Yes, it’s fake,” he said. Later, we decided that the networks did not get the real-time feed of the crash and simulated it instead. In about a week we were convinced by neighbors that the networks were displaying the real thing. His wife is an American Airlines flight attendant and she’s very outspoken. Every 9/11 anniversary they put out a big display about praying for 9/11 flight attendants and all that. She thinks I’m a stupid conspiracy nut. Kee used to ask David, through me, airline questions, but now David is not allowed to talk to me. I don’t know if Kee is personally contacting him now.
Q: You knew right away it was an inside job because the WTC hit was faked?
A: I have spent lots of time trying to figure out how the New World Order could screw up so badly, and the only conclusion I can come to is that there must be some high-ranking insider, or possibly group, that is trying to warn the world of the danger of allowing such a powerful force to rule. In another era, the most powerful force in the World was the Holy Roman Empire and it was brought down by an insider who exposed the document that gave it its power as a fraud. I can’t go into the details now but it later led to the Reformation. I wrote a paper on it 50 years ago.
Q: You say anyone can prove the video is fake. How?
A: First get any video. They’re getting harder to find. A good example is “In Memoriam, New York City 9/11/01” from HBO, narrated by Rudy Giuliani, because the plane crashes at the beginning. Start the DVD and as the plane comes into view, hit the pause on your remote and then go frame-by-frame until the plane goes into the building, step by step.
Carefully watch the plane go into the building: it’s like a hot knife cutting through butter. Marvel at how a plane can meld into a steel-concrete building. A plane should crash against the building. It makes one curious! It should make you think about how a plane would enter a steel-concrete building.
Q: One argument we hear is that all the videos can’t be fake.
A: Well, get all 30 of ‘em and run ‘em, I have four. One of mine doesn’t show the actual crash, two of them show a plane banking, one doesn’t.
Every video that shows impact shows a plane flying through the tower wall the same way it flies through thin air: no cratering effect, no pushing parts of the building in, no crunching of the airframe as it hits resistance, no reaction from the heavy engines and hidden landing gear, no parts breaking off, no outer 30 feet of the wing breaking off, no bursting, shredding or bending of the wing. No nothing.
Q: Isn’t that impossible in reality?
A: Yes. Then after absorption of the plane, you see the building closing up and then an explosion. Meanwhile, nothing fell from either the building or the plane.
Q: That’s compelling evidence of video fakery. What else?
A: One more test is to pause with the plane on the screen. Take a magic marker or tape and mark the nose of the plane and then count frames until the tail passes the mark. You’ll find that the number of steps the plane takes while the plane is in thin air is the same as the number of steps the plane takes as it melds into the building.
Q: So there’s no deceleration?
A: Right. It violates all Newton’s laws of motion. I’ll state them:
1. An object at rest remains at rest and an object in motion remains in motion until a force is applied.
2. When a force is applied to an object, the object accelerates in the direction of the force. When an object in motion hits stationary resistance, the force acts in the opposite direction of the object and therefore the object decelerates.
3. Newton said, “For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction” but I say, every action produces an equal and opposite reaction.
Q: So, for example, a diver speeds through thin air but slows in the resistance of the water unless he has a new energy source to maintain speed.
A: Right. It’s like this TV show I was watching called Myth Busters. They dumped this dummy from 100 feet and it registered 16 G’s when it hit water. That can kill you, we can only take about 10 G’s. Then think about hitting steel and concrete.
Q: Believers in Boeing 767s hitting the twin towers always bring up kinetic energy as the big explanation for how an aluminum plane could fly right through the wall of a steel and concrete tower. Speed squared is supposed make us believe the plane-like outline of the holes in the towers.
A: The more kinetic energy, the more damage the speeding object will do when it hits, but they’re claiming that it punched right through. The plane should have continued right through the building like a bullet through paper. Sure, in the bullet case, little kinetic energy is lost. No plane deceleration also means the plane never lost kinetic energy. Victor Thorn and the others, even though they’re good on demolition and no plane at the Pentagon, are afraid to come out for the No Plane Theory (NPT).
When Jerry Longspaugh, an aerospace engineer and SPINE member, saw a photo of a hole in one of the towers and thought he saw the core, he wrote to Kee and me, “It looks like the NPT is true.” Maybe Kee said something to him, I don’t know.
Kee’s got to be a phony. He’s been saying how sorry he was about the hassle I’m suffering from the plane huggers. That kind of thing is not unusual in my life.
Q: Why won’t Kee do the video test?
A: His university won’t let him.
Q: But he’s done a lot exposing 9/11 lies like proving the cell phone calls were impossible.
A: Kee is allowed some freedom but NPT is the key to the kingdom. It would topple the kingdom, so he won’t go there. Physics911.net has this “What may have happened” and “What did not happen” and he won’t use ‘em. He won’t run your article. They have to have Arab hijackers, so they have to have airplanes.
Q: So do you believe there were no planes?
A: Logic tells me there were no airliners involved. They never showed any wreckage, the hole was empty, and the government showed a few parts but no serial numbers, no part numbers.
Q: The government could have crashed a plane, say, in Pennsylvania, by remote control.
A: Too many problems. Somebody could pick up a part with a serial number.
Q: What about the controversy over high-energy explosives at the WTC?
A: Well, I tend to agree with those who believe they were used but my problem has always been the video. It was fake and that was the end of it for me. Case closed!
Q: Is SPINE or Scholars for 911 Truth doing any good?
A: Absolutely not, they haven’t done anything for a couple of years. SPINE is defunct. In 2004, for example, I sent something by Gerard Holmgren against the plane huggers to Kee and nothing came of it. SPINE never puts up anything controversial so it is just safe stuff, orthodoxy now.
Q: Nila Sagadevan is a big defender of planes at the WTC.
A: When he joined SPINE I called him up because he lived in southern California and found he lived only 6-7 miles from me. We talked about going for a beer but when I got around to the NPT, he said that was nonsense. “My friend Greg Szymanski visited ground zero and reported a jet engine so I know a plane hit the bldg,” and he hung up. Nila has some weird beliefs and I forwarded an email from him to Kee and wrote, “Ask this guy if he’s ever interviewed an ET.” Nila wants to get on talk shows, peddle his weird beliefs, and he depends on the media to sell his books. Gurus are liars.
Q: Why is there such resistance to NPT?
A: NPT is a direct attack on the head of the snake. You can go after Bush, Cheney and that whole compartmentalized entity but not the head of the snake. NPT is the only thing that we have direct evidence of, so it is very threatening. The media control everything because they can point the finger at anybody. The media is the enforcement arm of the head of the snake that controls everything. It can topple any government. And NPT is direct proof of their enforcement of the 9/11 scam. It’s the propaganda arm of the ruling class and NPT would break it all open. They’d be done."
Thursday, November 8, 2007
This video proves that in a high speed crash between a plane and a wall much of the material should bounce off on the outside.
[in the moving images flaunted on TV the "plane" enters without slowing down. In this above vid it does not enter but breaks apart entirely. Why are the two in any way analogous?]
You don't see, in this above Sandia example, some of the material turning to dust while some of it survives intact. You don't see the plane penetrate the wall even slightly (though according to a report on the test crash the f-4 penetrated some 60mm), as the "plane" appeared to do completely in the videos of the 9/11 South Tower event.
It's true that the F-4 is perhaps made of harder material and more sturdily built, since it's made to travel at higher speeds and that it is smaller than a commercial airline. But if it is harder, then why isn't it even less likely, than a 767, to disintegrate into nothing upon impact?
[Obviously, the "767" image portrayed on TV *does not* disintegrate upon inpact with the steel grid wall - it is shown to penetrate it. It is shown to remain intact while entering the building! Whereas the F-4 disintegrates entirely.]
So the proponents of the authenticity of the Media videos have it both ways - the "plane" is hard enough to penetrate the outer rigid wall of steel columns, but disintegrates to nothing once it gets inside - where it presumably is met with a lot of air and some central columns.
Did "it" lose momentum upon breaking the shell of the building? As one would assume. (But how could "it" lose momentum, if the side of the building appeared to give no resistance?)
[ the TV images portray an object which does not slow down upon alleged contact with the side of the building. The TV images portray, upon close inspection, an object which *does not* lose momentum upon alleged contact with the outside of the building.]
To follow this "logic" of no loss of momentum: would "it" then allegedly hit the central core with the same force "it" hit the outside of the building? Why then, no immediate severe damage to the central core? Enough to cause the top of the building to slouch, crumple or tip?
Yet how would this then be enough energy to disintegrate the "plane," when hitting the steel grid and the cement floors would not?
Where is the force, after the "plane" enters the Tower whole, to totally disintegrate the invincible "plane?"
[The Purdue cartoon moving image shows the "plane" disintegrating into thin air, once it gets inside.]
Or if not, would the alleged intense fires burn up all the plane parts?
Yet, if a fire from a plane crash can burn up all the parts and leave no debris, why is it this has never happened before? (I fully expect the Media perps/suggestibility specialists to start occasionally to stage such "events" from now on, to normalize freaky occurrences.)
Why were supposed plane parts, which don't even match the parts of a 767, then found in the neighborhood? (I should say "put on display" there?). When none were shown to fall away in the video presented? Why weren't these parts found in the regular rubble of the "pile?" But instead all about in the street? (Especially when there is no exit hole on the North side of the South Tower for any of this debris to have exited?)
If the Sandia test plane breaks up so well upon impact with an immovable object
Steel columns, attached to the side of a Trade Tower, are relatively immovable and attached to a 500,000 pound Tower
Why did the 767 "plane," in the moving images everyone was shown of the event on TV, remain intact, i.e. not do the same thing the real plane did in the test above?
Here's an example of the Trade Tower columns immovability:
None of the steel column segments appear to break off from where they were attached i.e. pop-out, when allegedly "hit." That implies extreme rigidity of the exterior lattice with the whole of the building. That image implies an extreme integrity of the building as a whole.
So the columns must've been pretty well secured and attached, according to the physics implied in the universe the moving image allegedly represents.
In all the images, the Trade Tower does not appear to sway or react to the impact of the "plane." That means the image implies the wall of the Trade Tower was very secure and solid and put up strong resistence to the alleged impact? Since the Tower is made of metal and cement, not of butter?
The set-up was rigid enough so that when a force was applied THE WHOLE BUILDING MOVED (according to witnesses inside the building, which belies the story told by the evidence of the moving images shown on TV - which show the building *not reacting at all* when allegedly hit by a 767 commercial aircraft.)
What is the implication?:
If the Tower did *not* sway, why not, since it was allegedly hit with an object with such alleged kinetic force. And in that case too, the "plane" itself would've absorbed the full shock/force of the impact. In that case, why did "it" not break apart? And if the plane *did not* absorb or react to the force of the impact, why didn't the Tower? Where did the force of the impact, at the moment of impact, go, as portrayed by the moving images shown on TV?
If the Tower *did* sway, why did that not show up portrayed in the movie images flaunted?
Also, if the Tower did sway, as some testified, why did the rivits which held the steel grids to the side of the building hold when the "plane" shown in the moving image on TV came in contact with the steel grids, if that depiction was real?
If the rivits holding the steel outer lattice did fail, why did not the steel grid lattice break off in a sheet?
Where was the force to cause the clean shearing of the steel columns?
If the "plane" truly and cleanly punched out a hole in the side of the building, why didn't the building sway? Since the shearing implies that the side of the Tower held tight while the "plane" cut in. Could it have held *that* tight? When it's engineered to sway with the force ofthe wind?
If there *were* resistence, the image should've shown evidence of that.
If the "plane" truly and cleanly punched out a hole in the side of South Tower, that means a section of wall, in the outline of a plane, put up no resistance to the entry of the "plane."
If the wall *had* put up resistance, some of the plane would've broken up and the Tower would've swayed.
If the Tower had put up no resistence, the building wouldn't end up swaying. If the building was soft as butter, and put up no resistence, then you'd see no swaying as a result of the "hit" - which *is* in fact what the TV moving images portray.
According to the presented images, the steel columns were just, supposedly, cut through, as with a cookie cutter - without being dislodged from whereever they were attached to the rest of the building from below.
That would mean the mass of the entire South World Trade Center was behind the "kick" it received from the "plane." Wouldn't a real plane crash?
The "impact" didn't punch out the entire column. So this implies the columns were all quite well attached and that the side of the building was, of a piece, a relatively rigid barrier. Made of steel, which is stronger than AL. Planes are made of AL for its lightness. So the side of the building was strong compared to the plane.
The wall, shown in the test video above, is made of a specially prepared cement-like material - which one would assume is softer than steel. It's meant to cushion any impact, so as not to be penetrated, as it would be if more rigid, less giving? That's why bumpers in bumper car arcade are made of soft rubber. If the material impacted on is more "forgiving'' and softer, there is less damage. If a bumper car hits a *solid* wall, there is more more likelihood the wall wil be damaged. I beleive the bumper the jet hits up against is cushioned - that' why it itself does not break up on impact.
The Trade Tower sides were also all designed to "give" upon having force applied. That is how they withstood wind storms. Witnesses state that the building swung upon "impact." (Not sure how many reading this have felt that swing of a Trade Tower in the wind, from inside of one. But you could feel it quite clearly on a windy day. It induced fear in me, and a kind of sea sickness.)
So even though both "rigid" barriers were designed to "give" upon impact, in only one case, if you compare the video representations of what happen to South Tower on 9/11 and the test for nuclear power station safety at Sandia shown in the vid above, did you see the plane break up *completely* upon impact, and the barrier successfully and totally resist penetration. That was the Sandia test. So the barrier portrayed in the 9/11 TV moving images, the wall of the Tower, did not do what it was designed to do, according to those images.
And the Sandia, we assume, was in a real world test? Why the discrepancies between the records? The cement barrier looks hardly scratched.
So why wasn't any material repelled by the wall of the WTC Tower, if it was indeed hit by a real plane? Why did the "plane" totally penetrate the wall of the Tower like a hot knife into butter?
Why isn't the hole/scar on the South Tower even big enough to allow the supposed "plane" entry, as it is shown in the videos of the event? Why is no plane debris visible in either "mouth"/scar of the World Trade Towers' wounds?
Why isn't there an exit hole on the North side of the South Tower building, even though numerous videos show material and a nose-like object, timed with where the "plane nose" would've been seen, had "it" continued on its apparent trajectory without impediment, exit on that side??
To quote a structural engineer, Pegelow, who spoke recently on the Alex Jones show, ~"The Trade Towers were not a House of Cards, where one event could push their stability over the edge, and trigger a complete collapse."
So there is more than one thing strange about the TV and 9/11 Commission Report depiction of events on September 11th.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Date: Nov 6, 2007 3:52 AM
NO PLANES NO PASSENGERS They Fooled Us Once
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Zarina Jada-Zakori, Psy.D.
Date: Nov 5, 2007 10:54 PM
See mom, No planes
How does GW put it? "Fool me once, shame on me...uh..shame me.. you're not going to shame me again." Whatever.
Well GW - You fooled us once, shame on you, but you are not going to fool us twice, then it would be shame on me!
BTS Data reveal no Passenger Planes Destroyed on 9/11
If the subject were not so controversial, one might assume that a very powerful blow to the story of four hijacked airplanes on 9/11 would be Holmgren’s discovery that two of the four flights connected to that day’s events did not exist and the other two alleged participating aircraft were not destroyed until four years later. As Holmgren writes, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) keeps detailed records of flight times, tail numbers, taxi out times, wheels off times, and so on for every scheduled flight from a U.S. airport, in part for liability insurance considerations. Holmgren found that the original BTS records of take offs that day did not list flights for AA77 (Pentagon crash) and AA11 (North Tower, the first hit).
Of the first hit on the WTC North Tower at 8:46, Holmgren notes that when one looks closely at the video (which wasn’t broadcast until 16 hours later "when the official story of four large planes had already been put into the public’s mind") all one can see is "a brief flash and then the explosion." Holmgren claims that whatever the object is, it "is certainly not a Boeing 767 or any kind of large passenger jet." The object is "way too small. It dive bombs into the tower in a manner which would appear to [be] impossible for a large airliner." Although, he writes, "the natural tendency is to think it is just too fast to see on the video…a frame by frame enlarged analysis…shows a very strange looking object, or possibly several objects flying in close formation. A pulsating blob or group of blobs is probably the best description."
Holmgren argues that the passenger lists seem to be fabricated "because there are impossible contradictions between the lists published by different media outlets…." Nor, he claims, are there any reliable witnesses to support a large jet of the first strike. "All early reports say that it was a small plane or missile," and others who say they simply didn’t see any plane. According to Holmgren, the first strike became a "large plane after people saw the second strike live on TV, leading to the assumption that the first strike had been the same thing," and after American Airlines declared that it had lost AA11 in the crash.
The Illusion -- Live on TV?!
Holmgren then deconstructs the "the South Tower strike – the second hit, the one shown live on TV" and acknowledges that superficially it certainly appears to be a large jet." Yet, he argues, "a close examination reveals that it is not a real plane." To support this assertion Holmgren provides a score of links to the work of researchers Rosalee Grable (aka Webfairy), Nico Haupt, Morgan Reynolds, Ivan Amato and his own supporting articles.
Holmgren finds that the plane shown on TV is not real because it "shows impossible physical characteristics and behavior." The argument that I find most convincing and easiest to understand is his claim that one can see in a frame-by-frame analysis that the alleged plane "passes through the wall like a ghost without making a hole and without breaking off any parts." Holmgren concludes that the plane is "simply a cartoon, which has been animated into the footage."
According to Holmgren, despite popular misconceptions that many real time videos of the plane striking the South Tower exist, there was only one live video of this plane and that video did not show it hitting the building, but rather it shows the plane passing behind the building "giving the impression that it impacted the hidden face," an effect easily achieved "with commercially available real time animation technology. The other videos, which seem… to show the plane actually hitting the building did not appear until hours later."
Holmgren makes short work of flight UA 93, the one alleged to have crashed in Shanksville, PA. This was also "a bona fide flight, but the plane –N591UA – was also still registered as valid for more than four years after Sept 11…The alleged crash site in Pennsylvania shows absolutely no evidence of a plane crash."
To drive home his point that no planes were involved in the 9/11 attacks, Holmgren makes much of the lack of evidence of any wreckage of any of the four planes. He suggests that if real planes had crashed, it would be an easy matter for the government to produce some portion of the tons of normally identifiable wreckage.
Likewise Morgan Reynolds finds that the most obvious defect of the official story is an absence or near absence of conventional airplane wreckage.
Government could have ended controversy over planes long ago by allowing independent investigators to examine part numbers and compare them to each plane’s maintenance logbook. This did not happen following the 9/11 crashes. Government has not produced a single airplane part by serial number for independent corroboration.
Of the two Boeing 767’s, which vanished into the Twin Towers, Reynolds asks:
How could two large wide-bodied aluminum jetliners penetrate massive steel towers and disappear with no deceleration visible, no plane wreckage visible in gashes and none knocked to the ground below the impact zone?
Reynolds finds a "stunning lack of evidence" that "no confirmed debris exists from two alleged 767 high speed crashes into skyscrapers within 17 minutes of each other. Furthermore Reynolds finds that
physics rejects any theory that posits an invincible airplane (a plane remaining intact after an abrupt collision with a steel skyscraper) that also disintegrates (flimsy) in the next instant in the same general physical environment (temperature, etc.)…. (my emphasis)
Another problem says Reynolds is that the maximum spread across the north tower hole is 126 feet and the south tower is only 103 feet, opening insufficient to accommodate a 767 wingspan of 156 feet." "Wings with momentum do not "fold back onto themselves" in order to slip through an undersized hole along with the fuselage." Summing up this line of argument, Reynolds writes:
defenders of the 767 theory want their cake and eat it too: supposedly powerful 767s easily penetrated steel walls and floors yet identically crumbled within a fraction of a second and vanished inside despite huge fuselage length and wingspan ¾ the length of a tower wall. Both 767s were never seen again from any side of either tower, a dazzling combination of imposing strength and fragility within a tenth of a second.
Monday, November 5, 2007
From: Pan Man
Date: Nov 5, 2007 8:20 PM
I have well over 3000 friends at myspace. They have well over 900,000 friends...and the friends of their friends number well in to the millions. When I post a bulletin that's worth a shit, it gets reposted by my friends and their friends until it comes up for view by all kinds of people who are NOT my friends, many of whom find the things I say rather unbelievable and objectionable.
Some take offense and let me know about it. I have converted many of those who originally thought I was the anti-Christ for my statements about Bush, Cheney, 9/11, the New World Order, etc etc. The idea snipers who don't receive mail from any one who is not their friend have the ability to make hit and run critical comments with impunity. Sooner or later, they will come around. Until then, I just have loads of fun fuckin with their little zombie heads!
The great danger of having friends who all believe as we do is that we become insulated and all of our preaching is to the choir. Since our position as Truthers, particularly regarding subjects like 9/11, gives us the intellectual high ground, "debates" with sheep usually aren't difficult to win and our converts become rabid evangelists for Truth once awakened.
That's the best part of all this for me. When you are alone in a room with someone who knows and believes just as you do, there's really not that much left to talk about except the old mutual admiration trivia and how ignorant everyone else is. It's fun, to be sure, but it won't win the war of ideas when our competition is mass media "programming" that sings the
opposition's music all day every day, relentlessly.
Do what you can with whoever you can whenever the opportunity presents itself. The people who shoved the red pill down my throat 13 months ago still write me once in a while to praise my efforts... and that really makes it all worth while to know I am passing it along to people who were just as asleep and clueless as I was in Sept, 2006. We are all just shepherds in search of lost sheep! Bring some home today...before they get fleeced, shorn and slaughtered by the false shepherds and Judas Goats they are still following blindly to the abattoir!
Peace and Truth!
Friday, September 14, 2007
I THEN JUMPED OVER
The Surprising Adventures of Stanley
© Gerard Holmgren: Oct 25 2006 This
The claim made in the title comes from a novel by Rudolp Erich Raspe
It is just one of the many surprising exploits narrated by the Baron.
For those not already familiar with the reason for this article, analysis
The plane which we saw on TV hitting the the Sth tower was a fake -
Due to the inability to make any coherent counter argument on the basis
Even in cases where witness testimony must be relied upon because is
Stanley Praimnath is a case in point. The witness report attributed
First, here are some sources for the Praimnath report. His story is
1. The earliest. 2. From recognized news outlets. 3. Contain significant
You can read these accounts yourself, and search for more if you like,
He worked on the 81st floor of the South Tower. He was on the phone
In some accounts (3) he immediately started crawling through the rubble
When he made it down to the concourse, he was trapped by flames and
It's difficult to make a precise examination of a story which keeps
It was originally published by CBN. We don't know the exact date, because
The blog quotes only a small part of the CBN article,so here is a later
An interesting anomaly. The linked article attributes Stanley's story
So here is the plane strike part of Stanley's story as quoted from
[['I was looking
'I said, "Lord,
'Just before I jumped
'I thought, if I
First let's look at the timing elements of this story. The mythical
For this we have to add something from the original CBN article which
[[Later on, when
You can find this part of the text referred to in this
I received this text from a Praimnath supporter in an email dated July
So in the story as published by CBN, Stanley took two seconds to jump
This would be an alarming sight, but not consistent with
[[Just before I
If this were true, he wouldn't have had time to do anything. And it
Particularly when this observation was alleged to have been made before
[[I said, "I
This takes at least another 2 1/2 seconds. So it was something like
Setting aside the distance factor for a moment, here is a photo of
[[aiming for me
it would have be flying at least somewhat sideways.
Not as ridiculous as the above, but still worth noting as not particularly
I was once involved in a near collision of two jets as we flew into
As we were well into our descent, I saw another plane well off in the
I guess it must have been reasonably close, because when I mentioned
Of course my situation involved two moving objects, which makes it
[[aiming for me
is of very dubious plausibility.
When all of these factors are added up, it makes it clear that Stanley
But the fun is only just beginning.
Hmm. What is one of the most memorable images of the Sth tower strike
The huge fireball which erupts after impact. In case you don't remember,
Supposedly, this was the plane's full load of fuel exploding. Stanley
The Baron must be getting very nervous about his tall tale crown now.
In fact, article 2 as linked above notes that after the crash
And it's not that Stanley is too stoic to mention minor injuries and
Article 3 above notes
[[I was bruised
Article 4 above relates
According to article 6
[[Both men now had
So it's not as if the minor injuries were stoically ignored in these
It's worth clicking on the link to article 6 above, because there's
By contrast this photo from Newsday
[[A young woman
So Stanley, who was right in the middle of a huge fully fueled plane
The dethroned Baron is slinking out the door...
Not only should a witness be plausible, they should be consistent.
(2) [[ "I looked
Taking out the bible and putting it on the desk adds at least 3 seconds
Another interesting anomaly. Notice how the quote switches from first
(4, 7) [[The body
CBN.[['I was looking
(5,6) [[ I just
So it was aiming right for him the whole time from the moment he saw
(1) [[He had time
From over 1000 yards away ? At the same time as noticing the U on the
(5,6) [[And I just
Perhaps he just forgot to mention the freeze in the CBN report. Fair
(2) [[Stanley then
CBN [['I thought,
(6) [[And, I'm shuddering.
Stanley seems to have conflicting memories about whether the power
In closing, I'd like to digress ever so slightly and make an observation
[[Later on, when
"I held my
"For some divine
Divine intervention to divert the plane in such a manner that Stanley
Well... that's how Stanley sees it.
As one of the
Just because Stanley is telling self centred
Nevertheless, if a witness is identified
Just because Stanley is lying doesn't prove
The fact that this modern day Munchausen
Why ? After all, the media loves to catch
Neither of the Bloggers linked earlier
But such insight appears to be all too
Stanley is even on the speaking circuit
In the case of the two bloggers who were critical of Praimnath,
But many in the so called "truth movement" haven't
When Praimnath has been presented to me
But on some occasions when I and others
I can only describe such reactions as a
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Skip to Content
Skip to Search
Skip to Left Navigation
Numbers to Move People
Site Map |