4um: 9 11 Fake Video Stars: The J Star Clones – Why Covert Operation’s Cointel Must Have ‘Fake’ Video and ‘No Planes’

Title: 9 11 Fake Video Stars: The J Star Clones – Why Covert Operation’s Cointel Must Have ‘Fake’ Video and ‘No Planes’
Source: Ed Ward, MD's Blog: US Tyranny & Treason
URL Source: http://edwardmd.wordpress.com/
Published: May 5, 2013
Author: Ed Ward M.D.
Post Date: 2013-05-05 20:49:50 by Original_Intent
Keywords: planes, no-planes, 911, towers
Views: 22587
Comments: 451

9 11 Fake Video Stars: The J Star Clones – Why Covert Operation’s Cointel Must Have ‘Fake’ Video and ‘No Planes’

9 11 Fake Video Stars: The J Star Clones - Why Covert Operation's Cointel Must Have 'Fake' Video

US Government Problem: Video of the planes needed to actually fly into the WTCs are readily available to the public.

US Government Solution: Promote the Videos as ‘fake’ based on ‘pixel’ BS – This solves the ‘evidence’ problem while never noting that the planes are NOT commercial airliners – which are not structurally capable of performing the tasks and look nothing like the photographic proof that commercial airliners are ‘not in the picture’ and US Government Military Planes are ‘in the picture’. Actually, an excellent scam premise when pumped out by the covert op truth troops.

Wingtips say B 767-400ERE-10A is THE CLONE USED to fly into the WTCs – Unless someone has a version that matches the video better.

The videos show that a Boeing 767-400ER E-10A was the supposed Super-Powered’ Commercial Airliner’. (One of these all very similar clones is clearly seen – one version of these clones has the ‘swept’ back wingtips used to discredit the video as fakery by some… Boeing 767-400ER E-10A) All early videos show the pod and the swept back wing – Recently, I’ve seen newer posts of truth videos in which the planes have neither.

Something that is fake can prove nothing, except that it is fake. It can not prove whether, how, or even if an actual event happened or not. Of course for this premise of ‘fake’ video proving anything one must also believe that during planning…

Someone says, since the plan is to use hijacked airliners, “Hey, let’s not use real planes. Let’s truck the plane parts in, crews to lay them out, people to say they saw planes, etc, et al, and just make some fake videos of planes going into the towers. Now, when we make these fake videos, instead of photoshopping in a commercial airliner with windows, we’ll photoshop in the plane needed to actually do it. Everybody high fives and says, ‘yeah, it’s just our lives on the line for treason.’ ”

Next day, the moron is no longer a threat… most likely scenario, taken out by their own family out of fear they’d all be taken out. It’s ludicrous on multiple levels.. Not just one.

The Ivy Flats Video, the testing of the first micro nuke, the Davy Crockett, is a perfect example of a camera that simply is too slow. Sure, cameras are a lot faster now, so have the travel speeds. They capture erratic images AT BEST when velocity exceeds capture speed images/PIXELS distort. Fact as clearly seen on the Ivy Flats video as soldiers move off train watch what happens to their legs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv_q8q6Z9_I

Fake video is only important if one NEEDS to disprove video evidence that a SUPER POWERED IRREGULAR SHAPED, NON WINDOWED ‘COMMERCIAL AIRLINER’ FLEW INTO THE WTCS – INDIRECTLY, without drawing attention to the fact a military aircraft flew into the WTCs. It’s still being done today by so called ‘truthers’. Did the ‘truther orgs’ say? The US government has been caught using its own planes to destroy the WTCs? No everything was silent and then came the need for the ‘fake video’ call.

No Windows in Flight 175 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRC4lCQuBmc&feature=related

Evaluation of Video Footage – for WTC comparisons…

http://911review.org/Wiki/Wtc2PlanePod.shtml

Photo: Boeing N256BA – E-10 MC2A http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3040/2351680318_dcaff7147e_z.jpg?zz=1

There are additional photos in original article ’9 11 Fake Video Stars: The JSTAR Clones. Why Covert Ops Must Have Fake Video 9-11 Fake Video Stars – The JSTAR Clones 10-1-10 Note, the little blue decal up front – one of the WTC witnesses claims to have seen one on the ‘plane that flew into..) BTW, eye witness testimony – the LEAST valuable information WITHOUT additional evidence. http://www.rense.com/general92/911fk.htm

F-4 Phantom at 500 mph into a solid concrete wall http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB4IEa7jTJw

(Bullets Into Steel – Under pressure and friction metals tend to liquefy) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfFoMyMoiX4

The wall was 12 ft thick, THE PLANE WAS NOT FILLED WITH WATER, but the tanks were to simulate fuel.

“But there was a test similar to what is described above. In 1988, an
unmanned F-4 Phantom, ballasted with water and mounted on rails, was
“flown” into a concrete wall at 480 MPH. As reported, the plane crumpled,
and penetrated only about 2 inches of concrete. A very impressive test -
except it wasn’t meant to be a test of nuclear reactor safety. The wall
the F-4 crashed into was not a simulation of a nuclear plant’s wall. It
was a 12-foot-thick wall mounted on an air cushion. The test was designed to study impact forces by measuring how far the impact would push the wall. Breaking through the concrete was the last thing any of the involved scientists wanted to achieve. Furthermore, the F-4 was ballasted with water to give it the same weight as a plane fully loaded with fuel, and its final weight was 42,000 pounds. Needless to say, crashing a 412,000 pound 767 loaded with fuel into a fixed wall would have slightly different results.

Because according to a 1982 study by the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois – a study which was conducted by request of the DOE and the NRC – the explosion from a 707 crashing into a containment dome at 466 MPH would probably overwhelm the reactor’s shielding. Note – that’s a 707, which weighs 336,000 pounds. In 1982 those were big jets. But we’ve “advanced” considerably since then. The 767s that were flown into the World Trade Center weighed 80,000 pounds more than that and carried a lot more fuel.

Other studies, again conducted for the NRC at the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, found that a 125,000 pound jet had a 32 % chance of piercing a containment building’s six-foot base and an 84 % chance of
breaking through the dome.” http://everything2.com/user/DejaMorgana/writeups/Nuclear+Power

“A key report, Sugano et al 1992, covers a rocket sled crash experiment using an F-4D Phantom jet fighter impacting into a 10 foot thick reinforced concrete block.

Sandia notes:
The purpose of the test was to determine the impact force, versus time, due to the impact, of a complete F-4 Phantom — including both engines — onto a massive, essentially rigid reinforced concrete target (3.66 meters thick). Previous tests used F-4 engines at similar speeds. The test was not intended to demonstrate the performance (survivability) of any particular type of concrete structure to aircraft impact. The impact occurred at the nominal velocity of 215 meters per second (about 480 mph). The mass of the jet fuel was simulated by water; the effects of fire following such a collision was not a part of the test. The test established that the major impact force was from the engines. The test was performed by Sandia National Laboratories under terms of a contract with the Muto Institute of Structural Mechanics, Inc., of Tokyo.

With very minimal damage to the concrete target block, the plane and its engines were easily converted into small chunks of metal confetti and shrapnel at the physical interface of the two impact objects. Upon initial impact, the follow-on rear portions of the plane yet to make contact retained their shape integrity until their respective impact. (This seriously contradicts claims by Jean-Pierre Desmoulins that the wings of a 757 would have folded forward, as well as claims in the popular press that the wings folded back before entering the “too-small” hole.) The resulting shear caused debris being spread out to the left, right, and rear of the impact locus, having no ability to proceed in their original vector path, having grossly failed the test of strength with the concrete block. However, the wings are wider than the concrete block, so the wingtips are sheared off whole, and they tumble forward after being cleanly separated from the aircraft.

F4 aircraft impacting a solid concrete barrier. Note that the wings and tail do not fold as the nose impacts the concrete. (source: don’t bother moved -http://www.sandia.gov/media/NRgallery00-03.htm)

Sugano (in itself) doesn’t show that a 757 hitting the Pentagon would be turned into confetti and small chunks, but it does show that an F4 was completely destroyed in arguably similar circumstances. Furthermore, it wasn’t anywhere close to an even contest between the wall and the F4. The F4 started with a speed of 215 m/sec — and the tail was still traveling at 185 m/sec when it smashed into the wall. The F4 is a very strongly build aircraft, although at 18 meters long and 19 kg, it’s about a third the length and a fifth the weight of the 757. In terms of comparing what would happen to a 757 versus what happened to the F4, it would be difficult to do an accurate calculation without detailed design information on both aircraft. In a preliminary analysis, the extra length of the 757 means that it has three times the distance to decelerate — but the 757 is also much heavier, so it’s more difficult for the crushing process to supply enough force to decelerate even as rapidly as the F4 did.” http://www.911-strike.com/missing-confetti.htm The article from the ‘pentagon disinformation unit’ counters the information from the ‘WTC no planes disinformation unit’.

Ed Ward, MD – http://edwardmd.wordpress.com/ ;
https://www.facebook.com/EdWardMD3 ; http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/messages

More US Drill Death in Waco Explosion – Drill Stops for Reality, Again http://edwardmd.wordpress.com/2013/04/28/more-us-drill-death-in-waco-drill-stops-for-reality-again/

Boston Marathon: The Finish Line For US Treason. Drill Death. Everything’s In Place For Police State. by Ed Ward, MD http://edwardmd.wordpress.com/2013/04/16/boston-marathon-the-finish-line-for-us-treason-drill-death-everything-is-in-place-for-police-state-by-ed-ward-md/

Pictures: US Boston Weapon – Both ‘Explosions’ – The Secret of the Pure Fusion Weapon – Li7 – Lithium 7 http://edwardmd.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/photograph-of-boston-fireball-2nd-explosion/

Dr. Ed Ward MD, AS, BS, MD – Reporting and investigating Constitutional abuses of the US government for almost 2 decades. AS, BS in Medical Technology – Minor in Organic Chemistry and Physics, volunteer during the Viet Nam war 6 years stateside active duty ‘med tech’ ‘US Air Farce’ – a decade experience in Medical Technology. MD degree from LSU, New Orleans – 2 decades in the field of General Practice. (My) Articles are also referenced by valid experts in their field.

For you "no planers" there are other rational explanations other than the planted disinfo (to discredit questions on 911) that there were no planes.(1 image)

It's quite obvious SOME sort of aircraft resembling the purported hijacked airliners struck the WTC towers.

With what I've tracked down, they were most likely 767 tankers, which were oddly very accessible to Dov Zakheim...

I definitely agree that some sort of planes hit the two towers. The real question is what kind. They were approximately the same size as a 767. I suspect, but cannot prove, that they were modified aircraft specifically for this operation. However, that is inference and speculation, clearly labeled as such.

His involvement is much more logically plausible than most other stories I've seen.

I would tend to agree. I resisted the conclusion initially but the one thing that always eats at me is the 2 trillion that disappeared on his watch AND that by pure coincidence (uh huh) the Pentagram Plane hit the one set of offices in the Pentagram that were doing an audit to trace that money. But of course that is pure coincidence. Right?

Actually, it didn't disappear on his Pentagon Comptroller watch. Contrary to popular 9/11 spin, the $2.3 trillion sum had already been reported back in March of 2000 during the Clinton administration when William J. Lynn III was the Comptroller there. Slippery accounting practices was said to be how it went missing -- through $7 trillion in "adjustments" and "adjustments to adjustments" that were made then to force an appearance of the books "balancing". Without those inane "adjustments", I suppose Clinton's "economic claim to fame" would have dissipated quite a bit. Rumsfeld's mention of that money the day before 9/11 just brought it to the public's attention again. 9/11 has been used to keep it there but as misdirection to obscure Clinton's mismanagement and suspect complicity. [Edit to add: Also, to deflect from the possible motive of Clinton admins and earlier in the targeting of Pentagon accountants on 9/11.]

This is not to say that Zakheim couldn't have had anything to do with the trillions that were unaccounted for at that time because he held various positions at the Pentagon since the Reagan era. I suspect that some of it may have gone to the British company, AMEC, and other Pentagon Renovation Project contractors. Posted much about that subject last November. The video linked at #7 here cites a March 2000 Associated Press article on the [Edit to add: missing money] issue by John M. Donnelly. This is the YouTube link for that video (9/11 Jewish State Foreknowledge & 'The Dancing Israelis'), set to start at the 28:10 mark for a Defense Daily reference on G.W. Bush's nomination of Zakheim in February 2001 and the Donnelly article in March of the previous year.

Additional references for his article are the Los Angeles Times at latimes.com: Pentagon's Finances Just Don't Add Up (March 05, 2000 | JOHN M. DONNELLY | ASSOCIATED PRESS) and the Corvallis Gazette-Times at gazettetimes.com: Pentagon's finances in disarray: Money managers make adjustments of nearly $7 trillion (March 04, 2000 By JOHN M. DONNELLY, Associated Press writer). The articles are identical until the last 5 paragraphs of the Los Angeles Times version. The Gazette-Times of Corvallis, Oregon gives more details at that point.

Edited for bracketed inserts at paragraphs 1 and 2 + punctuation and grammar at paragraph 2.

The plane (or whatever it was) that hit the Pentagram came in from one direction where it could have made an easy hit but instead it made a rapid descent while going through a 270 degree turn (which according to analysis by aeronautical engineers was at or beyond the tolerances of the airframe - I believe the data is on the Pilots for 911 Truth website) to hit the Pentagram on the opposite side of its approach. It hit directly into the one spot on the Pentagram that had recently been rebuilt and hardened crashing into the offices of the people trying to trace where the missing trillions went. Dov Zakheim was in charge at the time. Whether he was a culprit or just conducting a cover-up is almost irrelevant other than it provides a motive for the selection of the impact site.

And Planes or No Planes there is more than sufficient data to show that the towers (including WTC 7 - two planes THREE towers) collapse was not due to the plane or no plane impact. The arguments over the planes are investigative masturbation.

The vulgarity of your last sentence is strange, since it is you who started this thread with Ward's arguments over the planes. My only other post here was to address your concern that the money went missing on Zakheim's Comptroller watch and it didn't. Whatever else his 9/11 involvement may have been as a PNAC culprit and/or cover-up conductor is a different issue. The strikezone makes him a suspect more than his remote control affiliation, which would have profited him through war even without that technology being used in the attack scenarios. I agree that the WTC destruction was not due to the alleged planes. I hope we can also agree that the Pentagon ought to be using whatever kind of unburnt paper that was flying around at the WTC that day, so as to not risk incineration of their transaction accounting records.

Easily explained - it was not my intent to be offensive but merely to emphasize my vehemence on the point. The planes/no planes debate is a dead end as its resolution is not needed to know that the official fairy tale is complete and utter horseshit. There are plenty of verifiable solid data points which stand in direct contradiction uff der offishul fable of "19arabswhohateuscuzewearefree".

And truthfully I regard the "no planes" line to be disinformation planted to make those of us who question the cover legend look like a bunch of kooks. So, I stick to that data which can be cross checked and does not require technology which is not in the public domain. I'm not saying with utter certitude that "no planes" is wrong but merely that it is of such a low order as to be probibull disinfo.

I do think that there are indirect indications of the use of advanced weapons technology, such as a particle beam, but it is indications and I do not assert it as a proven fact but merely a possibility. Although it is one that helps to explain how the building collapses were kept confined to a relatively small area. I think, and this is inference not proven fact, that there were multiple technologies (some highly highly classified black budget stuff) to pull this off the way it was done, but I cannot prove that and therefore do not assert it as fact.

You at #26 of 4um Title: Right leg on, right leg off, right leg on again - 100% proof of actors at Boston Marathon:

Do you exempt the unprovoked attacks by planes-believers against No Planes researchers from that assessment, O_I? Seems so. You claim that the planes/no planes debate is a dead end and not needed but initiated it here yourself; which indicates to me that what you really want is not a truce with no more talk of the alleged planes but no backtalk from No Planers. I regard the "planes" line to be not only planted disinfo to cover for the perps but probable MKULTRA-like PsyOps with the objective of conditioning planers to devolve into Orwellian patterns of hostility, enmity, double standards and such. I think they should worry more about that than blaming us for their being viewed as kooks.

You are right. I did not take the time to assemble much in the way of evidence because I chose not to take the time to document why I believe what I believe. I just do not take the theory seriously enough to spend a lot of time at it, and you are free to believe as you wish. I made a statement of my conclusion. However, I did not attack ANYONE for believing differently. You are a free individual and I respect your right to believe as you wish. However, respecting your right to believe as you wish does not require me to share your belief or even say I share it when I do not.

Geez, the least you could do to back up your preference to the planes theory is show some evidence as to why you think planes were used. Seriously. Do you have anything at all to prove that planes were used? Anything? You take the planes theory seriously enough to (for god knows what reason... or sorry, because you don't have the time) dismiss no planes as disinfo. Okay.... let's cut the bs...

OI, get real. Either show some evidence of planes used on 9/11 or stop saying you think no planes theory is disinfo. It makes no sense. You have a moral obligation to make sense. The OI I know does.

Is there any reason why you've been acting like a drama queen as of late (as in the past year or so)?

You and your brethen have the burden of PROVING that all the witnesses are liars, actors, scumballs, etc. including all of the thousands of bystanders, news crews, police, EMTs, firemen, families of the hijacked aircraft's victims, airport personnel, air traffic controllers, etc. etc.

You also have the burden of proof of providing facts, not conjecture, allegations, accusations, and doctored videos, to show ANYTHING in the way of valid evidence that planes DID NOT strike the WTC towers on 9/11.

Your side has not done so, but sure scream "disinfo" like little girls when anyone disagrees with you.

There was enough testimony from firefighters and at least one maintenance worker that didn't fit. They were not subpoenaed and their video accounts have been completely ignored by officialdom.

The fact that the most heinous crime on American soil was not treated as crime, but was immediately entrained into a war agenda is enough reason to erect gallows. As those who know are marched out some will no doubt start talking to avoid delivery into Satan's waiting arms.

No one lost their job or was otherwise fingered for any dereliction of duty. And firefighters' remains were scooped up and delivered to a dump site to keep the project moving ahead.

We Americans have forfeited our right to honesty and truth in govt. Our indifference to that horror on 9/11 is the evidence of that.

If you're not aware of what the "no-planer" theory is all about, you may want to read the following link...

But it's just one of many pieces of evidence that were summarily buried to convert this criminal mass murder to a political tool for profit and power.

The fact that a plane supposedly wandered the friendly skies for over an hour without intercept (a first in US civil aviation history) is evidence of something terribly amiss.

So, there are countless reasons to stop, reset and begin again long before the planes allegedly struck. If we proceeded in an orderly manner with a proper criminal investigation the question about the planes would likely be answered before we ever reached the time of impact in the chronology of events.

True, but good luck with that. Any mention of a criminal investigation into 9/11 is met with derision and eye rolls, and all they need to do is point at the "no- planes" theory and say "see, we TOLD you those people are nuts", dismissing the MOUNTAINS of VALID questions, facts, and documented evidence which destroys the "official story" concerning 9/11.

It is an ongoing crime, where those who have intimate knowledge of the events are actively covering up the facts, destroying evidence, and protecting the guilty.

Now to change people's minds and garner support for a fresh investigation with access to ALL evidence, don't you think it'd be wise to avoid making claims based on illogical and improbable theories, conjecture, falsified evidence, and junk science?

To think they could say two planes hit the buildings when everyone there sees no planes hit the buildings is giving the government powers they do not have. Also it would be very risky if those with their camcorders recording the first tower being hit to also record video of the second tower just exploding with no plane hitting it and then sharing that video on the Internet. Many people owned camcorders in late 2001, how would the government explain all these videos of nothing hitting the towers and them exploding? They couldn't really unless they could prove they were all fake. It is not that hard to use military state of the art laser guided equipment to get a smart bomb to hit its target, so it would be even easier to get an airplane to hit its target with the same technology.

But yes, why roll the dice and risk having documented video evidence of explosions at the entrance holes with no plane entering the building? There surely would have been an abundance of those videos on YouTube if that had happened, yet there aren't ANY at all.

if Remote tech was that good in 1984, just imagine how good it must have been in 2001

Throw in that the Air Traffic Controllers tracked the aircraft, and were subsequently put under a gag order that has not yet been lifted, and it builds a reasonably strong case against the "no-planes" disinfo plant.

As well William Rodriguez, who blew the whistle on bombs going off in the towers before the plane impact, nevertheless provides indirect confirmation of actual plane impacts as that is his reference in saying that there were explosions in the basement before impact. In short he noticed the impact and the shudder that went through the building.