Tuesday, 17 September 2013

The 9/11 Civil War

Yesterday I had a upsetting but curious experience while talking to other people on Facebook. It all started when I posted this video on my wall: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL-rU3CCPkc. It’s an analysis of the famous video by Michael Hezarkhani which shows… or allegedly shows, the impact of Flight 175 on the WTC South Tower on 9/11. The YouTube analysis video describes two anomalies in the film. The first one is that the wing of the aircraft passes behind a building in the background which is a paradox of perspective; this indicates that it is a fake animated film and not a recording of what really happened which it is purported to be by the media. The second anomaly is one already well-known to 9/11 Truth researchers: the nature of impact of the aircraft looks unnatural, it doesn’t match what is understood about such impacts either through previous experience or what should be theoretically predicted. The first anomaly was a mistake and it’s been swiftly debunked; the building that is supposed to be in the background is actually in the foreground, and you can actually see if you look closely that the smoke from WTC 2 is billowing behind it slightly. The second anomaly is still valid and the attention in the comments box switched to focus on that one. Then something very surprising and dismaying happened.

I dislike internal Truth Movement politics and it’s something to which I award a very low priority for coverage on HPANWO, in a world where there are so much more important and urgent things to talk about. However occasionally something comes up which demands more attention. What happened yesterday was that somebody joined the comments box who is very opposed to “no-planers”. You may wonder what that term means; I did for a long time! I refers to a 9/11 Truth investigator who believes that no real aircraft were used on 9/11, especially regarding the WTC (the Pentagon is a separate matter). What was used instead, according to these theorists, is holographic projections and the impact sites on the towers were caused by planted static explosives. This is not sci-fi fantasy; the technology to produce solid-looking three-dimensional images in the air has been around for a long time. In fact I remember well as a child on a school trip watching a 3D video of Michael Jackson dancing on a stage in a theme park. The video was created with laser beams shone into a cloud of vapour. Researchers such as Ace Baker and Richard D Hall have done extensive analysis of the 9/11 footage to uncover this, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4r01Y7ew4c. The majority of 9/11 Truth researchers and activists don’t believe this. They think real aircraft were seen striking the Twin Towers, either the named airliners under remote control or military drones, and it was only the detonation of thermite and explosives that brought the buildings down in a controlled demolition. For me these two different theories should be a source for discussion in a civilized manner on an intellectual level, but this is not what has happened; instead it’s war! No-planers have been accused of being “nutters” and of doing damage to the credibility of 9/11 Truth, the no-planers have struck back accusing their opponents of being shills and “plane-huggers”. Bear in mind that this “debate” is going on within the 9/11 Truth campaign, among people who all agree that 9/11 was an inside job and the official story is a lie. My own view is that there is indeed a valid reason to doubt real aircraft were used. The above-mentioned Hezarkhani film shows that when the airliner strikes the wall of the South Tower is flies straight through it; it looks almost like it is penetrating the surface of a pool of liquid or a cloud of smoke. There then follows a gigantic explosion on the adjacent side of the tower, but the entry scar is tiny by comparison; and it fits the shape of the plane exactly, almost like what you often see in comedy cartoons when a character crashes through a wall leaving behind a hole shaped exactly like their body. The walls of the WTC were made of heavy steel girders that were a part of the load-bearing skeleton of the building; this is very different to the more common glass-walled skyscrapers with skeletons that are completely internal. The structure of a jet airliner is comparatively very flimsy; it doesn’t need to hold anything up except itself in the air, so it has a structure of aluminium struts covered by a hull of aluminium so thin it’s called a “skin” in the aviation trade, everything is as lightweight as possible. Even taking into account its load of fuel doesn’t make it any more than the equivalent of a half-filled beer can with wings. These facts therefore contradict what we see in the Hezarkhani film. There’s a man called Stephen De’ak who hopes to resolve this conundrum once and for all, see: http://911crashtest.org/
By far the best explanation of what happened to the Twin Towers that day has been provided by Dr Judy Wood, a professor of mechanical engineering from South Carolina’s Clemson University, see: http://www.drjudywood.co.uk/. Her detailed and highly scientific research indicates that a directed energy weapon was used. You’d think that the “mainstream” 9/11 Truth Movement would welcome her input; one would hope that they’d look carefully at what she’s discovered and wonder whether or not it’s true. If they decide it’s not true then I would assume, seeing that 9/11 Truth is supposedly a matter for mature adults, that they would just shrug and say: “OK, call it as you see it, we’ll just have to differ.” But, no! Instead they have attacked Dr Judy in what has become a civil war, and it’s no exaggeration to say that. This war has split the 9/11 Truth Movement down the middle and yesterday it came to my own shores. As soon as I posted the video, a friend of mine, whom I’ll call “Mike”, immediately admonished me for promoting “this ‘no planes’ crap”; he later posted: “Oh come on! This 'no planes' rubbish is a bigger distraction from the truth than the official story! All these anomalies show is that more went on that day than just 19 hijackers in 4 planes. We don't need sci-fi scenarios to know that evil shit went down… A lot of people are trying to get to the genuine truth of 9/11 and it doesn't help when the media latch on to the 'lunatic fringe' to discredit the entire 9/11 Truth movement.” On the subject of Dr Judy Wood he said: “There's this thing called common sense. Before suggesting that all we saw were holograms or particle beam/energy weapons, perhaps look to a real-world solution i.e. evil bastards wanted to kill thousands of people to promote their diabolical agendas. That's the core of the issue, not whether or not Star Trek weaponry was used, which it wasn't - in my opinion”… (Phrases like “Star Trek weaponry”, “particle beams” or, another favourite, “space lasers” are not quotes from Dr Judy Wood and I think they’re just silly pieces of rhetoric). In the end he left the box with this acidic parting riposte: “Ben, you're mistaking me for somebody who gives a crap. I used to; believe me, I used to. So I'll leave you and your gang to enjoy the game.” I was flabbergasted; I’d never heard Mike address me in a tone like that before. Until yesterday we always got on really well, and we’ve disagreed on matters before perfectly amicably. In the end I wrote to Mike and asked him straight out if he intended to break contact with me over this. He replied very sulkily that he wouldn’t, but he would refuse to talk about the no-planes subject again. What is it about the no-planes question that generates such intense animosity? I think it’s a great shame and utterly baffling. The answer might lie in the realm of psychological propaganda which has been investigated by Dr Judy Wood’s colleague, and an associate of my own, Andrew Johnson. The suspicious rejection to Dr Judy Wood by the “big names” in the 9/11 Truth Movement, like Jim Fetzer and Stephen E Jones, might mean that these men are disinformers. The mainstream 9/11 Truth Movement in the UK also takes a very dim view of Dr Judy; Ian Henshall despises her and Andrew. People like Henshall continuously lecture on how explosives and thermite were used to bring down the Twin Towers without producing any comprehensive evidence, or even a hypothesis. This duplicity has regrettably infected those rare occasions that 9/11 Truth spills over into the mainstream media, see: http://www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=166&part=2. (I can’t say anything right now, but there will hopefully soon be an important update on this situation). As for Stephen E Jones, this is not the first time he’s been involved in questionable behaviour; his role in the cover-up of “Cold Fusion” in 1989 is important to recognize, see here from 27.40: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBwcrX_kCoQ. If the 9/11 Truth Movement has been infiltrated and corrupted into controlled opposition then the chances are the conspirators have used the highly sophisticated government psychological warfare techniques in order to generate ire and distrust among the rank-and-file of that movement, see: http://hpanwo-radio.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/programme-20-podcast-neil-sanders.html. I think Mike is one of those targeted by this and he’s not alone. 


Anonymous said...

Great blog Ben, I see it all as you do.
zxralienwarrior !

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Thanks, Zxraelianwarrior. :-)

Anonymous said...

Well said. This is why I've all but separated from the alternative community (or truth movement, or whatever you'd like to call it). The in-fighting is playground level, ad-hominem and (in many cases) not funded in anything that resembles an educated debate. People like Dr. Wood come forward with reasoned material that's ripe for debate and people shout it down, why? To look big? I feel as though there is lot of power-struggle going on to expose people as 'shills' or suchlike, when really, these accusations are founded on arguments on finer points. The big picture THAT IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB gets lost amongst all the one-upmanship. And I can't be bothered with it. I don't know how 9/11 was done, who does? I just know that it was a work of intense evil and everybody that believes the same should band together to put pressure on the perpetrators. Not play at being big fish in small ponds.

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Cheers, Anon, that's very true. And what's more all this infighting plays into the hands of those trying to keep the secret.

Hilary said...

Interesting Ben, thanks for posting. I'm wondering if you mentioned Richard D Hall's video to the mad 'plane hugger'. To me it is the best explanation of what happened with regards to any talk of planes hitting the towers. The video also brings in Dr Judy where she mentions the fragility of an aircraft's wings etc. Also worth mentioning is that Morgan Reynolds PhD proved it was scientifically impossible for an aircraft to penetrate a steel structure building because of the Newton's Third Law of Motion.
I'm glad you brought-up this difficult subject matter Ben-it helps to weed out the half-truthers.

wizardprang said...

i too find that people react very agitated when the subject of energy weapons and no planes is reared....why??? Its just a theory like everything else in the alternative approach to 9/11. I call these jack in the boxes "Rope ladder theorists" because thats how they enter the rabbit hole and once topics which take them out of their comfort zones are raised their whole reality seems to come under threat and this seems a likely reason for their angry attacks...theyre literally defending their mental forts and castles , pulling the drawbridges up and firing arrows of intolerance at other folks beliefs. Ive learned to bite my tongue as it seems to cause too much aggro and friendships and family releationships begin to fray

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Thanks for posting, Hilary. I've not seen that piece by RDH,but I know Richard well and am familiar with his dry sense of humour, so I must check that out! :-) As for Morgan Reynolds, yes, he's an interesting guy and he's clearly got the guts to speak publicly of his views. I respect that. Best wishes. Ben

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

I know exactly what you mean, Anon. I could well talk more of my own experiences with the "official" 9/11 Truth Movement, but it would need an entire separate article.

Anonymous said...

Excellent assessment of the 9/11 debate which I have followed since that fateful day. Dr Judy Wood's account is for me the most compelling especially in light of her background. All theories should be looked at. No-one should be hounded. The bottom line is that the official story is wrong and all factions need to recognize that such infighting lessens any impact of genuine researchers. GH.


I'm happy to have my name out there.


Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Thanks, Gary. I look forward to reading your magazine. Commenters, see the links column for UFO Truth magazine :-)