Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Madeleine McCann - a wide angle versus a microscope

I've written this for the sake of all those people who find themselves fascinated/mesmerised/unable-to-look-away from the Madeleine McCann case. I intend to be the very opposite of all those Madeleine forums you've been participating on. Whilst this may sound cryptic, the meaning will be perfectly apparent by the end of the piece.

First things first - forget all the details: who behaved how; who sat how many metres from whom; what was found in whose car ...all that stuff. The more details you've got and the closer attention you pay them, the less you're capable of standing back and viewing the big picture. It's like pressing your nose up against Seurat's Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte - all you get is dots.

A useful starting point is to remind ourselves of the bleeding obvious - Madeleine McCann's story was HUGE. Even here in the Antipodes, on the far side of the world, it was front page for weeks and the Australian press took every AP and Reuters update there was. It was all-Madeleine-all-the-time, and no detail was too small. But curiously, in this blizzard of details, the big contextual aspects were considered unimportant. For instance, the fact that Portugal had just gone through the sprawling Casa Pia paedophile scandal (roping in senior members of Portugal's clergy, police, judiciary, and government, and this exactly on the tail of Belgium's massive Dutroux scandal) was not deemed as worthy of our attention as a blurry photo of a peasant girl. Um... okay.

Straight away we're bumping up against what you'll find is a constant theme: details - good; big picture... what big picture?

Doubtless there'll be pedants banging on the table saying that there's no link between Madeleine and Casa Pia. Sure, of course. Not that they can possibly know of course. But to hell with them - I'm actually making a different point. And that is - How could this be ignored? You'd think that a desperate media, keen for every story connected or otherwise, that sends its crews out to interview someone/anyone - "Well, we didn't know them but they seemed very nice and we're all quite upset" - you'd think they'd have latched onto the Casa Pia story with both hands and hysterically shouted, 'Holy Shit! Portugal! Paedophiles! Abduction! Scandal!' ...wouldn't you? This is the media we're talking about - hysteria is their middle name. And yet, in spite of having seen every Madeleine snippet for however many weeks the story ran for, I was completely unaware of Casa Pia until I found it on the internet a year later.

If one of those aforementioned table-bangers wants to tell me that Casa Pia did-so-too appear in the media, pointing to this article / that article, why don't we cut to the chase and do the old advertising 'hallway test'? This is where we duck out into the hallway and ask whomever is there if they remember Madeleine McCann. Prompts are permitted - 'You know that little blonde girl that was abducted in Portugal'. Then we ask them about Casa Pia - 'You know that scandal that happened just before the McCann abduction that involved Lisbon's biggest orphanage with trails leading to politicians, police etc?' I'd lay odds of 100-1 that the former will score over 90% recognition and the latter will be lucky if it even makes 5, no wait... 1%.

Go figure. The media prefers their scandals small. It's easy to puff 'small' into whatever size you want. Scandals that were HUGE to begin with - hmm... hard to control. God knows where they might go. Best just to leave it out.

So what am I saying? Am I hinting that the media was somehow in on the whole thing? Gee, the thought occurred to you too did it? Well, you'd have to wonder wouldn't you? But let's not! Let's just continue with that zooming-out big picture thing. Never mind a singular overview of the media by way of the McCann abduction - it's just one event. There have been many, many such scandals and it's not so difficult to compare. The bible for this is Dave McGowan's The Pedophocracy (technically this is the first six chapters of his book Programmed to Kill). Straight off - anyone who's interested in Madeleine McCann and hasn't read The Pedophocracy doesn't know anything. Sorry for being so blunt but it's a fact. There's a link there, go read and come back. Or you can just carry on and read it later, it's all good. If you've half a mind to skip it, let me state as earnestly as I can, The Pedophocracy WILL blow your mind - I guarantee it.

The six chapters look at half a dozen massive paedophile scandals: Dutroux in Belgium; the Franklin/Boy's Town scandal; the Presidio/West Point military childminding scandal; the McMartin preschool scandal; and last but not least the perfectly mind-boggling bust of the 'The Finders'. First up, the most singular thing about each of these headfuck scandals is how HUGE they were. They were the kind of HUGE that makes the Madeleine McCann case look scrawny.

Sure enough the media worked its magic and each of these scandals was rescripted, recast, and all shot through a blurry vaseline lens. The parents had dreamt it all! And all their churlish dreams had sprung from seeds planted in their heads by wicked attention-seeking social workers. The mother of that five year old, whom she'd picked up from day-care to find blood running from his anus, wasn't a victim. She was a troublemaking paranoid schizophrenic drunk who had undoubtedly caused his 'red bottom' herself. And she'd led all those other parents to imagine the abuse of their children too! How dare they accuse all those upstanding childcare centre staff! The fact that all the children's stories matched, that they still hold to them as adults, and that all of it was borne out by indisputable evidence was proof only of the perverse obsession of the parent's desire to blacken the good name of undeserving innocents. Bloody Parents! Have they no shame?

How then to portray a scandal like the Finder's Bust? That didn't spring from complaints from parents but rather from the police arresting two well-dressed men with a van full of kids, aged 2 to 7, all of whom were unwashed and without underpants, just as you'd expect for 'gifted' children being taken to Mexico for 'special education'. But the thick plottened when their Washington headquarters were busted. Paedophiles with headquarters... wow, who knew? And the Finders had two facilities... double wow.

There police found not only: shelves full of jars containing urine and faecal matter; a bloody altar surrounded by video cameras; and so many photos and videos (of both porn and satanic ritual) that they needed garbage bags to haul them all away, but also: computers and telexes with orders from all over the world specifying particular 'looks' for children all of whom, one presumes, were to be kidnapped and trafficked overseas. In addition to all this were procedural handbooks detailing how to infiltrate child-minding centres and how to traffic children whilst avoiding police attention. (Hmm... perhaps they should've read that last one a bit more carefully). And may I draw your attention back to the preceding sentence again? 'Procedural Handbooks' - think about that. Who makes 'procedural handbooks'? Individuals and amateurs? Or professional organisations?

Oh! Did I mention that the entire investigation was completely shut down with a single click of the CIA's fingers? It seems the Finders' leader, Marion Pettie, had been CIA since the days of the OSS. And not forgetting his spook wife and spook son. Faced with the obviousness of the Finders as a total CIA gig, the media refused to touch it at all apart from a solitary article in the US News and World Report assuring us that whatever it was the Finders were up to was "eccentric, not illegal". Oh yeah? What was in those videos? Whose names were on the order forms? And was that human blood on the altar? We'll never know and the media will never ask.

So. We've zoomed out to half a dozen scandals. Fine, let's hold that wide-angle but now search for commonalities. For mine the winner of any whose-name-pops-up-the-most competition would have to be the extraordinary False Memory Syndrome Foundation. Says the FMSF - whenever anyone remembers any stories of childhood abuse (paedophilic, satanist, whatever) it's a false memory that has been planted in that person's head by wicked social workers who are possessed of an irrational hatred. They're just like anti-Semites except they hate child minders and other innocent people.

Because the FMSF's mission is so worthy they have seemingly limitless funding with a chapter in nearly every US state. Their dedicated staff is kept busy flying all over the world testifying for just about anyone accused of paedophilia. Says they, it's the accused that are the victims, and it's the accusers who should be in the dock. They are perfect one trick ponies. And what with presumably having paid google, any search for any of the above-mentioned scandals will often as not deliver the FMSF's version of it (or possibly that of their sister organisation the Institute for Psychological Therapies) first and foremost.

If none of this makes sense, all you need to know is that the FMSF is almost entirely staffed with 'ex'-paedophiles, 'ex'-CIA heavies from the MKultra mind-control programme, and people who would be more accurately described as 'both'. Oh, and 'False Memory Syndrome'? There's no such thing. They just made it up.

If you're feeling a little breathless, a bit like Neo in the Matrix when he discovers the truth of the world he's in, you should know that we sympathise, we really do. It happened to all of us. It just is what it is and you can either keep going, or blink and go back to that virtual steak - it's up to you. But should you wish, between the links provided here and the links provided at each of those, your understanding can follow that branching process until it fills the sky. Very little will escape you.

But what has all this to do with Madeleine McCann? Okay, here is what I know as a cold hard certainty - so huge is this pedophocracy disinfo effort that what with the mainstream media all singing from the same songbook (or not singing as the case may be), there is no way the internet will be spared. And certainly not in regards to the biggest story there is: Madeleine McCann. Thus the various Madeleine forums and usegroups you frequent will have, beyond a shadow of a doubt, at least one fully paid-up and completely dedicated member of the pedophocracy whose sole job it is to make sure that no one gets near the big picture. They may be in the comments, junior, senior, whatever; or they may be the moderator; or they could even have their name right up there in the masthead. Oh, and loners are a rarity, particularly on dedicated sites. Tag-teams are infinitely more likely. The mere fact that a fellow has others agreeing with him increases the weight of that opinion by orders of magnitude. Three? Four people? No problems. We've seen it all before.

Remember - Madeleine McCann was HUGE. The thought that the likewise huge pedophocracy could ignore it and stand back with their fingers crossed hoping that ever larger numbers of people don't wake up to them is an abject impossibility. Remember - they founded the FMSF for no reason other than to convince us all that we shouldn't pay any attention to any crazy stories.

It's an unpleasant fact that full time disinfo merchants hang out pretty much everywhere that free discussions take place. As God is my witness. If you find that too unlikely it's only because you haven't challenged one of them yet. Do that and they give themselves away. It's a long-ish read but if you want to see what a paedophile disinfo spook in action looks like, stevieb provides a salutary lesson. You can actually see me wising up in real time.

And how about the sites you've been hanging out at? Have you ever had cause to wonder at certain dominant people over at the forum you frequent? Would I be right in thinking that they are heavily into blame-the-victim? Do they hate discussions that frame the whole thing in terms of the big picture? Are they big on disinfo buzz words like 'hoax', 'hysteria', 'witch-hunt', 'debunked' etc? Do they link to the FSMF or the IPT and use them as 'debunking' reference points? Do mentions of Dave McGowan have them recoiling like vampires to crucifixes?

Here's something you can try - post a link to this article smack dab in the middle of your favourite forum. There's nothing in it for me you understand. We're just conducting an experiment to see what happens. Just so you know I'm not just making this up, here's Su in the last comments (and actually the inspiration for this piece. Hi Su, smiley winky thing)
As you are aware I have been on several forums for almost three years regarding Madeleine. An eternity ago you said be careful her parents are not guilty it is the paedophocracy. (In my recollection I wasn't quite that definite - ed nobody)

And I was convinced I knew better. I had been spending hours on these forums with some brilliant posters each splicing over the events and concluding lies, lies and more lies.

And we stripped the parents bare, they killed their child of that there was no doubt. And there was an intelligent army of us believing it.

A few days ago a fellow poster was posting about child abuse and Operation Ore and she got banned. Banned for fcuks sake. And then I posed a different question - I asked whether there was a possibility she had been sold to a high powered elite pedophile network. Some fucking pervert abusing the most famous child in the world - again and again - imagine what a thrill that would be. But I did not say that I just said it was a possibility that she did not die in the apartment as alleged by the cop and then posted a link to the aangirfan thread on Haiti.

For the first time ever they deleted the link - declaring it offensive and without validity.

When I went to log in this morning I found my account had been deactivated.

I have come to the conclusion that these places that are meant to be finding out the truth of what happened to this child are manned and controlled and indeed manipulated by a small handful of people - who find what aangirfan says is too close to the truth.

E voila! And that's how it's done. And... that's all it takes. You just have to raise the topic and they give themselves away. So, who's up for it? Do any of you feel like doing battle? Most excellent. Take no prisoners and remember nobody's rule - If they've got the game, they may as well have the name. Godspeed and do pop back in and tell us how you went yeah? All the best.


Oh! And any paedophile disinfo spooks out there turning all kinds of purple apoplectic: Well, what are you waiting for? Pile in! The comments are below. Bring your buddies. Bring your straw men. Bring your pissweak bag of tricks. I'm your man and I'll eat you for fucking breakfast.

Hmm... sure enough you can't very well stomp in here and declare who you are. I recommend a kind of tut-tut approach, if you know what I mean, variously tempered with disappointment, anger, exasperation, that kind of thing ...just to break up the mood etc. Flings at my intelligence, sanity, sobriety are also good. Here's what a rather obvious bloke said the last time I mentioned Madeleine:
Anonymous said...
What a pile of bullshit. You obviously don't know anything about what you are talking about.
It's not great is it? Surely someone out there can do better than that? Don't be shy now! Show us what stern stuff kiddy-rapists are made of. We can't wait.


Post Scriptum - In the comments below Sabretache provides a link to Joel Van Der Reijden's excellent ISGP which was the website for Dutroux, the Dutroux witnesses (X1, et al), as well as a thorough takedown of Le Cercle, the 'Pink Ballets', and the entire edifice of European ruling class satanistic paedophilia. Unfortunately that link is dead but thankfully the site is cached (by Sabretache himself no less) and can be found here: Wikispooks, ISGP cache.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

I have a dream...

I have a dream... it's a dream about me and it's a dream about the world. It's a very beautiful dream.

In my dream I'm in my own personal airbus as it flies over Haiti. I'm fucking a young girl who was rescued/plucked/
kidnapped from Port-au-Prince just an hour earlier. I'm fucking her in the arse. And I'm strangling her. I'm strangling her and I'm fucking her, and because I know what's coming, it's great - just like how it used to be however many years ago. And as I feel my climax approaching I reach over and push the button on my own personal HAARP remote control. Even above the white noise of the jet I can hear a roar like a thousand atom bombs as Haiti is destroyed in an earthquake that I made merely by extending my god-like finger. And like music to my ears Haiti's death rattle becomes the girl's death rattle and in the perfection of that moment my god-like cock ejaculates into the arsehole of her lifeless corpse.

Okay, it's not really my dream. It's actually my dream of a dream, the dream of the god-king of the death cult - it's the absolute most, sacrificed for the absolute least: a nation destroyed, hundreds of thousands dead, millions left homeless and starving, and all of them enslaved to a future of untold suffering and misery and all for the briefest most evanescent moment imaginable, to wit - me having an orgasm.

No squeamishness now! That right there was a perfect death cult moment - a somewhat unlikely and fantastical moment but also not so very far from the truth of the whole thing neither. Best I can make out, in amongst the satanist / talmudist sub-tier under the Rothschilds everything seems to pivot on precisely those Crowley-esque fixations: arseholes and anal sex; death and sacrifice, and all of them maxed out with the involvement of children.

And you shake your head and say it's idiotic and none of it makes any sense? Of course it doesn't! The first thing that must be sacrificed when one worships the self is the truth, with simple common sense the first to go. Thus the orgasm, Darwin's divinely considered incentive to reproduce becomes a masturbatory moment best expended in the waste tract of a member of the same sex, or failing that, of a dead girl too young to reproduce anyway. Admittedly if we were to start condemning people for frivolous placement of bodily fluids there'd be no end to it and we'd all be in the dock. But it's a long way from a tissue in the bin, to the death cult's hell-bent fixation with depositing their jism in the ghastliest and most pointless places imaginable. These perverse fuckers view it as a thing worth killing over. I swear to God.


This blog here is small potatoes in terms of spook attention, but were some lower tier servants of the death cult to be reading this, I expect they'd sneer and say to themselves (by way of reassurance that they're not bullshit) that Haiti was just business. Hell, it was business-plus what with everything being a two-fer minimum. And as if these things are done for spurious reasons, Pah! Haiti's non-spurious reasons? ...oil and resources, cheap labour, population-reduction, weapons testing, the inuring of the rest of the world to their own coming death and suffering - not forgetting that the road to the new world order can't be travelled in a single bounding leap and whilst Haiti might be a single tiny step, at least it's in the right direction.

But then again who gives a fuck what a slave thinks about his master's actions? Any spook reading at this blog can take it as read that he qualifies as the lowest of the low, a slave to be snuffed out for pretty much any reason whatsoever. Not even a colonelcy will save them. Just ask Albert Carone. He didn't even get a headstone. Regardless, he'd have defended the machine that killed him. Like I said, in any cult that pivots on the worship of the self, the first thing to go is the truth. And the first person on the receiving end of the liar's lies is the liar himself.

But never mind all that - back to the main point. And what is that exactly? Am I saying that Haiti was destroyed because of sex? Well, not in so many words but... um... sure, why not?


I know we're meant to be happy with the usual reasons of oil, cheap labour, etc. since the concept of riches appeal to us and we personally spend a great deal of time pursuing them ourselves. And our death cult PTB wouldn't have it any other way. God forbid we lead lives of idleness like they do. The Hamptons overrun! By riff-raff in Bruno Maglis! And all of them waving their money and demanding a table at Nobu! Good God, the very thought of it...

Certainly the logic behind us being kept poor is very obvious, but the logic behind the rich getting richer is much less so. For instance, Niall Ferguson in his abysmal Rothschild arse-suck documentary series The Ascent of Money tells us that the Rothschilds have 41 chateaux. They even had them painted as a numbered mural just in case they forgot any of them. With forty one it wouldn't be difficult. And that's just chateaux, you understand, never mind cottages, apartments, or any other pieds-a-terre. Okay, so they're an extreme example, but even well shy of them, once you're filthy rich every dollar you possess comes with less and less utility (or value, if you prefer). Eventually it just becomes silly. What with becoming poor being an impossibility and with everything that can be bought being comfortably available you'd think that after a certain point that they'd cease bothering with their perverse pursuit of plunder.

Or are there things, in the pursuit of which, the filthy rich find themselves constantly stymied? Think Angers, as in Angers, France. (thanks Aangirfan, thanks AP). In that particular case, whilst the paedophile aristocracy all managed to dance between the rain drops (no surprises there), an entire network / clan of victim-breeding satanists was almost entirely rolled up. Plummy voice - "Admittedly they were all horrid, malodorous, parvenu oiks but they were such useful oiks. A chap could just get on the phone and have a child delivered - it was all so convenient. And now it's gone! Now what's a fellow to do? Curse the Gods and shake his fist at the rotten injustice of it all. Honestly."

But Angers is just a drop in the bucket. Everything we know about the Paedophocracy comes from busts. The Casa Pia orphanage ring in Portugal - busted. The Franklin/ Boys Town ring in the States - busted. The Presidio/West Point childcare ring in the US military - busted. Kincora in Belfast, Haut de la Garenne in Jersey, Islington in London, the merest tip of Aangirfan's iceberg and all busted, and all scratched from the paedophile circuit. Somehow you'd have to imagine that in terms of simple supply and demand these busts must have an effect.

Supply is one thing and demand is another. Perhaps the demand just falls away? Perhaps the Kidd-diBuggerers (it's pronounced dee-BOO-zheray, actually) just go back to having regular sex with consenting adults? It's not impossible. There's nothing to physically stop them. Ha! There's nothing to physically stop cats and dogs getting it on either, but somehow I just don't think it's going to happen.

Mind you, as a Buddhist (admittedly of my own creation) I feel duty bound to always offer the possibility of redemption - the thought must be entertained. And even here redemption is possible but only as that variety of hell-on-earth deprogramming that Pu'yi copped in Bertolucci's The Last Emperor. However I'll happily admit it's not a very likely prospect, or to put it another way, snowballs in hell ain't in it.

The paedophiles of the paedophocracy are do-or-die, literally. Were they to truthfully answer one of those bullshit scientology 'survey' questions, What's the most important thing in the world? Truthfully? Their answer would be 'raping children'. I say this in all seriousness. In fact, what with the ultimate unlikelihood of such a thought being expressed, and the role played by such people in world affairs, I wonder if it might not be the truest thing in the world.

And so! Haiti. We can argue the nature of know-for-sure in terms Haiti and HAARP manufactured earthquakes until the cows come home but the fact remains that the death cult has exactly declared an interest in manufacturing such things, have carried out tests for precisely that purpose, and otherwise wouldn't bat an eyelid if the opportunity presented. But hell, since we're here and this is my place, I'm going to call it. Besides which, between the US as vicious opportunist taking murderous advantage of a natural disaster and the US as vicious instigator pretending to get lucky, there's barely daylight between the two. Fine, we declare a tie. Whatever...

And hello! Who are these fundies running around Haiti rounding up non-orphans and attempting to traffic them out of the country? Knowing what I know of the paedophocracy I view the prospect of them being an out and out pack of satanist paedophiles as likely as any other thing. Hell more so. Does anyone remember Zoe's Ark in Chad three short years ago? They were a children's charity founded by 4WD enthusiasts, like that makes any sense. They were jailed after being sprung with dozens of starving orphans who were neither orphans, nor starving. The media demanded that we sympathise with the dreadfulness of their plight (white people in an African jail - the horror, the horror) in spite of the fact that they'd collected children by driving up beside them in the 4WD and offering them candy if they climbed in. Fucking hell, does it get any more obvious than that? Or is that just me? It's certainly not Nicolas Sarkozy since he stepped in and personally freed them all. No surprises there. Otherwise, what do we think - Carla Bruni, mind-control zombie? Sure why not?

Between Zoe's Ark in Chad and the fundies in Haiti clearly they're both amateur hour. But the presence of amateurs doesn't mean the absence of professionals. Hell, Haiti is crawling with them: the US military, the CIA, Blackwater/XE, UN peacekeepers, and not forgetting sundry Israelis (maybe in tennis gear, maybe not), and all with a hardcore history of child-trafficking. These fuckers know what their masters truly desire. A consumable commodity that when viewed from the angle of Darwin's beyond-fundamental drive (albeit a perverse distortion of it) leaves everything else in the dust - oil, gold, drugs, weapons, you-name-it. None of these can compare to children as fodder for paedophiles. The ultimate must-have addictive product.

The hunger that cannot die possessed by the people who have everything they could ever need or want. Vampires with only a single thirst, never to be quenched. War? Earthquakes? The sound of laughter - they click their fingers and they do it because it suits them. A fig for the economic abstractions, the primal urge has them beat. The neurons fire - MUST FUCK - a throbbing boner for Madeleine, that pixie brunette, some nappy-headed jigaboo, it doesn't fucking matter. It's James Ellroy with all the women replaced by kids. It's Blood Meridian with the Judge installed in the Pentagon. It's Deer Hunter via Sesame Street with Tarantino directing a Nabokov script.

The lifeless, haggard fuckers rule and nothing can touch them. Their merest wish is our command. The world is whatever they say it is. A wave of the hand. A click of the fingers. An earthquake for an orgasm.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

ashes to ashes, steel to dust

I thought I'd seen just about every image connected with 9/11 and then I saw this. This is nuts - true bonzo-zonko territory.

Keep your eye on the spiky steel framework directly above the water tower.

Is it just me, or did that thing just vibrate itself to powder? And has anyone got an explanation for whatever-this-is that isn't science fiction?


This sequence is from Judy Wood's website, specifically this page. There's a ton of perfectly extraordinary material at the site albeit arranged in a difficult-to-follow dog's breakfast fashion. The site is clearly unloved, apparently untouched for four years. I'm still wandering around it trying to figure out what she's saying exactly. Fingers crossed I can figure it out.

Regardless, everything I'd constructed by way of a story to explain 9/11, ie. thermite and controlled demolition, now goes out the window. Whatever is going on in these photos is waaay beyond that.

Friday, February 5, 2010

non-tasmanian no-planers please

First up, anon from the previous comments section. I follow on.
"Let's take 9/11 one step further.

For starters, I have seen live video proving that no airliners hit the WTC towers, taken by a live NBC affiliate on that date.

When a person pulls their head out of their colon, and accepts the fact that the planes were photo-shopped on to the WTC videos (and rather crudely, in places) after the fact, and that there is a time delay between when things happen and when you see them on TV, it explains a number of things, such as:

1) Why there is no video of ANYBODY boarding any of the planes in question, at the boarding gates in question, at the airports in question, on the date in question. Additionally, the FBI stupidly claimed that 9 of the "Arabs" were sent to secondary security, due to "suspicion." If that's so, then why is there no secondary security video of any of them? Are they fucking vampires? And, if they went through this added security, then how could they have possibly taken all of the weapons and such on board that the government claims? And where are the private and federal lawsuits against the airports, airlines, and/or security company(ies) for allowing it to happen? Simple. There are no lawsuits because there is no video of them, and they didn't get those weapons on the planes, because they didn't get on the planes. This also explains why a number of the accused “hijackers” were subsequently found to be alive and living in other countries – quite a trick for a “suicide” pilot/hijacker.

2) Why they have never recovered any tail sections, any of the huge, 6-ton tempered-steel outboard engines (including the struts), any of the tubular steel seat frames, any of the passengers' corpses, any of their luggage, fuselages, the basically indestructible black boxes (which have ALWAYS been recovered before and since 9/11), etc. When planes of that type crash, they leave wreckage.

3) Why a woman who still lives in New York spent 5 years searching for relatives of 64 people on one of the obviously phony passenger lists, and even after hiring detectives, never found a single one.

4) Why Willie Brown and a number of clergy left San Francisco International Airport after a number of hours on that date, because not one family member/relative/friend ever showed up to inquire after any of the alleged passengers on "Flight 93."

5) Why NORAD never intercepted any of these "hijacked" airliners -- because there were none to intercept.

6) Why neither United nor American airlines has ever filed a loss claim for any one of those four flights.

7) Why there is no video of a 757 hitting the Pentagon.

8) Why, up until late 2004, as pointed out by a noted 9/11 researcher, the BTS web site showed that neither of the American flights were even scheduled to fly on that date. The BTS pulled the pages off-line and doctored them, later reposting them, but unfortunately for them, by that time, the original pages had been backed up and widely distributed over the Internet.

9) Why the FAA had the tail numbers of the 2 United flights registered as "valid," meaning that the planes were still in service, until September 28, 2005. The FAA only de-registered them after two other 9/11 researchers kept demanding to know why the planes were still registered as being in service, four years after both the federal government and the airlines had stated for the record that they were destroyed in a “terrorist” attack.

10) Why the FAA's own directory of pilots and their qualifications showed (at least a while ago; they've probably doctored that by now, just as they doctored the BTS web pages after the criminal implications were pointed out) that on 9/11, not one of the eight pilots alleged to have been in the cockpits upon takeoff had a current, valid commercial pilot's license."

Hullo again anon. Will you forgive me for declaring myself dubious on the no-planes thing? Perhaps it's the curious take-no-prisoners, fuck-the-lot-of-yers attitude of the no-planers? They remind me of Tasmanian Devils - they'll pick a fight anywhere, for any reason, and even amongst their own family (if you can dig it). I've yet to see one of them convince anyone of anything. Or even try really...

Furthermore I'm not quite sure what utility might be gained by dispensing with planes and utilising doctored footage that would necessarily be at odds with the numerous witnesses, particularly given that the remote control of civilian jetliners has been a simple reality since the late sixties. It's like the Apollo photos with the alleged mismatched shadows that supposedly have two light sources. Why bother using two when one would suffice and two would offer no perceptible advantage? This scores big in the what's the point? department.

I will concede some aspects of the no-plane case. Dave McGowan turned me around on the Pentagon. Prior to that I'd gone along with Mike Rivero and his numerous witnesses. McGowan did a number on the lot of them. And obviously there was no plane in that field in Shanksville (but there does seem to have been a debris field leading up to it). But as for the twin towers I've yet to see anything that made me think twice.

What does everyone else think? Are there any non-tasmanian no-planers out there?

Disinfo and psyops aside, here are my technical thoughts on the matter:

In Anon's spray, photoshop is the wrong word. Photoshop is for the manipulation of still images only. Moving footage would require a far more elaborate process. I can see two options.

Option 1 - A 3D plane comped into footage of an empty sky. Given the simplicity of a render involving a simple metallic object like a jet-liner (a render is the conversion of sundry algorithms and data into shiny complete footage), and given the grunt of computers nowadays (even in 2001), this is just feasible. It used to be that renders would take an hour a frame (and there's 25 frames in a second don't forget) but we've come a long way since then. Rendering gets closer and closer to real-time every day. Anyone who's played one of those new car-racing games and marvelled at how good it looks, you're looking at real-time rendering. It's not quite photo-real but it's not bad neither. Also in televised sports games, horse races, and swimming competitions it's possible to see various graphics comped real-time onto the field, or pool, or whatever. The camera pans to and fro but the graphics stick to the environment. Mind you, the 2D graphics that sports require is way simpler than any fully 3D jet liners. And the computer games involve their own series of cheats not available to people with real cameras in a real city. The problem with this option is the fact that eye-witnesses would have nothing to see. The planes would only exist on TV.

Hmm, thinks: Would a separate team be required for each separate shot? Or would each camera be able to plug into a central computer supporting a single 3D model that would be automatically comped into each camera's output? Nightmarish! And how to avoid having the plane appear over the various foreground elements of smoke etc? In the regular post-production world this would involve the manipulation of soft-edged mattes that would involve hours of work and absolutely smash the possibility of real time rendering. Furthermore, the requirements of coordinating CG animation with real world pyro is so fraught (certainly in real time) as to be, well... frankly impossible.

Option 2 - Some variety of projection with no comping necessary. God knows how this would work: an insanely powerful 3D projector (or a series of them) would throw a solid non-transparent image of the jetliner into the sky that would not only convince witnesses, but also cleanly transfer to film and television. It is true that were this possible it would simplify the whole process. One camera, a hundred cameras, witnesses in their thousands, who gives a shit? Mind you the problems I outlined above in regards to coordinating the timing of holographic plane with the non-holographic kerosene explosions are identical. Of course above all this lies not only the fact that no such thing is known to exist but I can't even imagine how it would work. Further, in some ways it reminds of that old chestnut you see in superhero movies - unbelieveable innovations that would make their inventor rich if only he thought of selling it. Like Spider-man's web shooters. Honestly, the guy is perpetually poor and it never occurs to him to sell these things? Okay, same-same for massive projectors that can mimic reality in 3D without a screen or anything. Never mind Mahathir saying that if they can make Avatar they can make anything: Avatar is a kind of false z-depth 3D (ie. if you go closer to the screen you won't see around the corner) and you have to wear special specs to even see it at all. A massive projector capable of fooling a city would be to Avatar what Avatar is to Indonesian shadow puppets.

But to hell with me! Pile in folks! Has anyone got any time for the no-plane gig?