Contact

I respond to ALL mails that are not spam within a day or two, with a real answer, not a script even if it takes hours to answer them. IF you mailed me and got no response, it got intercepted.
Contact Jim Stone

Web resourcesI am going to post the most valuable web resources here.

This is the best video sniping site, you don't have to buy the app, just use it and let it use Java.

Keepvid.com

Internet explorer hates this, but Google chrome works fine.

_________

This is the best absolute stealth mode Linux out there, (Kills ubuntu dead) but you need an older PC for it (4 or more years)

Knoppix 5.1

When it downloads, double click it with a burnable CD in your drive, NOT a dvd, and it will take care of the rest. Re-boot via CD and enjoy. You don't have to install it, and it leaves your computer untouched.

Since Vialls work was so similar to mine, it will be archived here.

Like Fukushima, Indonesia was swamped by a nuclear tsunami.

I suspected Vialls would not live to post the second part of this report. He did not

April 26 2012, 2:07 AM

This report has been approved for posting by a veteran commercial airline pilot, with the following disclaimer:

James,

Great job with the photos. I scrolled back and forth between the 800 and the impact plane. I still think 300, or slight chance 400-500 (not very likely though) because of the relative proportion. The impact plane to me still looks too small for an 800. The 800 was stretched to carry up to 189 passengers and had a longer fuselage.

However, it ABSOLUTELY is a 737. Tell you what. Just link to my article (attached unchanged in case you lost it) and if it is an 800 you can have all the glory. I only pointed out the picture for the flap track fairings which are huge on all 737's. It doesn't really matter which model it is. It is NOT a 767 and your pictures show that superbly, better than what I linked to.

I just hope the main point doesn't get lost in a red herring chase over which model 737 it is. The photos are secondary evidence. The engine in the street, confirmed by mechanics, is the hard evidence of what it was.

I don't mind disagreeing with you on this issue and if it turns out you are correct, I will cheer you on. I just can't see it yet. What the heck, as you implied in your intro, I'm a semi-senile retired fuddy duddy who doesn't know what he's looking at. Gosh, I'm 69, what do you expect?

Mike

My comment about the intro: you are still WITH IT!!! 69 is nothing these days!

I have to get this online in stages, so bear with me, I have a lot to do. His full report will appear in the guest writer's section as soon as I manually retype the code to HTML.

The full report by Mike Phillips is now linked Here

Introduction

I had readers warn me not to post ANYTHING about 911, because it's become a religion for many and I would lose readers. However, I think I have something here that will end the pod plane theory, and the computer graphics / no plane theory in one shot. The pod plane theory will be set aside because the plane used for the theory (the one that appeared in Popular Mechanics) is a fake. You can't blame people for running with that, and the birth of that theory is the fault of Popular Mechanics.
The no plane theory is now going to have to factor in HOW on earth, or WHY on earth would a computer graphics team use the wrong airplane, when they could have used the right one.

This report is open to discussion, but I think it has been pretty well nailed.

Was an unused five year old prototype 737-800 the real 9/11 plane?

div.fc-ab-root").style.setProperty('display', 'none', 'important');