Killtowns no planes theory mega posts [Archive]

View Full Version : Killtowns no planes theory mega posts

killtown

30-11-2007, 11:11 PM

adimon

30-11-2007, 11:36 PM

I find that video fascinating. I watch it time and time again and it still baffles me.

I can't decide what I'm seeing or thinking when I watch it.

Thoughts

1. "Shit! Planes don't glide into buildings - the footage is bogus!"
2. "Maybe planes going that fast do glide into buildings..."
3. "What's the building made of and how is it built?"
4. "Damnit! Why is there so much disagreement about the construction of WTC?!"
5. "What now? Where do I look to next for fresh 9/11 info?"

lennart

01-12-2007, 12:54 AM

Well, it doesn,t change that it was an inside job. However for truthseekers it tells us something about the media. We already (or most of us) know the media is controlled and we have an idea of how. This however(for me) changes that idea...it looks like the conspiracy is even bigger.

Good article Killtown!

freedomnonfighter

01-12-2007, 06:22 AM

Hey Killtown. Good to see ya here - am a friend of yours over myspace. :)

I am new/open to the NPT... I haven't seen Sept Clues or anything, though I've viewed your site several times - and heard you on Rev Radio several months back.

For me, it's definitely possible, even more plausible than remote controlling planes.

One question I've never been able to answer is what happened to the supposed passengers of supposed flights?

Will be looking into all this soon :)

zedd

01-12-2007, 07:51 AM

All of your questions are basically the same and did not offer any information to refute what has been established. All you have don't is repeatedly ask "How do you know?" or "How did they know?"

Well, if that is all that it takes to prove something then I have a question: How do you know YOU weren't behind the 9/11 attacks. People sleep walk so we can't rule out the possibility that you slep walked and flew the planes into the buildings. The way you survived? Simple, you didn't. You knew what questions there would be and pulled an Osama Bin Laden and preprogrammed your repsonses. Then, you had a friend who knew what was going on go around making posts on the script you created before your death. It's all so clear.

Your next questions about "how they knew" are also easy. They have access to physics books. If the plan would not have worked then they would not have tried it. Maybe, they thought that if it didn't work they could rig the building with explosives on top of using planes and then if the planes missed they could have simply blew the towers up and said that Al Quaeda planted the bombs like they (allegedly) did the first time. After the planes hit, you simply blow up the buildings to remove the evidence and guarantee a collapse.

Your blog lacked evidence and just asked questions that cannot be answered because you want people to somehow prove a negative or admit that there is a possibility you are correct. That admission of the possibility you are correct is then used as "evidence" for your theory.

ninja17

01-12-2007, 02:51 PM

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/4696/wtc2crashgifcx3.gif

Whut i dont quiet grasp about the theory is if there were "just" "explosions" why would they at least take the shape of a plane hitting the building?If there were no planes,meaning project blue beam,whut about the missing passengers and the supposed to be mossad-trained highjackers that were supposed to be in the planes?..

lennart

02-12-2007, 01:05 AM

steevo

02-12-2007, 01:12 AM

I created this (http://staatsgevaarlijk.web-log.nl/mijn_weblog/2007/12/the_911_no_plan.html) short article on the No Plain Theory. Then posted it on the dutch version of digg-it called Nujij.nl. And with 15 votes they took it down of the frontpage! Normally it stays there 24hours and two other articles about 911 being an inside job where not removed at that same time!

I linked to your site btw.
My site: www.staatsgevaarlijk.nl
Dutch digg-it a-like site:
http://www.nujij.nl/the-9-11-no-plane-theory.1397751.lynkx

I think that the no planes theory is misinformation and could set us back years if we take it too seriously. Imagine trying to persude the sheeple that there were no planes, "It's riduculous! lmao". I have told absolutely loads of people that 911 was an inside job, most find it difficult to take but at least I have planted the seed in their heads. There is NO WAY AT ALL that I would even hint to them that there were no planes, that would be stupid.

lennart

02-12-2007, 01:16 AM

I think that the no planes theory is misinformation and could set us back years if we take it too seriously. Imagine trying to persude the sheeple that there were no planes, "It's riduculous! lmao". I have told absolutely loads of people that 911 was an inside job, most find it difficult to take but at least I have planted the seed in their heads. There is NO WAY AT ALL that I would even hint to them that there were no planes, that would be stupid.

I agree that it sounds ridiculous and it,s not something to promote or to focus on when spreading the truth. However on a forum like this we absolutely should discus it and research it. Because it tells something about the mainstream media. It,s maybe even more controlled then we think.

zedd

02-12-2007, 05:35 AM

Terrible post. You obviously do not know the first thing about planning and risk management.

This event was planned for YEARS. These people knew, that there were going to be 3 buiding collapses in NY and a damaged section to the pentagon (hence the construction work in the exact area to strengthen). They then knew that these events would be used as the catalyst for not only the invasion of Afghanistan and the building of the pipeline, but the invasion of Iraq and any other invasion they care to carry out under the guise of 'The War on Terror'. Oh as well as removal of civil liberties, introduction of ID cards etc.

That was their plan. Do you doubt that?

For any plan, there will be risks which may affect the plan. These risks would, before the plan kicked off, be measured and calculated for likelyhood and weighed up for impact on the plan should they occur. The planes were a definite risk since at no point in history has a similar event occurred which could be used to gauge the likelyhood of the planes actually penetrating the towers. How on earth would they know that the strikes would look convincing enough to justify the building collapses....especially since the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a commercial jet....another major risk btw.

So what do they do when faced with such a HUGE risk as this? Do they let it happen and cross their fingers? With all the future planning that rests on this one event? Do you really think that they are THAT sloppy?

Oh...I'm terribly sorry. I didn't realize that using real planes may not have worked yet using hologram lazer beam planes was a guaranteed success. They must have some fantastic lazer beam hologram technology that can guarantee they will pull their plan off without anything happening...like a bird flying through their hologram.

You don't understand reality. If you can use a plane, you will use a plane. There is no need to complicate things and get the entire media in on it and use elaborate whatever the hell you think they used when you can just get a plane and then smash it into the building.

killtown

02-12-2007, 05:47 AM

One question I've never been able to answer is what happened to the supposed passengers of supposed flights?
Hi my friend,

I wish I knew too, however we don't need to answer that if we can prove their planes didn't crash where we were told they did.

The prosecuters will find out where they took them during the trial. ;)

killtown

02-12-2007, 05:49 AM

NPT is specifically designed...
:rolleyes:

Do you have any proof it was "spicifically designed" for anything?

killtown

02-12-2007, 05:52 AM

killtown

02-12-2007, 05:54 AM

I think that the no planes theory is misinformation and could set us back years if we take it too seriously. Imagine trying to persude the sheeple that there were no planes, "It's riduculous! lmao". I have told absolutely loads of people that 911 was an inside job, most find it difficult to take but at least I have planted the seed in their heads. There is NO WAY AT ALL that I would even hint to them that there were no planes, that would be stupid.
That's what people told me when I first start telling people no plane crashed into the Pentagon.

killtown

02-12-2007, 05:56 AM

yet using hologram lazer beam planes
Who said those were used?

helloperator

02-12-2007, 12:35 PM

ukor

02-12-2007, 02:38 PM

:rolleyes:

Do you have any proof it was "spicifically designed" for anything?

No planes "intellectual" leader, Texan military-industrial functionary, Bush family apparatchik and administration insider Morgan Reynolds is endightment enough.

As Lenin said, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."

No planes isn't the whole opposition, but it has its lower level constituency.

steevo

02-12-2007, 02:47 PM

It is interesting that it's more than feasable that no plane hit the pentagon nor Shanksville...yet 2 planes did hit the wtc. what I find frustrating is that there are still a lot of people out there who wont have a bar of there being an 'inside job'.

No planes hit the Pentagon or Shanksville IMO and when I speak to people I tell them that. When I speak to the sheeple, most of them dont accept 911 was an inside job BUT I have planted the seed in their heads and when you speak to them again months later, they usually have softened up to the idea :)

I wanna know who these people are who rigged wtc7,1 and 2 with explosives. Who are these human beings? A lot of people must have participated in the genocide.

But anyway, just the other day met two people...one share my beliefs re 911...the other guy completely opposite. surely anyone who looks at wtc7 CANT explain it any other way. It's an absolute gimmee

Most people just try to ignore the WTC7 thing when I tell them, they dont even believe that a third building went down that day lol but like I say I plant a seed in their heads and when SOMEONE ELSE mentions the same thing to them it's gonna "click" and then it will be time to start waking up. :)

steevo

02-12-2007, 06:38 PM

steevo...tell me if you still think planes hit the twin towers then how did they do it if it wasn't very clever muslim pilots....perhaps you will say remote controlled airliners?...now research how many remote controlled drones actually make their target

I personally do think that planes hit the towers. Maybe it was very clever duped muslim pilots, maybe it was remote controlled. What I am sure about is that it was an inside job!!!!

teslafire

02-12-2007, 08:15 PM

The prosecuters will find out where they took them during the trial. ;)

Hmmm, you really think that's actually going to happen??

edro9494

02-12-2007, 09:38 PM

Killtown, i like your ideas. But what do you say about the flights and the passengers? what about the victims families?

dave52

02-12-2007, 11:27 PM

Killtown, i like your ideas. But what do you say about the flights and the passengers? what about the victims families?

Schedule the flights, get the passengers on the planes. Land them somewhere and kill them. Fake the phone calls and tell the families the official story. Why is this so difficult to understand? Look at 9/11 for what it is. Mass murder of innocent civillians, a couple hundred passengers on bogus flights really isn't a big problem.

helloperator

03-12-2007, 12:04 AM

All this confusion is very frustrating. There's noone you can even point your finger at. I think it's all like a huge smoke screen...by the time the dust settles, noone will be around

edro9494

03-12-2007, 03:32 AM

dave52, thanks for solving my problem as if i had never thought of that before.:rolleyes:

I wanted Killtown to lay it out, perhaps there's something he knows others don't.

narcolepticwatchman

03-12-2007, 07:14 AM

Oh...I'm terribly sorry. I didn't realize that using real planes may not have worked yet using hologram lazer beam planes was a guaranteed success. They must have some fantastic lazer beam hologram technology that can guarantee they will pull their plan off without anything happening...like a bird flying through their hologram.

You don't understand reality. If you can use a plane, you will use a plane. There is no need to complicate things and get the entire media in on it and use elaborate whatever the hell you think they used when you can just get a plane and then smash it into the building.

Where did i say they used hologram laser beam planes? I have never said such a thing. You are scraping the bottom of the barrel for a come-back there are you not?

That last comment is just absurd. They have all these tools at their disposal so WHY NOT use them? Same way they did with JFK when the desription of LHO was in a New Zealand newspaper before it was released in the states. Same way the zapruder film was faked. Same way the apollo moon landing footage was faked.

I think there is only one person here who doesn't understand REALITY.

And still you have not taken cognisance of the main point of my last post. What if the plane did not do enough damage to the building to make their story look believable? The building was designed to withstand a plane impact. Do you think that is a risk that they could afford to take?

kblood

03-12-2007, 07:55 AM

Schedule the flights, get the passengers on the planes. Land them somewhere and kill them. Fake the phone calls and tell the families the official story. Why is this so difficult to understand? Look at 9/11 for what it is. Mass murder of innocent civillians, a couple hundred passengers on bogus flights really isn't a big problem.

Problem is that it is so much easier just doing it the way that it is believed to have been done. Why would it be easier, and less risky, to do it this way?

The no-planes theory should be quite easy to prove or disprove with so many witnesses.

And to Narcolepticwatchman, if the no-planes theory did not use hologram planes, then how else would there be no-planes used to accomplish the 9-11 attack? Comparing it to how the moonlanding was faked... problem is they had a big studio to do this. They did not have the whole world witnessing the thing being taped.

My point is, it would simply be easier to use planes, than fake planes ever being used to make the attack. The explosives, and the amount of explosives needed to make the buildings fall, that does imply an inside job. I to agree that it might look fake how the planes hit the buildings, but these planes are not made of paper or common metals.

killtown

03-12-2007, 10:28 AM

Schedule the flights, get the passengers on the planes. Land them somewhere and kill them. Fake the phone calls and tell the families the official story. Why is this so difficult to understand? Look at 9/11 for what it is. Mass murder of innocent civillians, a couple hundred passengers on bogus flights really isn't a big problem.
That's about as good a theory as I could come up with.

Remember this about Operation Northwoods:

An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
~
(11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be lieu of (10)).
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/04/operation-northwoods.html

i_am

03-12-2007, 10:42 AM

That forum is the most embarrassing 9/11 "truth" forum currently, just edging out the other highly embarrassing "truth" forums Loose Change and truthaction.org.

This forum, killtown, is not an exclusive 9/11 forum. It is a very small part of the whole. There are many, many other topics being discussed here as well.

killtown

03-12-2007, 10:52 AM

1) My point is, it would simply be easier to use planes, than fake planes ever being used to make the attack.

2) The explosives, and the amount of explosives needed to make the buildings fall, that does imply an inside job.

3) I to agree that it might look fake how the planes hit the buildings, but these planes are not made of paper or common metals.
1) I agree that it would be much simpler to crash real planes into the Twin Towers, but let me ask you a question. If the planes had only managed to mostly crash and explode on the outside of the buildings, do you believe that would give the perps enough of a reasonable story to fools people into believing that caused the Towers to collapse?

2) If this was a real plane with the reported amount of fuel in it, or even more if it was a drone plane meant to produce a more "shock & awe" effect with the explosion:

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/9189/hezarkhanicumv3.gif

how were the perps able to rig the TWO towers with explosives to precisely implode them and not have these large jets with lots of fuel accidentally set off any of their precisioned planted explosives that might because the Towers to not collapsed the way they wanted it too, or even worse, not collapsed at all? Remember, if the North Tower didn't collapse, the perps would have no story at all to give as to what caused the WTC 7 to implode on itself. (And just imagine if their "Flight 11" missed the North Tower all together!)

3) Comparatively, the wings and tail sections are. Notice in the video above how even the weakest parts of the plane (the wings and tail) seem to meet NO resistance according to this video. Why didn't the wings explode as they each came in contact with a dozen sharp steel girders on each side?

One KNOWN answer is that CGI planes in Flight Simulator will do precisely this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_ynFWRT6cM

killtown

03-12-2007, 10:57 AM

This forum, killtown, is not an exclusive 9/11 forum. It is a very small part of the whole. There are many, many other topics being discussed here as well.
You may have misread interpreted my post, but I was talking about the nineeleven.co.uk forum that's infested and moderated by trolls.

i_am

03-12-2007, 11:01 AM

You may have misread interpreted my post, but I was talking about the nineeleven.co.uk forum that's infested and moderated by trolls.

Ahh! Yes, so you did. I read 'that' forum as this 'forum' :o

killtown

03-12-2007, 11:04 AM

Ahh! Yes, so you did. I read 'that' forum as this 'forum' :o
No worries mate. Are you an admin/mod at this forum if I may ask? I'm an admin at the forum in my sig. Feel free to stop by for a look.

i_am

03-12-2007, 11:07 AM

No worries mate. Are you an admin/mod at this forum if I may ask? I'm an admin at the forum in my sig. Feel free to stop by for a look.

Yes and OK will do when I get some spare time.

killtown

04-12-2007, 03:57 AM

Updated my article to include "truther" Anthony Lawson's suggestion that the planes the fully penetrated the Twin Towers did so because they were specially lined with Depleted Uranium:

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-they-didnt-use-planes-to-hit-wtc.html

kblood

04-12-2007, 11:13 PM

sidlittle

05-12-2007, 12:18 AM

I know the planes hit the buildings very fast, wether they were remote controled, CGI, real planes or smoke rockets... but there must be witnesses who can say for or against this theory?

Isnt it possible to get some comments from witnesses?

Even though I am not convinced Killtown, you have done a good job promoting and arguing for the no planes theory :) Would like some more proof unto this theory. Must be some of the 5 million people living on manhatten that got a look at what happened. There ought to be a few confused people out there if they did not see any planes crashing by. The cover of many skyscrabers is of cause an issue, but still...

You mentioned the witnesses before in another thread so I'll repeat my post from there;

there are witnesses to 'no-planes' but we can't win. When we show these witnesses, people just argue that 'they looked too late' or ' they were in the wrong place'.

Point is , 'plane crashes' were the order of the day so, complicit or non complicit, why would the media give a platform to people who say they didn't see a plane? See how this 'no plane' witness was brushed away..
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zCeDpZnEeu8

steevo

05-12-2007, 12:27 AM

You mentioned the witnesses before in another thread so I'll repeat my post from there;

That video is sort of ambiguous. The way I see that video is that he meant a bomb brought the second tower down (after the plane hit) in a controlled demolition maybe.

lennart

05-12-2007, 12:37 AM

What about this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO9s8nNysWg

At 1:00 there is a video of an airplane that hits the bulding. At 1:07 There is the same video with NO plane!!

kblood

05-12-2007, 12:39 AM

That video is sort of ambiguous. The way I see that video is that he meant a bomb brought the second tower down (after the plane hit) in a controlled demolition maybe.

There is a difference between not and no, and it does seem the guy in that video knows that difference, despite not having english/american as his native language.

Well, it does seem to be possible that people have just been fooled to believe the planes went by too fast. What about the sound? There ought to have been a great "swoosh" or "vrooom" having a plane or two flying low over (and into) the city at great speeds. Is that sound missing then? A smoke rocket or whatever it could have been instead would not have made as convinving a sound I believe. Then I guess when that close, the view would not have been good.

lennart

05-12-2007, 01:17 AM

What about this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO9s8nNysWg

At 1:00 there is a video of an airplane that hits the bulding. At 1:07 There is the same video with NO plane!!

So what do you guys think of this video then?

sidlittle

05-12-2007, 01:41 AM

So what do you guys think of this video then?

Hi lennart
The plane was purposely taken out to show how easy it is to manipulate video.
The first minute of the video is the most important in my opinion.

lennart

05-12-2007, 02:22 AM

ah ok, i recently watched so much of these clips on youtube! So didn,t noticed it. Anyway, for me it,s totally clear....no planes where used during 9/11!

ninja17

05-12-2007, 07:39 PM

So a real plane would have been crushed on the steel damaged like a fly and slide back down on the street??
The first minute of the last vid posted showed how fast that "plane" was..i dont know.But in the end the most important thing to understand about 911 is problem-reaction-solution how Icke mentioned it..

clint web

05-12-2007, 09:12 PM

do you really think crashing large planes loaded with fuel into two of some of the tallest buildings in the world you've just rigged with explosives for a controlled demolition would be a good idea? How would you know that crashing large planes into them wouldn't prematurely explode any of the critically placed bombs that might jeopardize the way you wanted the towers to fall or worse, might even prevent the towers from collapsing at all?

This is something i've always wondered and a very good point. I once asked this over at Alex Jones forum and it got no reply.

I'm not a believer in Holograms but this point has always made me wonder.

sidlittle

05-12-2007, 10:19 PM

So a real plane would have been crushed on the steel damaged like a fly and slide back down on the street??

It's not that the plane penetrates the building itself, more the manner in which it does so. We don't really see a 'penetration' , we don't see a 'reaction' in accordance with Newtonian laws of motion. We don't see buckling, distortion and distress to the aluminum plane. Nothing breaks off and we see a 'melting' into the steel columns and concrete floors, and buildings that temporarily heal themselves. Debunkers talk about video compression so I say go and get hold of the dvd footage. 911 in plane sight shows it beautifully in slow motion. The absurdities are even more apparent.

ninja17

05-12-2007, 11:16 PM

911 in plane sight shows it beautifully in slow motion.

I have a problem with that slow-motion stuff,though it is a very good argument.But it totally "mis-sees" the actuall speed of the plane..

killtown

06-12-2007, 01:53 PM

I know the planes hit the buildings very fast, wether they were remote controled, CGI, real planes or smoke rockets... but there must be witnesses who can say for or against this theory?

Isnt it possible to get some comments from witnesses?

Even though I am not convinced Killtown, you have done a good job promoting and arguing for the no planes theory :) Would like some more proof unto this theory. Must be some of the 5 million people living on manhatten that got a look at what happened. There ought to be a few confused people out there if they did not see any planes crashing by. The cover of many skyscrabers is of cause an issue, but still...
Thanks. There are witnesses who said they just saw the South Tower exploding and didn't see a plane. None of the ground reporters reported seeing any planes, only the telephone witnesses and the newscasters in their newsrooms watching the monitors.

I don't hold a lot of stock in witnesses either way and don't feel it's significant. Example, tons of truthers think no 757 hit the Pentagon, yet fiercely object to the idea that no 767's hit the Towers. Why? There were "hundreds" of witnesses at/near the Pentagon who "saw" a plane hit it. How could hundreds of witnesses be fooled, but thousands couldn't?

killtown

06-12-2007, 01:56 PM

So a real plane would have been crushed on the steel damaged like a fly and slide back down on the street??
I believe only the front half of a 767 and its engines would have penetrated coming in like the videos show. The wings should have blown up against the facade and the tail section would have gotten hacked off.

sidlittle

06-12-2007, 05:34 PM

I have a problem with that slow-motion stuff,though it is a very good argument.But it totally "mis-sees" the actuall speed of the plane..

Newton third law of motion tells us that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Speed is irrelevant. Does it matter if the plane hits the towers at 500mph+ or the towers hit the plane at that speed? What would happen to a stationary aluminum plane being hit by a 500,000 tonne, steel and reinforced concrete tower at 500 mph+ ? Would we expect it to glide into the towers as we see in the videos?
I have a problem with it.

killtown

07-12-2007, 01:29 AM

Well I'm glad to see that no one seems to refute the logic of no planes at the WTC.

;)

ukor

07-12-2007, 02:01 AM

Newton third law of motion tells us that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Speed is irrelevant. Does it matter if the plane hits the towers at 500mph+ or the towers hit the plane at that speed? What would happen to a stationary aluminum plane being hit by a 500,000 tonne, steel and reinforced concrete tower at 500 mph+ ? Would we expect it to glide into the towers as we see in the videos?
I have a problem with it.

It's really not that hard to comprehend that in either case the weakest parts of each struicture would fail in sequence according to their relative strengths in exactly the way that they did.

ninja17

07-12-2007, 02:11 AM

Would we expect it to glide into the towers as we see in the videos?
QUOTE]

May be.

[QUOTE]Well I'm glad to see that no one seems to refute the logic of no planes at the WTC.

Whut if you were totally right,dude?

lennart

07-12-2007, 03:49 AM

But no, NPT is so patently ludicrous that anyone can discount it after even cursory examination without being a 'sockpuppet' or a 'troll'.

Get used to it.

Oh?

Killtown is doing a great job as far as i can see it.

veritas2007

07-12-2007, 05:40 PM

helloperator

07-12-2007, 06:35 PM

I also find it interesting that 'no plane hit the pentagon' yet 'lots of people saw a plane hit it'

ukor

07-12-2007, 11:12 PM

UKOR, leave it alone, eh? Some people want to discuss NPT and its a pain in the arse having to skip past your "NPT is ludicrous" posts.

Killtown, stop baiting people please. Let's just deal with the point in question.

Its a drag having to sidestep all these petty squables :(

Which is a bit like saying "let's not spoil the magic of Christmas for the kiddies, eh?"

Except this isn't Christmas, it's about an ongoing coup affecting the whole world and if no-planers want to discuss it openly, they should be prepared to have some of their fantasies punctured by reality occasionally.

ninja17

08-12-2007, 03:23 AM

No plane-theory created to be debunked to protect "Project Blue beam"?

But it is not debunked...

Go on...

:)

ssyx

08-12-2007, 03:28 AM

I also find it interesting that 'no plane hit the pentagon' yet 'lots of people saw a plane hit it'

Me too.

kblood

08-12-2007, 02:09 PM

I can see that there are good points as to why they would not use planes, but it still seems to me that there are more good reasons to use planes.

Seems to me that alot more people having to be in on it with the no planes theory, and that makes it less of a covert, black ops operation. And wasnt many of the feeds of the planes hitting WTC was shown live?

So my claim as to why they did use planes is that it took alot less risk in using planes instead of not using the planes. If no planes were used, then there ought to be much better evidence than just video feeds that could have been edited anyway. One of the claims is that the plane is too dark... well it was flying below a huge cloud of black smoke...

Too many witnesses have seen the planes hit WTC, and making the real planes go dissapear seems alot of effort and risk to put into it.

dave52

09-12-2007, 10:51 AM

Too many witnesses have seen the planes hit WTC, and making the real planes go dissapear seems alot of effort and risk to put into it.

Where are all these witnesses...? All we ever see / hear are TV insiders. I really want to hear from real people.

adimon

09-12-2007, 10:57 AM

Where are all these witnesses...? All we ever see / hear are TV insiders. I really want to hear from real people.

Hear, hear!

If anyone knows someone who was in NYC on 9/11 or someone who tragically died, please visit this thread:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15045

kblood

09-12-2007, 12:31 PM

Hear, hear!

If anyone knows someone who was in NYC on 9/11 or someone who tragically died, please visit this thread:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15045

There seems to be lots of evidence against the no planes theory here:
http://www.911disinformation.com/

Several sources of pictures, videoes and witnesses at 911. If this many people were in on the 911 attack, then some would have turned on them and told the truth by now.

cyince

09-12-2007, 11:16 PM

There seems to be lots of evidence against the no planes theory here:
http://www.911disinformation.com/

Several sources of pictures, videoes and witnesses at 911. If this many people were in on the 911 attack, then some would have turned on them and told the truth by now.

Exactly. I mean the whole concept is really quite ridiculous, take just one piece of the theory and you see how many people then need to be 'in on it', and consequently kept quiet.

I'm curious to hear the No Planers theoretical operational plan leading up to and for the attack, and by that i mean a skeleton of the plan.
For example:

1. Secretly develop remote control tech for Boeing air crafts
2. Secretly infiltrate all the major news organizations, and there affiliates in all positions
3. Secretly place 'stealth' explosives within the WTC (with remote detonation)
4. etc

I would just really like to know how a no planer logically comes to the conclusion that No planes makes sense.

dave52

09-12-2007, 11:17 PM

There seems to be lots of evidence against the no planes theory here:
http://www.911disinformation.com/

Ok, this may well be a knee jerk reaction, but on the very first page there is a big push for David Ray Griffin. Fair enough, I'd be the first to admit that I've enjoyed his books, but his recent one world government revelations scares the bejesus out of me. And the fact that Alex Jones hasn't said a word about it is also quite telling.

One of the biggest illuminati positions appears to be a one world government. And any 9/11 Truther that advocates that has got to have a skepticle eye cast apon them. No-planes pushes a lot of buttons for a lot of people that I'm wary of. It just feels like no-planes touches nerves, and hell - I like that.

dave52

09-12-2007, 11:24 PM

1. Secretly develop remote control tech for Boeing air crafts
2. Secretly infiltrate all the major news organizations, and there affiliates in all positions
3. Secretly place 'stealth' explosives within the WTC (with remote detonation)
4. etc

1. No secret, this has been in place for ages. Although, of course, no-planes means just that. No Boeing required.

2. Not a big deal. Ten minutes with Fox News will show you that there is an agenda already in place. News broadcasts that day involved anchors commenting on pictures displayed on monitors, with producers telling them what to say through ear pieces. You wouldn't need a large number of people to pull that off.

3. Piece of piss... Don't forget - the mainstream truthers believe the entire wtc was rigged with explosives. Explosives that went off top-down.

4. etc

cyince

09-12-2007, 11:38 PM

Well I guess I'm looking for what a no planer believes happened, step by step, that was just a quick example

2. Not a big deal. Ten minutes with Fox News will show you that there is an agenda already in place. News broadcasts that day involved anchors commenting on pictures displayed on monitors, with producers telling them what to say through ear pieces. You wouldn't need a large number of people to pull that off.

Yes Fox news has 'conservative slant', but this vastly oversimplifies the premise. Where were the monitors getting their feeds from, were the camera men in on?

The broad casts where much more than anchors commentating on pictures. There were live interviews, live feeds, live guests commentators brought in etc. Were they all wearing ear pieces?

See that is why I'm asking for a no planer to walk me through their general belief of what happened, my idea being that as you write down the steps in making it happen it will become self evident that it nears impossibility as each step requires and inordinate amount of contingency planning.

adimon

10-12-2007, 12:39 AM

1. No secret, this has been in place for ages. Although, of course, no-planes means just that. No Boeing required.

2. Not a big deal. Ten minutes with Fox News will show you that there is an agenda already in place. News broadcasts that day involved anchors commenting on pictures displayed on monitors, with producers telling them what to say through ear pieces. You wouldn't need a large number of people to pull that off.

3. Piece of piss... Don't forget - the mainstream truthers believe the entire wtc was rigged with explosives. Explosives that went off top-down.

Yes Fox news has 'conservative slant', but this vastly oversimplifies the premise. Where were the monitors getting their feeds from, were the camera men in on?

The broad casts where much more than anchors commentating on pictures. There were live interviews, live feeds, live guests commentators brought in etc. Were they all wearing ear pieces?

See that is why I'm asking for a no planer to walk me through their general belief of what happened, my idea being that as you write down the steps in making it happen it will become self evident that it nears impossibility as each step requires and inordinate amount of contingency planning.

These are both very good posts, and an accurate description of why I'm stuck, not on the fence, but still at the table, looking through it all...NPT doesn't make as much sense to me as other theories, yet I've not seen it resoundingly debunked yet. The media angle is the most complex, thanks to Cyince for bringing that up. :)

john white

10-12-2007, 04:17 AM

Exactly. I mean the whole concept is really quite ridiculous, take just one piece of the theory and you see how many people then need to be 'in on it', and consequently kept quiet.

I'm curious to hear the No Planers theoretical operational plan leading up to and for the attack, and by that i mean a skeleton of the plan.
For example:

1. Secretly develop remote control tech for Boeing air crafts
2. Secretly infiltrate all the major news organizations, and there affiliates in all positions
3. Secretly place 'stealth' explosives within the WTC (with remote detonation)
4. etc

I would just really like to know how a no planer logically comes to the conclusion that No planes makes sense.

A massive problem that NPT simply cannot address is how the observed damaged to the WTC was created, including the Plane shaped hole

And then there is the vast quantity of jet fuel stored in vats on the appropriate floor of the towers

These logistical problems in creating faked images are HUGE and most definately physical in nature

helloperator

10-12-2007, 06:22 AM

cyince

10-12-2007, 04:11 PM

If they cgi'd the planes at the towers...why didn't they just cgi the pentagon plane and release that to the masses to convince them a plane hit and not a drone/ missile? Why didn't they cgi something, anything for the pentagon?

Exactly.

No to mention the fact that a no plane theory then ignores the physical evidence at the site, eyewitness', and FAA data.

veritas2007

10-12-2007, 07:09 PM

Well I guess I'm looking for what a no planer believes happened, step by step, that was just a quick example

Yes Fox news has 'conservative slant', but this vastly oversimplifies the premise. Where were the monitors getting their feeds from, were the camera men in on?

The broad casts where much more than anchors commentating on pictures. There were live interviews, live feeds, live guests commentators brought in etc. Were they all wearing ear pieces?

See that is why I'm asking for a no planer to walk me through their general belief of what happened, my idea being that as you write down the steps in making it happen it will become self evident that it nears impossibility as each step requires and inordinate amount of contingency planning.

I think I see where you're going with this and will offer my opinion. FYI, I'm not a fully paid up member of NPT however, I've yet to see a serious debunking of the theory.

I might add at this point two things:

Any innaccuracies in my description are not intentional. I've not watched any of the NPT vids for a while so if I say something wrong, don't see that as the whole theory wrong
To fully understand, you should review all of the data yourself

In terms of the broadcasting on the day, it has been established that when the North tower was hit, many (if not all) local networks lost their feeds as the mast on the North tower was there primary means of broadcast. This left the major networks (their helicopters and roof mounted cameras) the main (if not only) live feeds.

If anyone is under the illusion that the media moguls of the world deliver honest and impartial "news", do some research.

The live feeds had a 17 second delay. Now if you consider that the hits were carried out by guided missiles, then it has been shown that this would be sufficient time to manipulate those live images, bearing in mind you already know the trajectory of the incoming missiles and impact time.

From the footage shown, from helicopter mounted cameras, you can see that the camera operators were not tracking the aircraft to destination. Based on this, consider also the discrepancies between what the news anchors were reporting (watching the "live" feeds) and what the witnesses were reporting (on the ground).

I watched a video a week or two ago - What Bob and Bri saw. Its a stark reminder of the day and all 9/11 researchers would do well to reaquaint themselves with it. When you remember all of the chaos and fear of the day, a few "well placed" witnesses describing the airplanes they allegedly saw could easily misdirect the viewers and establish the story. Its a very old and simple trick. Look at WMD: say it enough times and everyone believes it.

Like I say, I'm still undecided which means I'm keeping an open mind, a rare commodity in this forum.

Hope that helped.

dave52

10-12-2007, 08:44 PM

What Bob and Bri saw.

If I'm not mistaken, that video has the second impact edited out...

Also, a new vid from Social Service has an interesting take on the Live News, worth a look.

Foxed Out Part 1 (http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/7C5AF157976F4DDBA59B8680F6FF55BA/foxed-out-part1.aspx)
Foxed Out Part 2 (http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/657CD4D25BE94F1F8D9BEF38371BDF58/foxed-out-part2-reloaded-.aspx)

veritas2007

10-12-2007, 09:00 PM

If I'm not mistaken, that video has the second impact edited out...

There's a full version available on google.video which is meant to be unedited although the impact isn't captured as you would expect it. The importance of the video, I found, was the reminder of what an awful atrocity it was and the chaos, panic and confusion that ensued.

I feel that many 9/11 truthers get caught up in the movement so much that it appears they have forgotten momentarily the emotional side of events.

Thanks for the SS links btw :)

kblood

10-12-2007, 09:21 PM

If I'm not mistaken, that video has the second impact edited out...

Also, a new vid from Social Service has an interesting take on the Live News, worth a look.

Foxed Out Part 1 (http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/7C5AF157976F4DDBA59B8680F6FF55BA/foxed-out-part1.aspx)
Foxed Out Part 2 (http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/657CD4D25BE94F1F8D9BEF38371BDF58/foxed-out-part2-reloaded-.aspx)

These foxed out vids are quite bad. So far I have watched part 1, and all of it seems to be due to the one watching really really wanting to find errors.

Not being able to see the manhatten background on a clear day... well the day isnt all that clear over NY, since a plane crashed into the WTC...

Later it shows a feed that is clearly missing a plane in it... ffs, take a good look. The camera is aimed too high! It is not even supposed to show the plane there. That Fox got archieves from other networks, I dont know about that, but it doesnt seem proof of NPT, just that they take credit for more than they should. Im not even going to watch the rest of this, so far I am quite dissapointed.

narcolepticwatchman

10-12-2007, 09:23 PM

If they cgi'd the planes at the towers...why didn't they just cgi the pentagon plane and release that to the masses to convince them a plane hit and not a drone/ missile? Why didn't they cgi something, anything for the pentagon?

Maybe the CCTV cameras (70 odd of them) had something to do with that. To me, the reason they CGi'd the towers was because that was the selling point. The pentagon and shanksville were just bit part players in the grand scheme. The 2nd impact was seen live by millions around the globe and the point of this fakery was to make the NP theories seem so ludicrous.......'we seen it with our own eyes' when really no-one watching on TV did.....the illusion was created from that point on....and a strong illusion at that.

veritas2007

10-12-2007, 09:41 PM

These foxed out vids are quite bad. So far I have watched part 1, and all of it seems to be due to the one watching really really wanting to find errors.

Not being able to see the manhatten background on a clear day... well the day isnt all that clear over NY, since a plane crashed into the WTC...

Later it shows a feed that is clearly missing a plane in it... ffs, take a good look. The camera is aimed too high! It is not even supposed to show the plane there. That Fox got archieves from other networks, I dont know about that, but it doesnt seem proof of NPT, just that they take credit for more than they should. Im not even going to watch the rest of this, so far I am quite dissapointed.

In fairness kblood, you ought to watch both videos.

cyince

10-12-2007, 11:28 PM

The live feeds had a 17 second delay. Now if you consider that the hits were carried out by guided missiles, then it has been shown that this would be sufficient time to manipulate those live images, bearing in mind you already know the trajectory of the incoming missiles and impact time.

How would this account for the cameras all being in the right place? Were the pilots in on it?

Where has it been shown that 17seconds is enough time to edit live feeds?

dave52

10-12-2007, 11:40 PM

but it doesnt seem proof of NPT

But is it proof of TV Fakery and active cover-up with regards to the FOX Archive? What have FOX got to hide? Why would they attempt to change the record of that day unless there were things that needed to be buried?

Stop trying to jump on the anti-npt band wagon, and just look at what is being presented.

kblood

11-12-2007, 12:33 AM

But is it proof of TV Fakery and active cover-up with regards to the FOX Archive? What have FOX got to hide? Why would they attempt to change the record of that day unless there were things that needed to be buried?

Stop trying to jump on the anti-npt band wagon, and just look at what is being presented.

Now I watched it all (the two videos posted earlier), and maybe they prove forgery. Still leaves so many questions unanswered about it.

So the two planes that hit those towers never existed? Or took off? Didnt those two planes have a passenger list? So all those other witnesses who witnessed low flying planes at that time of day when it happened, that was just coincidence? Also they bothered to smuggle plain wreckage into NY at some point?

Could just about all these errors not be explained by having to send these feeds around the world in 5 minutes, and all the stations standing on the backs of each other to be able to show it all?

Yes, I guess it is wierd that more than one station used the same anchor, but what was the timeframe of this event? Could BBC f.ex. actually just get a TV crew setup in NY within 15 minutes after this event began and finished?

I know TV networks got teams all over the world, but they do not stay on standby 24/7. This might be what FOX used to send out forged footage to the other networks (their need of prime footage of the event), but I am still not buying this.

So my conclusion so far is that it looks suspect, but I do not see it as definate proof. There could have been other unknown factors in it, or the feeds have been tampered with by the one making them. Some of these NPT vids have proven to be fakes, so some links to the original / or at least the official feeds would help make me a believer.

helloperator

11-12-2007, 06:55 AM

teslafire

11-12-2007, 08:55 AM

None except the ones everyone else on the planet has seen....

killtown

11-12-2007, 10:52 AM

How many official photos (not video, or photos made from video footage), but actual photos exist?
See here: http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html#photos

helloperator

11-12-2007, 10:52 AM

The landing gear they found in the street...apparently under an awning, with only a couple of scratches....are there any witness reports of the thing landing in the street? It must have been noticed crashing down....someone must have seen it, or even felt it!

How many photographs are in the hands of citizens, in their homes that show planes flying into buildings?

How many official photos (not video, or photos made from video footage), but actual photos exist?

35mm pics of planes?

Witness for the landing gear? Not a witness to say 'yeah it was there, I saw it sitting there'...but a witness to say 'yeah the fucking thing just about took my eye out...I'll never forget it'

teslafire

11-12-2007, 05:22 PM

No planes hit the buildings? This shite is going around and around by people who can't proove it. It's a theory when there is no evidence.

I know no plane hit the pentagon. The rest is just stalling and misinforming and getting people to become uninterested in 911.

Fuck the no planes theory is what I say!

http://www.youtube.com/v/7e69agNP-cc

shredmasteruk

17-12-2007, 04:10 PM

Too many cooks spoil the broth.

Most people who work for the military would be appalled at the thought of attacking their own country, the odds of whistleblowers in killtown's scenario would be great.

Paining a plane the same as a civilian airliner would require painters.
Rigging a plane as a drone would require engineers to modify it.

fooling engineers the world over as to why the twin towers collapsed if bombs / thermite brought it down ? nigh on impossible.

A far simpler explaination is this: real terrorists did it, and those who's job it was to stop them, didn't. And since then, the atrocity has been hijacked by the Bush administration and used as an excuse for imperialism...

abstrakt

17-12-2007, 04:51 PM

I'm happy with a one plane theory.

brassneck69

17-12-2007, 05:55 PM

dave52

17-12-2007, 06:10 PM

Im not getting into a debate over "there was planes, there wasnt planes" but i do have a question:

Watching the "September clues" videos shows a plane hitting one of the towers, and its nose perfectly exiting the other side intact. An impossibility in any scenario. So the SC makers claim this was a CGI effect plane added to the video.

Whats peoples thoughts on that ONE piece?

No-Planers will tell you it's a mistake in the quick plane fake. Plane-huggers will tell you it is something else passing through the building, usually one of the engines. No-Planers will then point to the lack of exit hole on the other side of the tower, the Plane-huggers will swear blind that there is an exit hole, then the whole thing will end up as a slanging match.

Personally, I think it's a missile, which is subsequently covered up by tv-fakery. So, I guess I'm a no-planer of sorts...

;)

veritas2007

17-12-2007, 06:33 PM

Personally, I think it's a missile, which is subsequently covered up by tv-fakery. So, I guess I'm a no-planer of sorts...

;)

That's where I am in my research at the moment Dave.

shredmasteruk

17-12-2007, 07:14 PM

veritas2007

17-12-2007, 07:43 PM

The thing with CGI is it tends to be too perfect.

There are limitations however, and one of them is render time.

CGI stuff can take minutes hours even days to render depending on polygon count, texture size, & lighting complexity. But this is academic. People on the ground saw these planes with their own eyes. No cgi in the world can fake what people saw with their own eyes.

From what I've been researching recently, many believe that footage in it's entirety was faked, not just images of planes.

With regards to witnesses. This site is worth a look.

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=134&Itemid=60

Listening to Those Who Were There

As we continue to delve into what happened on Sept 11 2001, we seem to be uncovering more evidence that some very strange things were happening near and at the World Trade Center in New York City when the towers were destroyed.

A re-examination of videos of the plane crashes and both the actual destruction of the towers and the aftermath seems to strongly suggest or even prove that (a) unconventional weaponry destroyed the towers and (b) the stories of large planes hitting the towers are bogus. For (a) one can simply ask “Where did the building go?” (and no, it wasn’t “into the basements”). For (b) one can simply ask “How can a hollow tube made of light materials cut through multiple steel girders, with little or no deceleration?”

A repeated pondering of the answers to questions (a) and (b) can lead on to a re-examination of other data about 9/11. Such a re-examination of existing data was proposed by Attorney Jerry Leaphart, in September 2007. Jerry brought to our attention the accounts / “oral histories” as given by over 500 Emergency Service “First Responders” to the 9/11 Tragedy, as posted on the New York Times Website, at the link given below.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

These accounts were published on 12th August 2005. Jerry originally tasked us with analysing the accounts of the responders to see what was contained in their accounts of 9/11 about seeing the plane crashes – particularly the 2nd one. We therefore shared our findings and they are discussed in the report linked at the end of this article.
Tribute

However, I must pause for a moment and say that, whatever the conclusions of this study and however it is interpreted, we must pay a large tribute and debt of thanks to those people who responded on the day of 9/11 and think of the lives they undoubtedly saved and the injuries they helped to prevent. Many of them have suffered severely due to the adverse long term health effects of the dust they worked in while working to save people. I hope for their sake, too, that we can learn the truth about 9/11.
Delving Deeper

I decided to go “one step further” and, once I had downloaded all 500 accounts, I used text searching software to scan all the accounts and determine, primarily where each person was when the 2nd plane is supposed to have hit the tower. I also tried to determine where witnesses were when the 1st crash occurred. I then entered all this information into a database, which allowed me to more easily count who saw or heard the 2nd plane. (All the details of how this was done are contained in the report.)

In going through the accounts, I also decided to look for any use the words “Missile” or “Rocket”, “Plane Parts”, “Luggage/Suitcases”, “Landing Gear” and witnesses hearing the F-15/F-16 planes. The witness accounts of the latter are particularly interesting to compare to their accounts of the sound of the 2nd Boeing, before impact.

A number of reports of FBI Agents talking about a possible “3rd Plane” heading for New York were also discovered, along with a number of other accounts of witnesses describing anomalous occurrences.
“I Saw The Plane… I Heard The Plane…”

The words “plane jet airplane aircraft” were found in 426 accounts, 1770 times. The final account Sample Size was used for the “Witnesses to a plane” study was 291. A few of those who simply described seeing the impacts on TV were left out, but some were included – the main focus of the study was on those who were close to where the 2nd impact happened.

16 witnesses reported seeing the 1st plane before impact and 16 witnesses reported hearing the 1st plane before impact but only 1 Witness reported clearly seeing and hearing plane 1 before impact.

I managed to establish that at least 96 witnesses were near the WTC (with ½ a mile) at time of 2nd impact and a further 21 witnesses were inside one of the WTC buildings at the time of the 2nd impact. This gave a total of 117 witnesses who were near or the Inside WTC buildings at the time of 2nd impact.

* Only 19 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually seeing plane 2 before impact and, as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 20%.
* Only 20 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually hearing plane 2 before impact and as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 21%.

* Only 8 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually seeing and hearing plane 2 before impact and as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 8.3%.

* Of those witnesses inside one of the WTC buildings at the time of the 2nd impact, only 2 reported hearing the plane (none saw it). As a percentage of the total of those inside WTC, this was 9.5%.
* There were 117 witnesses inside or near the WTC and 291 witnesses in the total sample I used. The percentages given below, then, are therefore based on the number 291 – 117 giving a total of 174.
* There were 33 witnesses who were further than ½ mile from the WTC Complex and reported seeing plane 2 before impact. As a percentage of the total of those who were further than ½ mile from WTC Complex, this was 19%.
* There were 2 witnesses who were further than ½ mile from the WTC Complex and reported hearing plane 2 before impact. As a percentage of the total of those who were further than ½ mile from WTC Complex, this was 1.1%.

white horse

18-12-2007, 01:01 AM

dave52

18-12-2007, 09:50 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FADr8iv3vvE&feature=related

Don't know if this video has been posted before, first time I've seen this.

Anyone got some good analysis tools to pull this one down and look for a plane???

I couldn't see a plane, he was too far zoomed out to see anything, but it's interesting to note that the woman says

"That wasn't a plane", presumably refering to the fact that they would've thought the first tower was hit by a plane thanks to the news coverage, and the guy says,

"That was a rocket or something, it was fucking fast!".

shredmasteruk

18-12-2007, 12:51 PM

Not a very good example really, the camera zooms right back just before the plane hits.

shredmasteruk

19-12-2007, 02:33 AM

Mate, people saw it with their own eyes.

My best friends uncle was almost killed in that attack he was hit by a piece of debris which fell just after the impact. He saw flight 175 clear as day, and you are saying it was cgi. Don't talk nonesense. You weren't there. I wasn't there. He was and he was nearly killed.

killtown

19-12-2007, 02:56 AM

No one is saying their weren't planes in the area.

If it was just bombs the blew and not planes, then your uncle was almost killed by the debris the bombs blew out.

killtown

20-12-2007, 07:51 PM

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/8756/nbc4tinacart1rd1.jpg

The networks had a live feed (NBC4) at the same building that where three "amateur" WTC crash shots would eventually emerge (TinaCart1, Robert Clark, & Wolfgang Staehle). The live feed was airing BEFORE the 2nd hit which suggests prior knowledge!

This shot looks like the same shot as the TinaCart1 shot which would prove TV fakery.

The live shot only aired once (as far as I can tell) and had some suspicious 1st plane witness being interviewed while this shot was airing.

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/12/live-network-shot-at-tinacart1-building.html

killtown

20-12-2007, 09:24 PM

I saw that. It's because LC are a bunch of whores who only care about protecting their industry and not solving the crime. Solving crimes is like curing disease, there is less money in it.

shredmasteruk

22-12-2007, 06:13 PM

It was not bombs, it was planes, people saw those planes crash into the towers with their own eyes. My friends uncle watched in horror and saw flight 175 crash. He saw that with his own eyes.

Btw Killtown, a vid for ya:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546&q=trinity+church

Where's the explosions ?

In a controlled demolition using RDX, explosions can be heard for miles.

Where are the explosions ?

Why do conspiracy theorists like Sofia Shafquat add sounds of explosions to videos where there were no explosions ?

The so called 911 'truth' movement makes an excellent decoy which distracts decieves and discredits people, fooling them with a smokescreen of propaganda and ultimately does nothing to impede this God awful war of terror or the erosion of civil liberties.

stargazer

22-12-2007, 11:05 PM

helloperator

22-12-2007, 11:53 PM

Why doesn't the above gif have the little impact flash that all other clips seem to have?

Why are there so many firefighter stories of secondary bombs and explosions in the building? Why do they say they thought there were bombs in the building?

Why would perpertrators use the exact methods used by civillian building demolition outfits? Is military technology and science 40 years in advance of civillian science and technology? Could they have used variations of the theme? Would they have used typical demolition methods or something a little more covert if they could?

What are the squibs doing many many floors below the rupturing line?

Why are there reports of basement explosions seconds before plane impacts?

If there were no planes, did they cgi the fireball, the smoke, the flying debris?

Why did both trade centre buildings collapse so completely to the ground when so much of the mass required to directly impact lower floors and neatly pancake them, seemed to blow and spew outward in a flowering style?

Why were the fires so intense if there appeared that so much of the fuel was ignited and spent in the huge fireballs of impact?

sensimillia

23-12-2007, 01:12 AM

helloperator

23-12-2007, 04:18 AM

So what were the explosions? What was exploding? What sorts of things were there in the towers to blow up and cause those cracking explosions? What was blowing up in the lobby? How did jet fuel fall all the way to the lobby and then ignite?

sensimillia

23-12-2007, 02:17 PM

don´t want to hijack this thread, but for me it´s quite simple; people, police, newsreporters and firemen on the scene speak about secondary explosions, and there are evidence of those explosions. now there are "experts", who weren´t at the scene, saying there wasn´t and there couldn´t have been, and they offer no evidence. hhhmmm, who to beleive? ;)

stargazer

23-12-2007, 07:36 PM

Could be one of these that is responsible for 'plane crashes'. That would certainly explain the odd angle of the planes on the footages (as I mentioned in previous post (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=220961&postcount=130)) - the back 'v' shaped end of global hawk could be the reason why.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/global/images/4_global_hawk.jpg
http://www.itc.nl/~bakker/earsel/200106gif/globalhawk.jpg

As all the other explosions - they were probably planted in advance.
Collapse looks just too much like intentional planned demolition.

Another thing about fuel and melting steel - if it were so efficient (one fuel tank per building) I'm sure that's what they would use in steel factories and in demolition business.

killtown

08-01-2008, 11:06 PM

I doubt if they used anything to hit the WTC that they had wings because if anything other than 767's painted at UA or AA planes with the passengers said to have been on the planes hit there and didn't fully penetrate, the ground would have been littered with damning evidence of the non-official planes hitting there.

white horse

08-01-2008, 11:17 PM

killtown

15-01-2008, 12:56 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ

Shack shows how the "nose out" ain't no dust and is the same shape as the "nose in" which shows that the plane seen on this FOX video is a fake plane.

So sorry Lawson.

dave52

15-01-2008, 02:47 PM

I enjoyed that - thanks for the heads up..!

killtown

19-01-2008, 04:49 AM

You are welcome, but thank SocialService for proving TV fakery beyond a shadow of a doubt.

i_am

19-01-2008, 05:06 AM

OK people!!

Please discuss the subject matter without getting personal.

raffles

19-01-2008, 06:00 AM

Hmmm very interesting, great video.
Thanks for posting killtown.

helloperator

19-01-2008, 11:30 AM

Why and how could the cgi'ers have fcked it up so bad that the nose comes out the other side?

On a different topic, why haven't they or didn't they do a Pentagon cgi plane?

killtown

22-01-2008, 09:30 PM

1) Why and how could the cgi'ers have fcked it up so bad that the nose comes out the other side?

2) On a different topic, why haven't they or didn't they do a Pentagon cgi plane?
1) You believe this proves TV fakery? (I can't remember your stance) Remember that the ONLY thing important is that they DID commit TV fakery.

2) I'll write a blogpost soon to explain why they didn't.

killtown

22-01-2008, 09:44 PM

Can this thread be stickied for having currently the 4th highest amount of views in the 9/11 section?

menses

24-01-2008, 04:02 AM

I noticed that the none of the NPT haters have been able to debunk 'Nosed Out' yet. What are they waiting for?

Very good question....the answer of course being....they will not..

killtown

21-05-2008, 09:05 PM

narcolepticwatchman

21-05-2008, 10:19 PM

Major updates to my article and modified the main reason why the perps chose TV fakery instead of using real planes:

GUARANTEED PENETRATION

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-they-didnt-use-planes-to-hit-wtc.html

http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/5553/spellcuom2.gif

I posted along the same lines on another thread a while back. To me, main reasons were...

1. It had never been done before (plane strike at full speed on a building of this type) and the perps had no idea how a real plane would react to the impact.....this unkown quantity would have been FAR too much of a risk for their 3 building collapse plan should the penetration not be as convincing as the one we saw on TV on 911

2. They couldn't animate an external explosion c/w debris convincingly....so they wait til it's fully in the building before blowing it up.....

mr_self_destruct

21-05-2008, 10:34 PM

Hate to say it, but good article ;)

dave52

22-05-2008, 12:37 AM

Such a good article - Well done Killtown.

Definately worth a STICKY...!

3stepsahead

26-05-2008, 07:46 PM

Hi Killtown,

this images(motion GIF) that you have on you blog, clearly show that the planes were graphically added on top of the flying object that struck the building, that's why the odd angle between the wings and flight path.
There is also the problem of planes hitting the building while no speed reduction is observed. And on all the animations you can see leftovers and "fingerprints" of graphic tools.

I see this images as a cheap fake, I would do it better, without the nasty mistakes. I don't understand why official media uses these bad fakes as if the technician didn't have enough time to make it more real or what?

People I know how NPT seems fishy but thrust me when I say this frames(GIFs) were graphically messed with, if you don't believe me, find the nearest graphic artist (or anyone else that has experience with images) and he/she will tell you what I'm telling you.

i fully support your idea
great discussion guys
keep em coming!

also i would like to point to that there are a LOT of first hand LIVE witness reports on camera that explain missiles bombs and the word of buildings going to fall.

now if they could fake one or two feeds from the impact they could fake many witness reports aswell, but i doubt that.
i cannot be arsed to dig the videos up but they are very often in the 911 inside job vids out there. or just try youtube.

graflok

28-05-2008, 04:12 PM

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/840/planerh1.jpg

This image of the plane has always reminded me of one of those optical illusions
where the picture looks different depending on how you look at it.

Like this:

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/4639/cubeno6.jpg

The smaller cube can be perceived as a depression in the larger cube
or as a protrusion coming out from it.

In the case of the plane image it can be perceived that you are looking at
the bottom of the plane as it heads for the building or that you're seeing
the top of the plane as it heads toward the lower right corner, away from
the building.

masonfree party

30-05-2008, 01:16 AM

do we have any mods who believe in the no plane theory or is that too much to ask?

mr_pixie

30-05-2008, 06:13 PM

Anyway good thread by Killtown ;)

Well done mate.

christophera

30-05-2008, 09:31 PM

Here is an article I wrote back in May to explain the logic of why the perps didn't crash real planes into the Twin Towers:

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-they-didnt-use-planes-to-hit-wtc.html

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/3237/hezarkhanicnnzc7.gif

I searched this page

Why They Didn't Use Planes To Hit The WTC

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-they-didnt-use-planes-to-hit-wtc.html

With this search term,

"Didn't Use Planes"

And the only 2 times it came up were here,

http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=71

(which had no logical reason that would bear scrutiny for not using planes)

and here,

Using real planes left too much to chance. A missed target, or failed penetration would ruin all that 9/11 has given the perps. They had to use the least-risky viable option that would not only guarantee hitting their targets, but would also guarantee penetration into the buildings and that was TV fakery.

Implying that planes were not used because they left too much to chance or might cause the plan to be poorly executed ignores a major point of error that did exist which DEFINITLY WOULD NOT EXIST if video fakery was the only reality.

The fact that the first tower hit, hit hardest, burnt worst, was the last to fall. This is a MAJOR logistical problem with the official story. Why do no planers ignore it???????? What reason do they have particuarly with the statement in italics above??????????????????? This is a really an irrational scenario.

If it was all video fakery, a video showing a plane hitting WC 2 first would be what we have for evidence and another of a plane whacking WTC 1 later would account for the other towers impact and fire.

So clearly, no logic for Why They Didn't Use Planes To Hit The WTC has ever been presented anywhere.

No logic for remote control over planes or explosives which can bear scrutiny has ever been presented either.

If remotes were used with either planes or explosives the impact/fall sequence would be logical.

If planes were remotely controlled the pilots on the ground would be very controlled and be sure to do their job properly.

If remotes controlling explosives were used on the ground any screw ups relating to targets and timing could be covered by the associated, remotely triggered explosions.

However, a glaring fact exists that reasonably discounts either fake video/holographic planes and remotely controlled planes.

The towers have a backwards impact/fall sequence.

Just because video fakery is possible, does not mean the video of plane impacts was faked.

However, having people rushing about saying "There were no planes" really makes the 9-11 truth movement look stoooooooopid.

BTW, killtown THINKS he is providing an explanation for "Why they didn't use planes", but has never produced a logical explanation and I've asked before.

I THINK killtown and many others in the truth movement that believe equally or less dysfunctional scenarios or information are victims of MKultra and MKultra has been proven to have existed.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/bluebird10pg

and NO ONE knows why the project was conducted for 20 years and 150k people were influenced psychologically without their knowledge.

The "no plane theory" is the best evidence I can find to substantiate that the infiltrators of the US government were preemptively mind controlling citizens to distract and derail Americas search for truth after 9-11.

The ironic thing is that the "no plane theory" distracts from what it indirectly asserts by drawing attention away from an obvious demolition meaning that those that promote it serve a double purpose for the infiltrating perpetrators, and, when this post is opposed, that FACT is confirmed.

Or, .............. if the "no planers" were to forget talking about their beliefs regarding planes, no planes and video fakery and instead concentrate on reasonably defining HOW the demolition they know took place was actually done, America would stand a better chance of getting the truth whereupon America and them might possibly learn that indeed no planes were used and it was all video fakery.

At this point the no planers could proudly say, See, we told you so. And, ...... it was only because we were in such great control of ourselves, and so capable of reason, that we stopped talking about no planes and focused on proving comprehensively the demolition, ....... that America has gotten the truth.

Now it remains to be seen if logic and facts can help them to control themselves and do what needs to be done to find the truth.

lightgiver

30-05-2008, 11:44 PM

Because they have missiles and explosives;);)

dave52

31-05-2008, 12:24 AM

Christophera - that was a long post that didn't really say anything.

Regardless of the "mode of demolition", do you think it possible that planes were not used...?

masonfree party

31-05-2008, 12:36 AM

The 9/11 Truth Movement,
Free Energy Suppression,
and the Global Elite’s Agenda

May 2008

By CB_Brooklyn

Imagine utilizing free energy technology in daily life. No more petroleum-based fuels; no more outrageous oil and gas prices. Humanity would definitely benefit from this. The technology for water powered cars has been in the news, such as in this NBC-affiliate clip. This FOX-affiliate clip reveals the development of this technology for the military. From the FOX clip we learn that Radio Frequencies are key to this technology. As you read further you’ll discover another building block of free energy: Tesla Coils.

So why are these technologies suppressed? Basic Answer: Control.

The Global Elite plan a New World Order with an enslaved “police state” culture. How might this be done? One way is the Patriot Act. Another could be the 800 FEMA detention camps fully constructed, staffed, and awaiting prisoners. What else might they do? They could slow the economy. Control over oil and gas makes accomplishing this easy. All they have to do is notch those prices up little by little, and the average citizen gets poorer and poorer. Not only do these increases affect the gas pump and home boiler, they affect food manufacturing plants, public water supplies, and other necessities as well.

Raising oil/gas prices is the Global Elite’s way of destroying our way of life.

But they can’t raise prices without a reason, so they concocted one: Peak Oil. That way, people assume the increased costs and fuel limits are natural with no way around it. But Peak Oil is a hoax. In the 1970s, a huge oil field was discovered in Alaska that could fuel the United States for 200 years, but its existence has been classified. Those is power have planned their New World Order for some time, and didn’t want an Alaskan field getting in the way. Instead, they approached the Saudi’s for an “oil deal”, a way of ripping them off and entrapping the United States. Information regarding this is linked later in this article; much from a video presentation by Lindsey Williams, a former “insider” turned whistleblower.

It is all too common for those in control to suppress and weaponize new technologies.

Suppression can be accomplished simply by spreading choice phrases such as “raygun nutcase”. Even the production of sci-fi TV/movies helps associate these weapons with “science fiction”. As one example, the body cloak technology portrayed in the film “Predator” is very real, and was reported in Time and WIRED magazines. It is pretty well known that these technological advances are light years ahead of what is publicly admitted.

This technology is far from sci-fi and has existed for many decades.

The first microwave oven was built in 1947 by Raytheon, a major defense contractor. What advances could they have made in the past sixty years? A look at the documentary “Star Wars in Iraq” reveals weaponry based on these technologies.

So what’s “crazy” about it? What would people sixty years ago have said about cell phones? “Wacky”?? How about The Wizard of Oz on an ultra-thin shiny little disc? ”Nutjob”?? What about embedding spy chips on insects? ”Insane”?? Technology has come a long way in the last 100 years.

The first major free energy scientist, Nikola Tesla, knew the direction his research would someday take. In 1915 he said “I have not thought it hazardous to predict, that wars in the future will be waged by electrical means”. The Star Wars in Iraq video proves him right.

Of course, the Global Elite need the public at large to consider free-energy “crazy”. They want this “black op” technology as their secret weapon to use against us and they attack those who speak up. One example is well known pioneer of free energy research, John Hutchison. After he and Dr Judy Wood publicized their paper “Anomalies at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect”, Hutchison ran into problems with the Canadian authorities. Another is Dr Eugene Mallove who, after writing an open letter to the world requesting free energy research funds, was killed. This “2005 Cold Fusion Colloquium” at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology had a special tribute to Dr Mallove. A number of mysterious deaths are connected to free energy suppression.

Every 9/11 Truther should take this one minute test. Although not 9/11 related, this video makes an important point about distraction:

DO THE TEST: http://www.dothetest.co.uk

9/11 Truth is an extremely important issue and only those who really care are ever involved. But 9/11 is just one of the issues that absolutely need attention. Other issues are equally as important.

One thing the Global Elite do not want revealed is the existence of free-energy technology.

This technology has the capability of revolutionizing the world by removing oil/gas as main sources of fuel, but instead has been weaponized and used against us. Directed energy weapons and weather control are among the dangers we now face.

**Might this technology have been used on 9/11? What if the “truth movement” was steered by those affiliated with free energy technologies, including those who discredited it decades past? What if pictorial evidence shows resemblance to the Hutchison Effect? Would this be worth exposing?

**Might this technology be responsible for recent weather-related disasters? Have hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, cyclones, and volcanic eruptions shown an increase lately? What if pictorial and other data show resemblance to the Hutchison Effect? Would this be worth exposing?

Not many know that a major hurricane - Hurricane Erin - was in the Atlantic Ocean in September of 2001. In fact, Erin was closest to NYC, and at its largest size, on 9/11 itself. But the TV news networks had little reporting on this hurricane. Contrary to Erin, however, Hurricane Katrina had virtually 24 hour coverage, even before it hit land. Interestingly, Erin was stronger than Katrina the day before 9/11. So why didn’t the media cover Erin, say, on September 10? The astronauts in the space station commented on the WTC smoke plume, but made no mention of the monstrous hurricane next to it. How come? Those interested in learning the secret between hurricanes and Tesla Coils should see Dr Judy Wood’s new paper “9/11 Weather Anomalies and Field Effects”. It’s chock full of photos and analysis and is highly recommended.

Those who control the energy control the world.

As prices for oil, gas, food and other types of energy go higher and higher, one must ask themselves what they are to do. What holds for the future?

Did Bush do 9/11? Or was it Clinton? 9/11 was orchestrated by those affiliated with energy companies. The “truth movement” should not involve the “democrat vs republican” distraction but instead push to remove them all. There is only one group controlling the world - the Global Elite - and they must all be removed from power.

Here are two presidential quotes, one from a democrat, the other a republican.
But both say pretty much the same thing:

Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower - January 17, 1961

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
Eisenhower Archives - MP3

Democratic President John F. Kennedy - April 27, 1961

“For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.”
JFK Library - MP3

Continue reading to learn who’s involved, their suppression techniques, and the 9/11 connection…

*Day One Setup*

The “truth movement” was setup from day one (literally - day one - September 11, 2001!) by Van Romero, a controlled demolitions expert from New Mexico Tech. Romero steered the “truth movement” toward standard controlled demolitions with his “relatively small amount of explosives” comment:
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/...ns/romero.html

But these pictures clearly contradict Romero’s statement:
Photo 1 - Photo 2 - Photo 3

New Mexico Tech and Los Alamos National Laboratories are both in New Mexico.

Directed energy weapons are developed at Los Alamos.

Romero’s name is mentioned multiple times on Los Alamos’ website:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22va...l.gov&filter=0

Romero participated in events at the Directed Energy Professional Society before and after 9/11:
http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/DEMSconf03.html
http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/EduWksp00.html

Romero’s bio confirms his ties to the Department of Energy (DOE) and Los Alamos:
http://infohost.nmt.edu/%7Ered/van.html

*Who Controls the World?*

This short video reveals important information. Those who control our planet are not in the White House, but are affiliated with energy companies. This video also details how JP Morgan, founder of Chase Manhattan Bank, destroyed funding for Nikola Tesla‘s free energy research in the early 1900s:

Free Energy, another Inconvenient Truth - 7 min
"If you've got control of the energy,
then you've got control of the people."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWOxnXKB8VQ

We can conclude that JP Morgan was one of them, a Global Eliter not caring about anyone or anything except the money in his bank accounts. In fact, the following 10 minute video of investigative journalist John Buchanan reveals that JP Morgan was one of the co-conspirators with GrandDaddy Prescott Bush, whose 1930s coup attempt called for overthrowing the Constitution, assassinating FDR, and turning the United States into a Nazi Camp:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4-TL5AGHFY

Yes, the Bush administration must be removed. But we must remove the real perpetrators as well.

The 9/11 attacks, the 9/11 cover-up, and the 9/11 “truth movement” were all orchestrated by people affiliated with directed energy weapons and the media:

9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline - by CB_Brooklyn
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cm...=151&Itemid=60

Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths - by CB_Brooklyn
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cm...=163&Itemid=60

The Global Elite (Energy Companies, Bush, Clinton, et. al.)…
want us using oil to maximize their profits and to destroy the environment
have control over the supply of energy to all industrialized nations
suppress the existence of free energy using ridicule and destruction of research funding

*Why - really - is that ‘mild mannered scientist’ in the truth movement?*

There is much evidence that Steven Jones discredited free energy Cold Fusion in the 80s. One technique deployed was ridicule, later used to cover-up the 9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / No Plane (DEW/NP) evidence:

Steven Jones - 9/11 Parallels - 10 min
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1vOeKNN2UI

Steven Jones’ bio confirms his ties to the Department of Energy (DOE) and Los Alamos:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/...c/jones_cv.htm

Why does he promote molten metal? Many in the “truth movement” have questioned the authenticity of Jones’ evidence. See the following article for analysis:

WTC Molten Metal: Fact or Fiction? - by CB_Brooklyn
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cm...d=91&Itemid=60

Why does he promote thermite? It’s been two years since Jones appeared on C-SPAN citing “hard evidence” of thermite.

Why hasn’t he submitted it to a Court of Law (as Wood/Reynolds have with DEW/NP)?
Does his “hard evidence” have authentication with proper chain of custody?

Why hasn’t he mentioned it in his team’s RFC to NIST (as Wood/Reynolds have with DEW/NP)?
Does his “hard evidence” really exist?

Jones’ thermite can be purchased on EBay and is therefore untraceable.
Wood/Reynolds’ DEW/NP directly implicate the military and the media.
http://drjudywood.com/articles/scien...ficMethod.html

Why does he promote “explosives in the towers”? George Bush and Bill Clinton already blamed Al Qaeda for explosives in their preplanned PSYOPS.

***In a September 15, 2006 press conference, George W Bush said (emphasis added): http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060915-2.html

Excerpt (emphasis added):

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
“The bill I have proposed will ensure that suspected terrorists will receive full and fair trials, without revealing to them our nation's sensitive intelligence secrets. As soon as Congress acts on this bill, the man our intelligence agencies believe helped orchestrate the 9/11 attacks can face justice.

The bill would also provide clear rules for our personnel involved in detaining and questioning captured terrorists. The information that the Central Intelligence Agency has obtained by questioning men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has provided valuable information and has helped disrupt terrorist plots, including strikes within the United States.

For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.

He gave us information that helped uncover al Qaeda cells' efforts to obtain biological weapons.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Some might argue that Bush didn’t tie his comment about explosives directly to the WTC destruction, but the “truth movement” interpreted it as such. Note from the following two video clips that the “truth movement” assumed Bush’s admission was accidental and due to a Freudian slip:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=320_1185036933
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REUHaOYNMWk

The truth is that Bush’s comments were specifically designed to steer the “truth movement” towards standard controlled demolitions. Bush’s speechwriters are propaganda masters. Watch the John Buchanan video again and learn how people like Karl Rove “literally took lessons from Goebbels and Grone about how to create such brilliant propaganda that unreality can become reality and reality can be subverted to fantasy political subterfuge right before your eyes.” Goebbels and Grone were from the Hitler regime:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4-TL5AGHFY

***In a March 8, 2008 speech, Bill Clinton said (after interrupted by a 9/11 truther):
http://jonesreport.com/article/03_08...on_911_ms.html

Excerpt:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"America may not be perfect, but we don't blow up our own buildings-- al Qaeda does that"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The truth is that Bill and Hillary are affiliated with the MK-ULTRA Mind Control program, and his comment was no Freudian slip:
http://thesenatorhillary.blogspot.com

Clinton was in the White House when rouge governmental elements used
directed energy weapons on the Oklahoma City building and the people inside it:

Were Clinton’s and Bush’s comments really accidental???

*The Global Elite’s Agenda*

Here are some questions to ponder:

Why did George Bush Sr call for a New World Order on September 11, 1990?
http://www.911researchers.com/node/439

Why did David Ray Griffin call for a Global Government (aka New World Order) in 2007?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-TZypcH9eg

Why did the Pope visit Bush in April of 2008?

“The Vatican’s Role in the World Population Crisis: the untold story”
Presentation at Pennsylvania’s Main Line Unitarian Church
April 14, 1996
http://www.population-security.org/phil95.htm

Excerpt (emphasis added):

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
“The International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo in 1994 was a turning point. Until then, it was not widely known that the Catholic Church, as directed by its hierarchy in the Vatican, was a principle force in opposing population growth control.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Many know Henry Kissinger was Bush’s first choice as Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission before Phillip Zelikow, another Bush insider. What most people don’t know is Kissinger’s involvement with the Global Elite’s agenda:

WORLD DEPOPULATION IS TOP NSA AGENDA: CLUB OF ROME
The Haig-Kissinger depopulation policy
by Lonnie Wolfe
March 10, 1981
http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/nwop...t10mar81.shtml

Excerpts (emphasis added):

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Investigations by EIR have uncovered a planning apparatus operating outside the control of the White House whose sole purpose is to reduce the world's population by 2 billion people through war, famine, disease and any other means necessary.

…

Its policy-planning group is in the U.S.State Department's Office of Population Affairs, established in 1975 by Henry Kissinger.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

*Peak Oil Propaganda*

Kissinger is also one of those responsible for the so-called “oil crisis”. Watch the following highly informative and entertaining presentation by Lindsey Williams for information. You will learn of the Alaskan oil field that could fuel the USA for 200 years, but was classified top-secret at the time Kissinger approached the Saudis for an “oil deal”. Learn how the Saudis keep the economy afloat by paying down the USA’s national debt. Learn that the World Bank/IMF’s control of oil prices is siphoning money right out of our pockets. Peak Oil, the point where supply would fall short of demand, is shown to be a hoax. Mr Williams does an excellent job.

Lindsey Williams - The Energy Non-Crisis - 75 min
Youtube Link

Text from youtube description (copied from Mr Williams’ website):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsey Williams, who has been an ordained Baptist minister for 28 years, went to Alaska in 1971 as a missionary. The Transalaska oil pipeline began its construction phase in 1974, and because of Mr. Williams' love for his country and concern for the spiritual welfare of the "pipeliners," he volunteered to serve as Chaplain on the pipeline, with the subsequent full support of the Alyeska Pipeline Company. Because of the executive status accorded to him as Chaplain, he was given access to information documented in his eye opening book, The Energy Non-Crisis. After numerous public speaking engagements in the western states, certain government officials and concerned individuals urged Mr. Williams to put into print what he saw and heard, stating that they felt this information was vital to national security. Mr. Williams firmly believes that whoever controls energy controls the economy. Thus, The Energy Non-Crisis. http://www.lwoil.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why does Steven Jones promote Peak Oil as being real? He recommends “The Shell Game”; a book designed to question the official 9/11 story, while at the same time conning people into believing Peak Oil. Why would he do this? The “Shell Game” may question 9/11, but does it make much difference when taking the Global Elite’s agenda into consideration?

Jones also promoted Peak Oil at 9/11 presentations. (Note how he blames Bush for 9/11):
http://drjudywood.com/pdf/060815_AnsQJones1.pdf

The Global Elite want people to believe in Peak Oil, and keep the reality of free energy suppressed.

A look through the following Cold Fusion report finds Steven Jones’ name mentioned numerous times. Listed in the Energy Research Advisory Board is a Robert Hirsch. Did Hirsch help Jones discredit free energy?

ERAB, Report of the Cold Fusion Panel to the Energy Research Advisory Board
1989: Washington, DC
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ERABreportofth.pdf

What is Robert Hirsch doing these days?

He promotes Peak Oil for the Department of Energy:

Where Is the Hirsch Report?
by Richard Heinberg
July 29, 2005
http://www.energybulletin.net/7524.html

Excerpt (emphasis added):

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidently the US Department of Energy is interested enough in the Peak-Oil debate to commission a report on the subject. Released in February this year by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), and titled “Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management,” the report examines the likely consequences of the impending global peak. It was authored principally by Robert L. Hirsch (bio: http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/hirsch_bio.htm), and is as remarkable for its subsequent reception as for its content.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

As we see, Hirsch is a Senior Energy Program Advisor at SAIC.

Hirsch’s bio confirms his ties to the Department of Energy (DOE):
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/hirsch_bio.htm

*The 9/11 Connection*

But who is SAIC?

SAIC is a Silver-Level Sponsor of the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS).
Founded in 1999, DEPS put out their first newsletter one year before 9/11:

Wave Front
DEPS News Letter - - Winter 2000 :Vol 1 Issue 1
http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/graphics/wavefront2.pdf

Excerpt:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lasers in space, lasers in the stratosphere, lasers
on and over the battlefield - we're at the
beginning of an evolutionary new wave of
weaponry."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SAIC is also one of the defendants in Drs Judy Wood’s/Morgan Reynolds’ DEW/NP court cases filed in the US District Court, Southern District of New York.

SAIC is in control of security at Ground Zero. We can safely assume that their expertise in DEW development leaves little room for mistake; therefore their security control would definitely be top-notch.

So how does one explain this Associated Press article?

Report: Homeless man finds plans for New York City's Freedom Tower in a corner trash can
April 18, 2008
http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila..._04182008.html

Excerpt:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The government agency building a 102-story skyscraper at the World Trade Center site is investigating the discovery of two sets of blueprints for the building that a homeless man says he found in the trash.

The schematic documents for the Freedom Tower, under construction at ground zero, were marked "Secure Document — Confidential," the New York Post reported Friday.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Three possible explanations:

1. SAIC, a contractor for the Department of Defense, accidentally left a document marked “confidential” on top of a public trash can.

2. An SAIC insider is sending a subliminal message to the public. (i.e. “SAIC is loosing”??)

3. SAIC is PSYOPSing the public to further limit access to Ground Zero by widening their security perimeter. Why would they do this? Perhaps to suppress the continued “fuming”… evidence for directed energy weapons. Psychological warfare is one of SAIC’s specialties according to their own website.

A pioneer in free energy research, Canadian inventor and experimental scientist John Hutchison, is among those being suppressed. Mr Hutchison filed an affidavit with the US District Court in support of Dr Wood’s DEW court case, but received no news coverage. See here for the affidavit:
http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/JJ8.html

Dr Wood co-wrote a paper with Mr Hutchison:

Anomalies at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect
Judy Wood and John Hutchison
http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ

Excerpt:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering how the WTC complex was destroyed, many people have criticised the research posted here because it does not state or describe the exact technology employed.

These pages include data which strongly implicates a class of technology as being one of the main ones used.

The data below seem to strongly tie up with features of what has become known as “The Hutchison Effect”. The Hutchison Effect actually seems to describe a range of observed characteristics, some of which are listed below. John Hutchison is a Canadian inventor and experimental scientist who has been experimenting with “field effects” for almost 30 years. There is a great deal of information about him on the internet, and a selection is linked from this set of pages.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

We see here that following the release of the above paper, Hutchison was ordered by the Canadian Fire Department to remove his research equipment:
http://brianwestell.blogspot.com

*Suppression by Murder*

The criminals controlling the world do everything possible to protect their secrets. They destroy life:

8/1/03 - Dr James Black - Filed Lawsuits in Support of John Hutchison & Whistleblower

A Nobel Prize winning physician, Dr Black filed lawsuits against the governments of the US and Canada regarding the theft/suppression of John Hutchison’s research. He died from a “possible heart attack” at age 51, although having been in perfect health with no previous heart problems.

A memorial is on John Hutchison’s site:
http://www.hutchisoneffect.ca/Friend....%20Black.html

5/14/04 - Dr Eugene Mallove - Proponent of Cold Fusion

Dr Mallove wrote an open letter to the world requesting research funds for Cold Fusion and Zero Point Energy. A few months later he was murdered, allegedly by two people during a robbery:
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/obi...tMessage040513

A memorial presented by Dr Mallove’s friend and fellow-CF proponent, Bill Zebuhr, is reprinted here:
http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/JJ7.html#wzebuhr

3/19/06 - Michael Zebuhr - Dr Wood’s Clemson University 9/11 Research Student & Nephew of Bill

Mr Zebuhr and Dr Wood were doing demonstrations with molten aluminum specifically to prove Steven Jones wrong. A few weeks later he was murdered, allegedly by two people during a robbery.

On March 1, 2006, Dr Wood sent an email to Jones detailing his “mistakes”:
http://drjudywood.com/articles/alumi...num_Glows.html

Seventeen days later, Michael was shot twice. The following day, March 19th, he died.

A memorial site for Michael is here:
http://michaelzebuhr.blogspot.com

4/16/07 - Dr Wood’s Instructors at Virginia Tech

The 9/11 criminals continue their scare tactics at Virginia Tech, where Dr Wood received her PhD in Materials Engineering Science. The murders came exactly one month after her March 16, 2007 Request for Correction filing with the government for 9/11 fraud. The first killing occurred in the only dorm room she used on campus; one of her instructors was killed in a classroom she used to sit in.

We know the Virginia Tech massacre was a PSYOPS due to the fact that the police did not close off the area afterwards. They obviously knew who the perpetrators were.

A musical memorial for all the victims is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G0hdZeK7ss

7/30/07 - Aerielle Louise - Grand Niece of Free Energy Pioneer Nikola Tesla

A strong supporter and friend of Hutchison, Aerielle Louise, was found dead in her mobile home in July of 2007. Although attributed to a heat wave, Hutchison states otherwise:

X-files Newsletter issue#5
April 2008
http://www.hutchisoneffect.ca

Excerpt:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
July 30th or 31st, Aerielle Louise Serban was found "cooked to death" in her Burnsville home. The Medical examiner who John has spoken to, states the cause is a mystery, and the circumstances highly suspicious.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

A press release in memory of Aerielle is here:
http://pesn.com/2007/08/04/9500489_Aerielle_Louise_dies

*Free Energy is Very Real, but Suppressed*

Although some go out of their way in attempt to discredit John Hutchison, fact is his research brought interest from governmental agencies. See here for more information, including the many times his research equipment was seized:
http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/JJ...#johnhutchison
http://newwestminster2008.blogspot.com

Mr Hutchison’s work has been presented at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in a conference on Cold Fusion. The “Hutchison Effect” is of interest to real scientists:

EVOs AND THE HUTCHISON EFFECT
NUCLEAR TRANSMUTATION FROM LOW-VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE
Paper presented at the MIT Cold Fusion Conference
May 21, 2005
By Ken Shoulders
http://drjudywood.com/pdf/050521_EVO...isonEffect.pdf
http://world.std.com/%7Emica/colloq.html

Here’s an excellent documentary, detailing Zero Point Energy and Cold Fusion:

Free Energy: The Race To Zero Point - 1h:50m
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...05906535911834

Excerpt from Introduction:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
“Emerging on the frontiers of science, a pioneering breed of theoretical physicists and inspired inventors are challenging the way we think about harnessing the unforeseen forces of nature. Despite ridicule, lack of funding, and outright suppression, they are confronting an outmoded classical world view and ushering in a monumental scientific revolution. In this program, you will witness the groundbreaking work of tireless inventors - envisionary scientists - who may hold the keys to true energy independence for every person on earth. From Nikola Tesla to the reality of Cold Fusion and beyond, join us as we present “Free Energy: The Race To Zero Point”.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Much effort is spent in attempt to discredit Dr Wood as well. Physicist Greg Jenkins attempted this with an “ambush interview”:

Reading Between The Lines -- Jenkins/Wood interview revisited,
Text, Subtext and The Truth About DEWs
http://drjudywood.com/articles/trans...ranscript.html

The above analysis reveals that Jenkins’ 2000 research was funded by the NSA. (This is the same NSA mentioned earlier in the article “World Depopulation Is Top NSA Agenda: Club Of Rome - The Haig-Kissinger depopulation policy”.)

The analysis had a major positive effect in that it gave birth to the paper:

Molecular Dissociation: from Dust to Dirt
http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirt1.html

Despite her top-notch research, some claim Dr Wood lacks expertise with directed energy weapons.
But nothing can be further from the truth:

She was a mechanical engineering professor for a major university
She received her engineering PhD in a major university
For her dissertation, she developed an optical method using laser beams

Dr Wood’s dissertation and other scientific papers are listed here:
http://drjudywood.com/articles/a/bio/Wood_Bio.html

Some in the “truth movement” get turned off by “space beams”.
However, Dr Wood’s analysis does not say the weapon was in space:

The Star Wars Beam Weapons
Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/S...Beam7.html#DEW

Excerpt:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Our critics have accused us of insisting that beam weapons did their damage from outer space, yet we make no claim about whether the directed energy weapon operated from a space-, air-, or ground-based platform.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In November 2006, Dr Wood said the weapon was likely in orbit. However, this was an opinion given during a radio interview, not a scientific analysis of available evidence. Dr Wood has never used the term “space beam”. That term was actually coined by Steven Jones, as documented here:

Steven Jones Brainwashes The 9/11 Truth Movement With "Space Beams" Term
http://www.911researchers.com/node/90

Excerpts (emphasis added):

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The current "pet theory" that I have challenged is one now supported by you and (not surprisingly) Wood and Reynolds - the idea that "space beams" or "energy beams" were directed at the Towers to bring them down.

…

We won’t spend much time on ray-beams from space knocking down the Towers!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why did Steven Jones’ work discredit free energy research?
Why did he ridicule free energy?
Why does he now ridicule DEW/NP?

Here’s the 9/11 Parallels video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1vOeKNN2UI

*2012 / End of the Present Era*

Steven Jones’ fascination with Mayan art is described in his paper:

“Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America”
archive.org link

The final year in the Mayan calendar is 2012, which signifies the end of the present era. 2012 is also the year petroleum engineer Richard Duncan “predicts” permanent worldwide blackouts via Peak Oil:
http://dieoff.org/page224.htm

This was before his “prediction” update to 2008:

Olduvai update
by Richard Duncan
22 Nov 2004
http://www.energybulletin.net/3294.html

Excerpt:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Olduvai 'cliff' event has been moved closer to the present by four years: namely from 2012 previously to 2008 in the update.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well… it’s 2008 and according to SAIC’s Robert Hirsch, the agenda is going as planned:

MSNBC Interview with Robert Hirsch
May 24, 2008
http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=1125

Excerpts (emphasis added):

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
“The problem is that there’s not that much oil left in the ground”.

Hirsch addressed the timeframe in which the US could see $15/gallon gas: “It could happen within a matter of months. It could happen within a matter of a few years. But it’s essentially certain that we are at the maximum of world oil production. And after that, we’ll go into decline, and when there’s much less oil available, then, of course, the price of oil is going to increase dramatically.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The New York Times addresses these issues:

Cutoffs and Pleas for Aid Rise With Heat Costs
New York Times
By ERIK ECKHOLM
Published: April 25, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/us/25heating.html

Excerpts (emphasis added):

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
After struggling with soaring heating costs through the winter, millions of Americans are behind on electric and gas bills, and a record number of families could face energy shut-offs over the next two months, according to state energy officials and utilities around the country.

…

“Based on discussions with major utility companies around the country, we will see record numbers of families facing shut-offs,”…
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

How long till “shut-offs” occur from artificially reduced oil levels, as opposed to elevated energy costs?

Fuel prices aren’t the only worry. Many retail stores are closing due to low sales and credit problems:

Retailing Chains Caught in a Wave of Bankruptcies
New York Times
By MICHAEL BARBARO
Published: April 15, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/bu.../15retail.html

Excerpts:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The consumer spending slump and tightening credit markets are unleashing a widening wave of bankruptcies in American retailing, prompting thousands of store closings that are expected to remake suburban malls and downtown shopping districts across the country.

…

Retailing is a business with big ups and downs during the year, and retailers rely heavily on borrowed money to finance their purchases of merchandise and even to meet payrolls during slow periods. Yet the nation’s banks, struggling with the growing mortgage crisis, have started to balk at extending new loans, effectively cutting up the retail industry’s collective credit cards.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not that we should trust the New York Times as a reliable source, however, since their journalists may soon be “bought out”, as detailed here. (Remember Popular Mechanics?):
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/NY_Tim...nist_0425.html

How long till companies that operate food delivery trucks cannot afford gasoline?

It is important to understand… Electric grids and water supplies are powered by:
Oil
Natural gas
Nuclear
Coal
Other non-free energy sources

How does 2012 relate to all this? What is Steven Jones’ opinion on weather modification? Does he know that manmade Global Warming is a hoax just like Peal Oil?

*Free Energy Technology Can Alter the Weather*

The technology to control weather has existed for many decades, but the Global Elite use it against us:

UN-banned weapon system can trigger hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis
http://arizona.indymedia.org/news/2005/09/30493.php

Chemtrails - (long streaks in the sky)
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cm...id=6&Itemid=50

Tornado Count Up Over 800% for February – Unprecedented Start to the Year
http://www.standeyo.com/NEWS/08_Eart...ado.count.html

Owning the Weather - 45 min (Discovery Science Channel)
Documentary that looks at the history of weather modification and its use by the military. Among the topics covered are: cloud seeding, HAARP and declassified experiments
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...83364410309502

This Google search on “weather modification” demonstrates the amount of literature available:
http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22w...odification%22

2001, Sept - Hurricane Erin in Atlantic Ocean - closest to NYC on 9/11
2004, Dec - Tsunami in Indian Ocean - day after Christmas
2005, Aug - Hurricane Katrina in Gulf Coast - Producer of oil and natural gas
2008, May - Volcanic Eruption in Chile - Top producer of fruits and vegetables
2008, May - Cyclone in Myanmar - day after Bush froze their assets - Top producer of rice
2008, May - Earthquake in China - midst of serious financial trouble with the USA

Is there also a possible religious significance, such as the Book of Revelation?
(Registration required to download PDFs.)
http://www.911researchers.com/node/563

*Free Energy for the Good*

This technology can be used to tame weather.

Imagine… beautiful, warm and sunny instead of windy, cloudy and sticky. See this article:

Space age plan to tame might of hurricanes
Microwave radiation and controlled oil slicks could change the path and sap the power of tropical storms
Robin McKie, science editor
October 10 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...er.theobserver

This technology can be used for fuel. Many are aware of increased food prices and dwindling crops:

Wheat Crop Failures Could be Total, Experts Warn
Moneynews.com - America’s Money News Page
April 24, 2008
http://moneynews.com/money/archives/...00454.cfm?s=st

Excerpt (emphasis added):

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On top of record-breaking rice prices and corn through the roof on ethanol demand, wheat is now rusting in the fields across Africa.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

But why are crops failing? One reason is climate change. (Check weather links in previous section.) Another reason is crops’ conversion to ethanol fuel. Why use ethanol when we have free energy?

Imagine… cars, planes and space shuttles powered by Zero Point Energy.

Imagine… homes heated by small devices utilizing Cold Fusion.

Imagine… clean air with no nauseating car exhausts.

Watch this 1993 news video of Dr Eugene Mallove and remember he lost his life:
http://www.livevideo.com/flvplayer/e...7351F118617A39

Why is this technology being used against us?
Why are energy-people, such as those affiliated with the Department of Energy, suppressing this technology?

Why not use this technology productively?

*We Already Know What Happened On 9/11*

Another “free energy” insider, Bob Bowman, went on FOX News in July 2006 and said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5lN5Vi8xUM

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
“…I believe that the truth about 9/11 is that we don’t know the truth about 9/11 and we should…”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

As former Director of the Star Wars program, Bowman should be well acquainted with the capabilities of directed energy weapons. In an April 12, 2007 interview, he said the mission for Star Wars was to “destroy targets on the surface of the earth from space without warning”:
Transcript - MP3 (Star Wars segment: 24:20)

We do know what happened on 9/11. The WTC was destroyed with directed energy weapons and the media broadcasted cartoons of an airplane hitting the South Tower. This is backed by the evidence.

The “truth movement” has had a positive effect in getting people to question 9/11. This defense polity amendment to prevent optimistic Iraq war propaganda in the media, for instance, might be due to the efforts of the “truth movement”. Also, a new book by former White House press secretary Scott McClellan says Bush sold the Iraq war to the American people using a "political propaganda campaign". The ability of this book to get published might also be attributed to efforts of the “truth movement”.

However, we do see from information presented in this article that the Powers That Be are planning something. It’s up to us to prevent it. Can we do it? Can we get enough people involved?

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Andrew Johnson for “Do The Test” and for hosting this on checktheevidence.com

:END

ukor

31-05-2008, 01:02 AM

We do know what happened on 9/11. The WTC was destroyed with directed energy weapons and the media broadcasted cartoons of an airplane hitting the South Tower. This is backed by the evidence".

That is, to be more accurate - "make believe evidence" via Judy Wood repeater puppet CB_Brooklyn, via repeater puppet and financier Andrew Johnson, via repeater puppet Mason Free Party.

You might ask why, if the "evidence" is so good, repeater puppets are even necessary in the first place.

Why does "scientist" Judy Wood never make herself available to answer her own supposed "theories"?

Why - if its oh-so-important - is it left to van driver Mason Free Party to do the spam campaign?

I'd love to know the dynamic of that little "family", when there's so much more credible evidence, including the paper trail through the bureaucracy the summer before September 11th.

Google "Sibel Edmonds" and "Able Danger".

Or better yet, wait and see what "response" is forthcoming from the Judy Wood puppet show.

i_am

31-05-2008, 01:37 AM

do we have any mods who believe in the no plane theory or is that too much to ask?

I would rather not get involved in these sort of debates. It makes it so much easier to be objective and impartial :D

christophera

31-05-2008, 10:28 AM

Christophera - that was a long post that didn't really say anything.

Regardless of the "mode of demolition", do you think it possible that planes were not used...?

Well, .......... it answered your quesion.

Or, .............. if the "no planers" were to forget talking about their beliefs regarding planes, no planes and video fakery and instead concentrate on reasonably defining HOW the demolition they know took place was actually done, America would stand a better chance of getting the truth whereupon America and them might possibly learn that indeed no planes were used and it was all video fakery.

At this point the no planers could proudly say, See, we told you so. And, ...... it was only because we were in such great control of ourselves, and so capable of reason, that we stopped talking about no planes and focused on proving comprehensively the demolition, ....... that America has gotten the truth.

Now it remains to be seen if logic and facts can help them to control themselves and do what needs to be done to find the truth.

The post said a great deal, ........... and I have evidence you didn't read it. I would suggest looking it over again. Try to read it this time.

The fact that you weren't able to get it at first indicates that your unconscious is not allowing your conscious mind the cognitive capacity it needs to understand what it says. The unconscious mind controls us very much.

narcolepticwatchman

31-05-2008, 03:49 PM

Yes, some, of varying types, conceptual and practical, across a fairly wide variety of disciplines.

How about yourself?

Do you also have experience in psychology and human behavior?

I do, I studied mechanical engineering and served my time with a large heavy engineering company specialising in pressure vessel manufacture.

i have made my points various times on this forum regarding my main problem with the plane impacts. See here most recently

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=362121&postcount=6

The fact that every single piece of the plane shears the 14" box colums from the nose to the outer extremities of the wing tips with out anything breaking off and without a hint of an explosion until its fully inside the building In my eyes, and with my experience, is impossible. What are your thoughts on this?

christophera

31-05-2008, 06:23 PM

I do, I studied mechanical engineering and served my time with a large heavy engineering company specialising in pressure vessel manufacture.

i have made my points various times on this forum regarding my main problem with the plane impacts. See here most recently

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=362121&postcount=6

The fact that every single piece of the plane shears the 14" box colums from the nose to the outer extremities of the wing tips with out anything breaking off and without a hint of an explosion until its fully inside the building In my eyes, and with my experience, is impossible. What are your thoughts on this?

I've worked with tempered steel quite a bit in repairs on heavy equipment. Therein I've broken some of it too. In breaking it, I saw how it resisted bending greatly, then would fracture after a point. The perimeter box columns are quite typical for tempered steel, bending to a point then breaking.

The aluminum wing of a plane has a lot of ridgidity in the direction of impact. So, despite the difference in hardness and density, the transfer of the planes mass to the leading edge of the wing is pretty good until it snaps off. With the engine connected near the middle, the mass with an increased strength connection is quite high and gives a secondary and increased break point in forces after the wing snaps off from the fuselage.

Overall, I have no problem with what I see happenning to the perimeter columns based on the above. Consider the plane is nearing the velocity of a 45 caliber pistol bullet at impact with the above.

I don't really see "shearing" per se. Shearing causes a displacement of a plane surface from that plane average and happens on a very small dimensional scale with huge forces resisting and applied. The wing collapsed too quick and the perimeter columns bent too much in distribution for "shear" to be a major factor. Bending and breaking in the typical tempered steel fashion is what I see.

narcolepticwatchman

01-06-2008, 08:09 PM

I've worked with tempered steel quite a bit in repairs on heavy equipment. Therein I've broken some of it too. In breaking it, I saw how it resisted bending greatly, then would fracture after a point. The perimeter box columns are quite typical for tempered steel, bending to a point then breaking.

The aluminum wing of a plane has a lot of ridgidity in the direction of impact. So, despite the difference in hardness and density, the transfer of the planes mass to the leading edge of the wing is pretty good until it snaps off. With the engine connected near the middle, the mass with an increased strength connection is quite high and gives a secondary and increased break point in forces after the wing snaps off from the fuselage.

Overall, I have no problem with what I see happenning to the perimeter columns based on the above. Consider the plane is nearing the velocity of a 45 caliber pistol bullet at impact with the above.

I don't really see "shearing" per se. Shearing causes a displacement of a plane surface from that plane average and happens on a very small dimensional scale with huge forces resisting and applied. The wing collapsed too quick and the perimeter columns bent too much in distribution for "shear" to be a major factor. Bending and breaking in the typical tempered steel fashion is what I see.

Ok. So you think that a 45 caliber pistol bullet would punch a hole straight through the box columns? i very much doubt that. also, you state that the wing collapsed......where exactly can you see this because i have yet to see a video which shows this....hence my major problem.

Also, to me, there is plenty of evidence of shearing of the steel....also, the plane? crash evidence at the pentagon s totally inconsistent with what you are describing at the towers. The lamp posts we saw there are bent only with the claimed speeds of the plane being the same.

Finally, the tempering you are talking about that would be carried out on the structural steel in the towers is not to harden the steel....it is to increase ductility. Its a heat treatment process to relieve the stresses in the metal as a result of the welding. The temperature in the whole section is equalised then left to cool naturally and the mechanical properties of the metal are more similar after this process to before the welding took place. Think about it, the steel has to retain an elasticity to allow for the movement of the structure from bottom to top. A rigid, hard steel would not be suitable in this instance. Your experience is not really relevant to this situation in all honesty....read up on it some more.

killtown

02-06-2008, 06:02 AM

Christophera - that was a long post that didn't really say anything.
Yeah, I didn't understand it either. Read like a JREFer saying there is no evidence of an inside job.

Can someone summarize it for me?

christophera

02-06-2008, 09:30 AM

Ok. So you think that a 45 caliber pistol bullet would punch a hole straight through the box columns? i very much doubt that. also, you state that the wing collapsed......where exactly can you see this because i have yet to see a video which shows this....hence my major problem.

Also, to me, there is plenty of evidence of shearing of the steel....also, the plane? crash evidence at the pentagon s totally inconsistent with what you are describing at the towers. The lamp posts we saw there are bent only with the claimed speeds of the plane being the same.

Finally, the tempering you are talking about that would be carried out on the structural steel in the towers is not to harden the steel....it is to increase ductility. Its a heat treatment process to relieve the stresses in the metal as a result of the welding. The temperature in the whole section is equalised then left to cool naturally and the mechanical properties of the metal are more similar after this process to before the welding took place. Think about it, the steel has to retain an elasticity to allow for the movement of the structure from bottom to top. A rigid, hard steel would not be suitable in this instance. Your experience is not really relevant to this situation in all honesty....read up on it some more.

I actually did research on it about 4 years ago and learned about similar steels available today. The armour plate I've used to patch equipment and broken is not far off by any means, ....... as established reasonably with evidence.

Can you please provide links and cobborations of sheared perimeter box columns.

The steels used were quite specialized and from many developed by the military with different designations but equivilants are found as seen below. These are close, however the extruded steel used was a quenched variation and special alloy. This is a interior box column very near the top of WTC 1 by my best guess and is that tempered alloy extrusion. Can you find the butt weld?

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/boxcolumnsalvage.jpg

Structural Carbon Steel Plate Grades: 50A, A572, A588
The high strength of this steel originates from its chemical composition instead of heat treatment. As a result, steel plate 50A to A588 have good resistance to weather and acid corrosion, and may be used in
the construction of outdoor steel supports, such as bridges.

Structural Carbon Steel Plate Grades: A36, 44W, 50W, A572, C1020:
We supply grades from low carbon steel to medium carbon steel A 36 to C1020. Each grade indicates the degree of hardness of the steel based on the ratio of manganese to carbon content. Our carbon steel plates are used in every sector of the economy, from bridge building to mezzanine structures.

wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
E.1.1
Building Design and Steel Specifications
Building plans and material specifications from the construction era provided a starting point for the
study. Thousands of pages of design documents were reviewed. Most valuable were the structural steel
design drawings for the WTC towers provided by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. In
addition, Laclede Steel Company, the fabricator of the floor trusses, provided construction-era documents
that showed, amongst other information, that steels with higher strength than specified were used in the
floor truss systems. Numerous other sources, including Yawata (now Nippon) Steel documents on
perimeter column steel, provided essential insights into the steel fabrication and properties.
From the standpoint of building design, the towers were unique based on the number of different steels
specified for construction. Fourteen different strengths of steel were specified in the design drawings,
although only 12 were actually used. Most modern buildings use no more than two or three different
strengths of steel.

christophera

02-06-2008, 09:42 AM

Yeah, I didn't understand it either. Read like a JREFer saying there is no evidence of an inside job.

Can someone summarize it for me?

It was all an inside job, but the demo was the major event. The planes mean nothing one way or another as they had nothing to do with the towers coming down so you are distracting the public from the most meaningful discourse and impeding the search for truth with something you absolutely cannot logically support.

I've summerized it before. This is our 2nd time at this.

Centrally is the fact that you cannot come up with a credible reason for the perps to not use planes and then create a backwards fall and impact, a major mistake obviously. Your theory states they didn't use planes because there was too much risk of mistakes.

The unconscious mind is in complete control of the concious mind, so every time you "think" you can promote "no planes" because a very strong feeling which makes you "know" planes were not used, suddenly you cannot reasonably, consciously, promote the notion. It is completley illogical that the perps of such a catastrophe would risk a reversed impact/fall sequence when they could possible avoid it by the control you suggest they had.

I already know you have no reasonable explanation of why the perps would do it backwards, so don't even try.

I searched this page

Why They Didn't Use Planes To Hit The WTC

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-they-didnt-use-planes-to-hit-wtc.html

With this search term,

"Didn't Use Planes"

And the only 2 times it came up were here,

http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=71

(which had no logical reason that would bear scrutiny for not using planes)

and here,

Using real planes left too much to chance. A missed target, or failed penetration would ruin all that 9/11 has given the perps. They had to use the least-risky viable option that would not only guarantee hitting their targets, but would also guarantee penetration into the buildings and that was TV fakery.

Implying that planes were not used because they left too much to chance or might cause the plan to be poorly executed ignores a major point of error that did exist which DEFINITLY WOULD NOT EXIST if video fakery was the only reality.

The fact that the first tower hit, hit hardest, burnt worst, was the last to fall. This is a MAJOR logistical problem with the official story. Why do no planers ignore it???????? What reason do they have particuarly with the statement in italics above??????????????????? This is a really an irrational scenario.

If it was all video fakery, a video showing a plane hitting WC 2 first would be what we have for evidence and another of a plane whacking WTC 1 later would account for the other towers impact and fire.

So clearly, no logic for Why They Didn't Use Planes To Hit The WTC has ever been presented anywhere.

No logic for remote control over planes or explosives which can bear scrutiny has ever been presented either.

If remotes were used with either planes or explosives the impact/fall sequence would be logical.

If planes were remotely controlled the pilots on the ground would be very controlled and be sure to do their job properly.

If remotes controlling explosives were used on the ground any screw ups relating to targets and timing could be covered by the associated, remotely triggered explosions.

However, a glaring fact exists that reasonably discounts either fake video/holographic planes and remotely controlled planes.

The towers have a backwards impact/fall sequence.

Just because video fakery is possible, does not mean the video of plane impacts was faked.

However, having people rushing about saying "There were no planes" really makes the 9-11 truth movement look stoooooooopid.

BTW, killtown THINKS he is providing an explanation for "Why they didn't use planes", but has never produced a logical explanation and I've asked before.

I THINK killtown and many others in the truth movement that believe equally or less dysfunctional scenarios or information are victims of MKultra and MKultra has been proven to have existed.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/bluebird10pg

and NO ONE knows why the project was conducted for 20 years and 150k people were influenced psychologically without their knowledge.

The "no plane theory" is the best evidence I can find to substantiate that the infiltrators of the US government were preemptively mind controlling citizens to distract and derail Americas search for truth after 9-11.

The ironic thing is that the "no plane theory" distracts from what it indirectly asserts by drawing attention away from an obvious demolition meaning that those that promote it serve a double purpose for the infiltrating perpetrators, and, when this post is opposed, that FACT is confirmed.

Or, .............. if the "no planers" were to forget talking about their beliefs regarding planes, no planes and video fakery and instead concentrate on reasonably defining HOW the demolition they know took place was actually done, America would stand a better chance of getting the truth whereupon America and them might possibly learn that indeed no planes were used and it was all video fakery.

At this point the no planers could proudly say, See, we told you so. And, ...... it was only because we were in such great control of ourselves, and so capable of reason, that we stopped talking about no planes and focused on proving comprehensively the demolition, ....... that America has gotten the truth.

Now it remains to be seen if logic and facts can help them to control themselves and do what needs to be done to find the truth.

dave52

02-06-2008, 10:09 AM

See Christophera, you did it again. A straight answer would really help us out here.

Re-reading your post again (and again), I'm still a little confused. Now, before you go off on one and assume that I'm either an idiot or a victim of MKUltra (or both). Let me try and get my head around it.

You believe that the Towers were designed to fall, with charges/explosives built in during construction. The mode of WTC demolition is the most important thing in your oppinion. Fair enough.

But the question (and subject of this thread) is about using or not using planes. So, could you answer my question with just a yes or a no. Were planes used to impact the towers...?

narcolepticwatchman

02-06-2008, 08:32 PM

I actually did research on it about 4 years ago and learned about similar steels available today. The armour plate I've used to patch equipment and broken is not far off by any means, ....... as established reasonably with evidence.

Can you please provide links and cobborations of sheared perimeter box columns.

The steels used were quite specialized and from many developed by the military with different designations but equivilants are found as seen below. These are close, however the extruded steel used was a quenched variation and special alloy. This is a interior box column very near the top of WTC 1 by my best guess and is that tempered alloy extrusion. Can you find the butt weld?

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/boxcolumnsalvage.jpg

Structural Carbon Steel Plate Grades: 50A, A572, A588
The high strength of this steel originates from its chemical composition instead of heat treatment. As a result, steel plate 50A to A588 have good resistance to weather and acid corrosion, and may be used in
the construction of outdoor steel supports, such as bridges.

Structural Carbon Steel Plate Grades: A36, 44W, 50W, A572, C1020:
We supply grades from low carbon steel to medium carbon steel A 36 to C1020. Each grade indicates the degree of hardness of the steel based on the ratio of manganese to carbon content. Our carbon steel plates are used in every sector of the economy, from bridge building to mezzanine structures.

wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
E.1.1
Building Design and Steel Specifications
Building plans and material specifications from the construction era provided a starting point for the
study. Thousands of pages of design documents were reviewed. Most valuable were the structural steel
design drawings for the WTC towers provided by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. In
addition, Laclede Steel Company, the fabricator of the floor trusses, provided construction-era documents
that showed, amongst other information, that steels with higher strength than specified were used in the
floor truss systems. Numerous other sources, including Yawata (now Nippon) Steel documents on
perimeter column steel, provided essential insights into the steel fabrication and properties.
From the standpoint of building design, the towers were unique based on the number of different steels
specified for construction. Fourteen different strengths of steel were specified in the design drawings,
although only 12 were actually used. Most modern buildings use no more than two or three different
strengths of steel.

Cristophera, again you seem to have posted a lot of information but with no point. You are answering my qustions with questions in an obvious attempt to deflect them. What about the .45 claiber bullet you have used as justification for punching through steel?...what about the evidence of wing collapse you claim to see? What about the fact that tempering is carried out to increase ductility which totally contradicts your 'typical tempered steel fashion' statement? The plane slices straight through the columns without a hint of an explosion.....what about failure occurring at the weakest point...without exception?

You post an image of an interior box column. It doesn't bear any resemblance for comparison to the exterior columns we are discussing. then you try to divert the attentions by inferring that no welding took place on the sections and that they were probably extrusions?? If this is the case then explain this?

For the World Trade Center, Leslie E. Robertson, a partner in charge of the New York office of Skilling, Helle, Christiansen, Robertson, said a computer was used to produce the drawing lists, beam schedules, column details and all schedules for exterior wall panels. Millions of IBM cards were then sent to every fabricator. These cards gave fabricators the width, length, thickness and grade of steel of every plate and section in all of the columns and panels. "In addition," he said, "the fabricators are given all of the requirements of every weld needed to make up the columns and panels. Many of these cards are used as equatable to the production of drawings. They are sent directly from the designer to the fabricators. Draftsmen never become involved."

The exterior sections and panels were prefabs and would have been heat treated in the manner I suggested....not hardened and made brittle as you suggest. In any case, for extruded sections or not, your analysis of the mechanical properties of a heat treated section is way off the mark.

Look at any impact zone photo for the evidence of shearing.....check where the wing tips were supposed to be and you will see it

killtown

06-06-2008, 06:40 AM

Why Use Real Planes? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpkqomUc7Xs)
(7:20 video)

graflok

06-06-2008, 08:02 PM

Did a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon?

killtown

08-06-2008, 11:16 PM

The military talked about incorporating TV fakery into its arsenal since 1995:

INFORMATION WARFARE
Prof George J. Stein, AWC
Airpower Journal - Spring 1995

Let us take just one example of how current technologies could be used for strategic-level information warfare. If, say, the capabilities of already well-known Hollywood technologies to simulate reality were added to our arsenal, a genuinely revolutionary new form of warfare would become possible. Today, the techniques of combining live actors with computer-generated video graphics can easily create a "virtual" news conference, summit meeting, or perhaps even a battle that would exist in "effect" though not in physical fact. Stored video images can be recombined or "morphed" endlessly to produce any effect chosen. This moves well beyond traditional military deception, and now, perhaps, "pictures" will be worth a thousand tanks.

---------------------------

Dr George J. Stein (BA, Assumption College; MA, Pennsylvania State University, phD, Indiana University) is director, International Security Studies Core and professor of European Studies at the Air War College, Maxwell AFB, Alabama. Before joining Air University in 1991, Professor Stein had taught in the School of Interdisciplinary Studies, Miami University, since 1977. He was active in SPACECAST 2020 and continues his research in information warfare.

http://www.iwar.org.uk/iwar/resources/airchronicles/stein.htm

Video manipulation of live TV broadcasts were possible since 1998:

http://www.zatznotfunny.com/wordpress/wp-content/sportvision.jpg

A winner of multiple Emmy Awards for technical achievement, the Virtual Yellow 1st and Ten Line makes use of Sportvision’s patented video overlay technology to create the illusion that a yellow first-down line is painted on the field, allowing players to cross over and stand on it. Invented by Sportvision and first introduced in 1998, 1st and Ten allows viewers to see the necessary distance for a first down as plays progress...

http://www.sportvision.com/main_frames/products/1stand10line.htm

The media began warning the public about the use of TV fakery by broadcasters and the military in 1999 and 2000:

When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing

By William M. Arkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, Feb. 1, 1999

Most Americans were introduced to the tricks of the digital age in the movie Forrest Gump, when the character played by Tom Hanks appeared to shake hands with President Kennedy.

For Hollywood, it is special effects. For covert operators in the U.S. military and intelligence agencies, it is a weapon of the future.

Digital morphing — voice, video, and photo — has come of age, available for use in psychological operations. PSYOPS, as the military calls it, seek to exploit human vulnerabilities in enemy governments, militaries and populations to pursue national and battlefield objectives.

To some, PSYOPS is a backwater military discipline of leaflet dropping and radio propaganda. To a growing group of information war technologists, it is the nexus of fantasy and reality. Being able to manufacture convincing audio or video, they say, might be the difference in a successful military operation or coup.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

When TV brings you the news as it didn't happen

Broadcasters are using virtual imaging technology to alter live broadcasts - and not even the news is safe from tampering

Monday, 24 January 2000
independent.co.uk

The technology to do this comes from the defence industry where, following the end of the Cold War, a number of companies have developed new ways of commercially exploiting their military navigation and tracking expertise.

None of the companies will publicly discuss how their's works. But the principle is common: each alters the live video image in the split second before it is broadcast.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/when-tv-brings-you-the-news-as-it-didnt-happen-728236.html

Lying With Pixels

July/August 2000

In the fraction of a second between video frames, any person or object moving in the foreground can be edited out, and objects that aren’t there can be edited in and made to look real.

It is perfectly possible now to insert sets of pixels into satellite imagery data that interpreters would view as battalions of tanks, or war planes...

“I’m amazed that we have not seen phony video,” he says, before backpedaling a bit: “Maybe we have. Who would know?”

With experience as an army reservist, as a staffer with a top-secret clearance on the Senate’s Intelligence Committee, and as a legislative liaison for the Secretary of the Army, Currie has seen governmental decision-making and politicking up close. He is convinced that real-time video manipulation will be, or already is, in the hands of the military and intelligence communities.

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=12115

The video (http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html#WABC7) of the WTC that most people around the world saw "live" on TV at about 9:03am:

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/306/abcit5.gif

killtown

08-06-2008, 11:23 PM

See also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpkqomUc7Xs

mynameis

09-06-2008, 12:53 AM

It is also said that hoaxes have been used to bolster the image of military superiority, how does this fit into that image? If this was feasible in any way MIT hackers would have a field day with this in real time.

jjuelz

09-06-2008, 01:44 AM

I don't get it

so was there really no planes?

what we saw on the news was fake?

what about all the people who claim they saw the planes?

true

09-06-2008, 02:22 AM

At first this idea seems pretty far out there, but I think there is a lot of evidence pointing towards it. First off, there's no way an aluminum plane would smash through all that steel. The words, "NO STEP" are written on the wings, but yet they cut right through the towers like a missile. Why didn't the planes' large engines ever get retrieved? And we certainly haven't seen much evidence at all for a plane at the pentagon - much less Shanksville. We have however seen a snapshot of something like a missile turbine emerging from the hole in the pentagon.

We've also seen that fox news uses actors all the time, including on 9/11. How is manipulating what goes onto the audio track via a plant any different than photoshopping the video? Which, we've apparently seen them do to the south tower by artificially extending the gash from the planted explosives. .. err I mean airplane wing sorry. The manipulative tactics of the media truly have no limits, so why do we somewhat sheepishly give them the benefit of the doubt regarding the authenticity of the video feed?

David talks about this false flag alien invasion thing, using holograms projected out from satellites. Isn't that a clever final card to get the public to beg for world government? Maybe such technology is already in place and was successfully used on 9/11. It honestly doesn't sound that far fetched to me.

I also find it interesting that the "real hardworking 9/11 truthers" are freaking out about the no planes angle. Since I find it more logical than the boxcutter hijackings they're still hanging onto, I see it like even they have been infiltrated or are still severely buffaloed by the same people. Remember, the earth IS round and we've all been lied to here. Let's not lose sight of that and settle down with a sub par or no substantial explanation of what these assholes did.

I certainly have no idea what happened though, just trying to keep an open mind. :)

jvx19

09-06-2008, 02:39 AM

here's another explanation for the quick entry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev2qYxWI38Q

jvx19

09-06-2008, 02:43 AM

and if it's fakery, explain these peoples reaction. This is not CNN video, but a French documentary team. What would compel the photographer to follow the plane that did not exist? Quite spreading disinfo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOD-D7Dtgys

killtown

09-06-2008, 04:15 AM

1. It is also said that hoaxes have been used to bolster the image of military superiority, how does this fit into that image?

2. If this was feasible in any way MIT hackers would have a field day with this in real time.
1. What do you mean?

2. Non-MIT hackers did:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea4eft_3p-I

killtown

09-06-2008, 04:25 AM

1. so was there really no planes?

2. what we saw on the news was fake?

3. what about all the people who claim they saw the planes?
1. No planes that hit.

2. Yes. Only 3 stations aired "live" video that showed a plane aiming for the towers (ABC, CBS, MSNBC).

http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html#As_It_Happened

ABC was the only one that aired continuous footage without cutting to a different camera right before "impact". Notice they just have a plane image disappear behind the building.

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/306/abcit5.gif

Both CBS and MSNBC cut to different cameras right before "impact":

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/6639/cbsjy5.gif
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/4492/nbcnf4.gif

CNN aired part of the ABC feed before cutting to another camera right before "impact":

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/4517/cnnby9.gif

BBC just aired the ABC feed:

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/5963/bbclive2lk2.gif

FOX just aired the cut-away MSNBC shot:

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/8623/foxbw3.gif

FOX was supposed to air this Chopper 5 shot, but they over-shot the CGI plane which exposed the nose cone coming out the other side, hence them trying to shut the feed off, but were a little too late:

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/411/fox5jo0.gif

NOTICE NO "LIVE" SHOTS SHOW THE ENTRY HOLE SIDE OF THE SOUTH TOWER. They just show the exit side views.

3. Do you believe a plane hit the Pentagon?

killtown

09-06-2008, 04:48 AM

here's another explanation for the quick entry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev2qYxWI38Q
You do know that the "pod" seen in the Hezarkhani video only is seen AFTER the "plane" passes over the WTC building and gets bigger and bigger as the "planes" gets further from the camera? Or was it a "transformer" pod?

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/03/tv-fakery-explains-pod-phenomenon.html

killtown

09-06-2008, 04:50 AM

1. and if it's fakery, explain these peoples reaction. This is not CNN video, but a French documentary team. What would compel the photographer to follow the plane that did not exist?

2. Quite spreading disinfo.
1. Yeah, French documentaries can't be staged.

2. Words of advice with your "pod" theory.

gribz

09-06-2008, 09:28 AM

Did a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon?

Id say that was the most obvious thing that didnt happen on the day!!

jvx19

09-06-2008, 02:22 PM

The bottom line is, the buildings collapsed due to controlled demolition. Why push such an out-there theory such as no planes? You know it will turn people away. The collapse of the buildings may be the tip of the iceberg but it's the only theory that has been scientifically proven as controlled demolition.

pilgrim

09-06-2008, 08:22 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ogb510A5fAk

9/11 NWO Fake
FULL PLAYLIST: http://www.youtube.com/profile_play_list?user=AnonymousCommentator

graflok

10-06-2008, 01:06 AM

if you tell 100 people about npt, maybe one or two will kind of believe you but if you tell 100 people about the controlled demolition perhaps 20 of them will believe you. at the end of the day you will have 20 inside job believers vs. 2 npt insidejob+npt believers.

Those are pretty exact figures. You've done such a study then?

Where and when was it done? How big was the sample size? What criteria were used
to screen participants? Where can we view the questionnaire used?

graflok

10-06-2008, 01:11 AM

1. Planes did hit Killtown you are delusional to think people witnessed otherwise.

So, you must believe a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon as witnesses said.

How did it fit into that little hole?

musti

10-06-2008, 06:33 AM

OK, I re-read your post. Am I to understand that you made up the figures
without doing any actual research?

you are to understand that based on my limited experience, people tend to believe inside job+npt way less than the inside job without npt. figures are estimates, not a result of research (which i never indicated). if i did a research would i put maybe and perhaps there? LOL
you are quite keen on trying not to understand my point, good effort! :)

graflok

10-06-2008, 06:54 AM

Thank you. I was trying to clarify what you said and how you arrived at it.
It seems clear now.

Personally, I feel the fuss that is being made along the lines of "mustn't talk
about no-planes because it will hurt the 9/11 truth movement" is without merit.

It also seems to me that no one is more grouchy, evasive and ill mannered than
a "don't talk about no-planes" person.

But, that's just my opinion. :)

mynameis

10-06-2008, 12:05 PM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=823734902101057550&hl=en-CA
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=823734902101057550&hl=en-CA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmRWNucPmCM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmRWNucPmCM

dave52

10-06-2008, 05:05 PM

SC Busted comes round often - here is my first response to it. If you've read it before, it's because I have cut and pasted it a few times and it never gets dealt with...

As for the second impact video, well video fakery is all over 9/11 in my oppinion...

Teresa Renault (sp?) is in a building 2.5 miles away, he neglects to mention that the building is TV Company Building. He neglects to mention that, if you listen to Teresa's audio, she is obviously being prompted.

"er.. wh... right now... er... that was definately on purpose"

Different angles show different plane trajectories.

"Oh my god" woman is on more than one clip (from different angles and positions).

Does he not question how shape charges were planted without people's knowledge..? But his other movie about an orange is all about the controlled demolition of WTC7.

Is that not a contradiction? Wouldn't people have noticed WTC7 being rigged with explosives? And if not controlled demolition - what brought down WTCs 1 and 2? A natural collapse? Directed Energy Weapons?

Plane shaped dust...?

He takes the stance that the Naudets couldn't have been in on the op. This is niave at best (frames missing from second strike not mentioned).

He talks about how the footage got to the news studios by 6 o'clock, and shows a wide horizontal shot whilst discussing this. He neglects to mention that that shot was origionally aired as stills. Then became video a few hours later. I'm yet to hear a satisfactory explanation of that one.

All of this can be argued one way or another. Holding up SC Busted and shouting "case closed" is as incorrect as holding up SC and doing the same.

killtown

11-06-2008, 12:14 AM

Why push such an out-there theory such as no planes? You know it will turn people away.
That's what the alarmists said when I first came out on the scene pushing no plane @ Pentagon.

killtown

11-06-2008, 12:28 AM

1. I think the no planers should drop the "nose out" angle because IMO it just doesn't work. This video shows how the speed of the supposed CGI plane just does not match with the speed of appearance of the supposed "nose out". And the shot in SC - Busted! of the reverse of the second impact clearly shows the debris ejecting the building in a way which has been interpreted as the "nose out".

2. I think another problem with the no planers is that (judging by comments made on here and YouTube) quite a few of them seem like quite angry people (present company excepted)! And that's not really conducive to advancing the theory.
1. "Nosed Out" by Simon Shack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ

http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/5396/nosedoutjh8.gif

2. You forgot to mention to people that the reason a few no planers always seem angry is that they have taken an onslaught of personal attacks by planehuggers which has thinned their skins. If a lot of these attacking planehuggers weren't so immature, less of the infighting would happen.

killtown

11-06-2008, 12:35 AM

Apparently you need to be locked up with the Nico Haupt fools that's what it means.

No. I see reality you see flying elephants

Yes, creative language while using English and critical thinking skills are lost on low brow buffoons like yourself

Shut your sucker.

Not to be elitist, but it sounds like your drinking the Kool Aid acid piss water.

which you must know nothing about.

I'm sorry you didn't find the opportunity or ability to enhance your brainpower with education post grade school.
Why are you LooseChangers (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/335995/) so full of hate?

Other than believing 9/11 was an inside job, your immature behavior is no different than the JREFers.

mynameis

11-06-2008, 01:18 AM

1. When you resort to ad-hom attacks, it makes you look immature and unprofessional. I see where you said you have "half a degree in Journalism." Hopefully in the 2nd half of your journalism school they'll teach that good journalism never resort to immature and unprofessional ad-hom attacks.

4. I.E. you don't want people to see you coming across as contradictory by thinking "hundreds of witness" who "saw" the plane at the Pentagon could be faked out, but that witnesses in NYC couldn't.

6. Such as?

I give as I get. It's my choice to act unprofessional in an unprofessional setting. You're not anyone's boss mr. Pot Meet Kettle.

I've already explained the difference between the events on 9/11. Any further discussion is just hot air on your part.

I guess you never heard how the military after WWII bragged about what Majestic 13 and Roswell's cover story was considering Area 51, Hangar 13, and Groom Lake.

The only infighting you get coming is in your planehugging dreams. I wouldn't come to rescue Nico Haupt or his ilk if the they were destined to save mankind. The way they act is way beyond mature into childish village tomfoolery. If you fall in with the noplanenutters, you're just as responsible for associating yourself with that dreaded kind of behavior from the dregs of society. Not that you should care or anyone should care. JREF's can kiss my hairy big bottom. I care not for your opinions, comparisons, or those of other people. I care about the truth, which lots of noplanenutters are naive today. I am not a loose changer I represent myself a citizen of reality. You and your noplanenutters are anti-reality.

montag

11-06-2008, 01:50 AM

Hey guys can we please keep the debate on track without getting too personal about it.

montag

killtown

11-06-2008, 02:06 AM

Questions for truthers who believe real planes hit the towers and the Twin Tower where demo'd afterward.

1. Do you agree that the govt perps used planes to sell their story of why the towers officially collapsed?

2. Do you agree that the planes the perps chose had to penetrate and explode inside the towers so the world would believe the official collapse story, as opposed to mostly crashing up against the outside of the towers?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXlZXXqubrM

If "yes," please proceed to #4. If "no," please explain how the govt could sell the official collapse story if most of the plane crashed up against the outside of the tower.

3. Do you think the govt perps used the real Flight 11 and 175, or modified planes to hit the towers?

If you think they used modified planes (drone, etc), please state which model you think they used (767, 737, etc), if any special modifications were made (pods, laced with DU, etc) and for what reason(s).

(Those who think modified planes were used, please go to #3a. Others proceed to #4.)

3a. If you think modified planes were used and had no passengers, do you agree if this plane crashed wrong and part of the fuselage landed on the outside which exposed that it had no passengers in it that the perps would be busted?

4. For which ever plane you think the perps used to crash into the towers, do you think they did a live test by crashing the plane you think they used into some kind of metal structure to simulate what would happen to their chosen plane when it hit the Twin Towers, or do you think they didn't do any real world test and just crossed their fingers on 9/11 that the planes they chose would not only hit both towers, but penetrate enough into the towers to sell their official collapse story?

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/489/nasa1yg4.gif
(Crash test of real plane flown via remote control.)

5. Do you agree that if their plane didn't hit the North Tower, or didn't penetrate enough like they hoped, that the perps wouldn't have been able to pull the WTC 7 and give a some-what believable story as to how it collapsed?

6. Do you believe flying any of the planes you think the perps used would be accurate enough to fly via remote control/computer guidance at the alleged speeds they were going in the low altitude and dense atmosphere to hit the precise spot on the towers the perps wanted them to?

7. Do you believe it was more risky to fly the second plane into the South Tower in the extreme banking maneuver as observed in the following CBS video rather than to program it to fly in straighter?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPEWjYckLO4
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html#CBS_Live_1

8. Have you ever seen a real aircraft perfectly penetrate through a steel structure without the appearance of meeting any resistance?

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/9189/hezarkhanicumv3.gif
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html#Michael_Hezarkhani

8a. Do you agree that CGI planes can penetrate buildings without any of its wing or tail being hacked off or having the appearance of no meeting any resistance?

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/1628/purdueaa11sim10mf0.gif

9. If you think no plane hit the Pentagon:

a. do you think that the claim of "hundreds of witnesses saw the plane hit" is unfounded?

b. do you think that some of the alleged plane-seeing witnesses were lying?

c. do you think the rest of the alleged plane-seeing witnesses were fooled?

10. Do you agree that the military incorporated the use of TV fakery into its arsenal before 9/11?

INFORMATION WARFARE
Prof George J. Stein, AWC
Airpower Journal - Spring 1995

Let us take just one example of how current technologies could be used for strategic-level information warfare. If, say, the capabilities of already well-known Hollywood technologies to simulate reality were added to our arsenal, a genuinely revolutionary new form of warfare would become possible.

http://www.iwar.org.uk/iwar/resources/airchronicles/stein.htm

------------------------

When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing

By William M. Arkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, Feb. 1, 1999

Most Americans were introduced to the tricks of the digital age in the movie Forrest Gump [1994], when the character played by Tom Hanks appeared to shake hands with President Kennedy.

For Hollywood, it is special effects. For covert operators in the U.S. military and intelligence agencies, it is a weapon of the future.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

11. Do you agree that it was possible on 9/11 for the military to digitally manipulate "live" broadcasts on TV?

When TV brings you the news as it didn't happen

Broadcasters are using virtual imaging technology to alter live broadcasts - and not even the news is safe from tampering

Monday, 24 January 2000

The technology to do this comes from the defence industry...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/when-tv-brings-you-the-news-as-it-didnt-happen-728236.html

---------------------------

Lying With Pixels

July/August 2000

In the fraction of a second between video frames, any person or object moving in the foreground can be edited out, and objects that aren’t there can be edited in and made to look real.

It is perfectly possible now to insert sets of pixels into satellite imagery data that interpreters would view as battalions of tanks, or war planes...

He is convinced that real-time video manipulation will be, or already is, in the hands of the military and intelligence communities.

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=12115

12. With taking into account the enormous amount of importance of making it look like planes hit and penetrated into both Twin Towers in order for the perps to sell the official collapse story, do you agree that using TV fakery at the WTC on 9/11 would be less risky than using real planes?

If "no," please state why you think using real planes would be less risky.

graflok

11-06-2008, 03:51 AM

Oh, please let him continue. So that we may all benefit from his half-a-degree in Journalism! :D

Anyway, here's a guy who is one of the most qualified to talk about the aircraft
supposedly used on 9/11. He has many thousands of hours of flight time
(including on the exact Boeing planes in question) and holds every certificate
the FAA offers. John Lear is one of the most highly regarded people in the
field of aviation in the country. Personally, I pay attention to people who
have "been there and done" rather than people who just talk ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibPfN-PvFJ0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CudLxM04l6A

These are excerpts from a 4-hour interview titled "John Lear Tells All"
done April 2008. The entire interview (in 4 parts) is available on YouTube
and elsewhere.

graflok

11-06-2008, 04:00 AM

BTW, here is the entire John Lear interview. I found it totally fascinating and John
is available for questions on a number of forums:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj-HzHi3dF0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks6GC3wJFvc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld8aj_v6pcI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsdVDj4FmK8

mr_self_destruct

11-06-2008, 08:13 AM

1. "Nosed Out" by Simon Shack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ

http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/5396/nosedoutjh8.gif

Posting this does not settle the argument and you have failed to address the points I raised. Also, Busted! quite rightly points out how this is not a "micro precision match" as claimed in September Clues. How do you explain the reverse angle video where debris can be seen ejecting the building in a way that could be interpreted as a CGI "nose out" from the other side of the tower?

If you have watched the video below with Ace Baker and Steve Wright (which you actually deleted from your YouTube video as I posted it as a video response) I have no idea how you can continue defending this point. The speed of the appearance of the supposed "nose out" DOES NOT MATCH the speed of the supposed CGI plane, and it is quite obvious Ace Baker cannot counter this fact (in fact it makes the theory and him look pretty silly). Would you care to answer this point?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfxkylBmpco

Also, why did they not use faked footage at the Pentagon and/or Shanksville?

dave52

11-06-2008, 10:16 AM

I saw this a little while ago, and I think this interview ends up as a score draw.

Just because the plane slows down as it passes through the tower doesn't discount the possibility that it's a graphic. Let's not forget that it still passes through the tower which is dodgy. Also, the other guy claiming that the plane wasn't visible in the wide shot because the camera was compensating for the light seems a little flakey.

The nose-out that SC Busted "busts" is from September Clues which Social Service has updated to use a different frame which does match, so the point is moot.

Also see Ace Baker's excellent "how easy is it to super-impose a fake plane"...

Chopper 5 Fake Plane (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUKI3MzWRHQ)
Chopper 7 Fake Plane (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qaeCg5MAr8)

dave52

11-06-2008, 10:18 AM

BTW, here is the entire John Lear interview.

Thanks graflok, I will take a look at these interviews.

mr_self_destruct

11-06-2008, 12:02 PM

Just because the plane slows down as it passes through the tower doesn't discount the possibility that it's a graphic. Let's not forget that it still passes through the tower which is dodgy. Also, the other guy claiming that the plane wasn't visible in the wide shot because the camera was compensating for the light seems a little flakey.

The supposed CGI plane follows a constant speed up to the tower but then for some reason is slowed down on impact...c'mon, you have to admit that sounds pretty silly. I'm not disputing there are some good points made by no planers but the "nose out" has been debunked to my satisfaction at least.

dave52

11-06-2008, 12:52 PM

the "nose out" has been debunked to my satisfaction at least.

That's cool, at least you've taken the time to look into it... :)

I agree, the NPT brings a lot more things to the table than just that one shot (and I think the missing plane in the wide angle is a more important issue than the nose-out anyway), it's all good - we're still on the learning curve...!

narcolepticwatchman

17-06-2008, 12:21 AM

anyone who can look at this still and give a valid explanation for the 'healing' is a better man than me......other than fakery that is.

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k126/CB_Brooklyn/impact.jpg

ronisron

17-06-2008, 03:25 PM

That is absolutely brilliant. I just thought, "OK, they flew two planes into the buildings via remote from an ATC....and controlled demo did the rest...." Were they using a hologram to cloak the fact that they fired a cruise missile or two, or was it bombs in the buildings?

So that makes 4 planes that are simply missing. Flown over the Atlantic and shot down? Or were the passengers taken somewhere and used for other purposes?

BTW, I'm a new guy. I've been reading Icke for years and out of general paranoia I avoid sites like this. I have a feeling that there just isn't enough time left with the internet in it's present form to avoid communicating with some of the great people that are here. Great job folks.

pac3lli

17-06-2008, 06:41 PM

2. Do you agree that the planes the perps chose had to penetrate and explode inside the towers so the world would believe the official collapse story, as opposed to mostly crashing up against the outside of the towers?

If "no," please explain how the govt could sell the official collapse story if most of the plane crashed up against the outside of the tower.

It doesn't make a difference whether the planes actually hit or not. The point is that whatever happened, it occurred in such a way that the public responded in an emotional fashion. The public reacted and demanded retribution.

Problem-Reaction-Solution.

Debating technical specifics requires energy which could be more effectively directed toward fighting and exposing the overall globalist agenda.

number 6

17-06-2008, 07:07 PM

narcolepticwatchman

17-06-2008, 08:33 PM

Ok, next time I do a suitable conversion I'll prove it.

As a basic example, haven't you ever used photoshop or fireworks?
Using fireworks (macromedia/adobe), when you export a png file to a jpg you can decrease the file size by increasing the smoothing. Of course this is just an example of a still image but the process is the same as each frame of a video file is treated by the software like a still image during the compression process.

I haven't used any of those programs but i have used others to compress video and photos. I know of the smoothing / smudging / blurring / pixellation / loss of quality you talk about however, I would not by any stretch of the imagination say that the photo above in anyway resembles the impact crater we saw after the event. On this still, and any other you care to take around this time in the video, I see the towers as they appear in the rest of the image in between the body and the engine. plain and simple. I posted the higher res videos because they are miles better than the youtube vids and because in the youtube vids we DO see examples of the stuff you have talked about due to the compression losses.

you said you had done it loads of times and to explain it away in the 'trust me, I'm experienced' sense requires back up. Still not buying it I'm afraid.

cruise4

17-06-2008, 09:33 PM

NPT, regardless of what turns out to be true or not, is a useful exercise IMHO, because it has turned some attention towards a Space-based Weapons platform, and raised the profile of Holographic technology. I am also unsure why plane observer's make anything an open and shut case, as some seem to think. If it was a forerunner or test for Bluebeam, then holograms of planes would fool most/all observers and the accompanying relayed feed to TV would only add to it. Observers are notoriously unreliable and shock makes them suggestible. I would also say two sites certainly had No planes and I have yet to see any observer who saw the 'HIT' in either example. NPT as a concept is a valid one.

Open and shut case, it is not, I don't think. But it is irrelevant for now as it's information spreading to those unlikely to be exposed to it, that's crucial, and in that regard I think the 'Planes hit' is more likely to receive initial consideration.

It's a bit like going straight in with 'Reptiles'. I think most will instantly dismiss you as a nut and you will achieve the opposite of what is needed. Better to go in with Fake terror or something deemed more acceptable. Initially it's a 'programming breaking' excercise.

PS. I think Hologram technology is far more advanced than we usually see. I think totally solid appearance is probable and all this wispy Kate Mass or Prince Charles transluscence is fake.

number 6

17-06-2008, 09:47 PM

I'm grateful for the high quality video files you posted but haven't had chance to watch them yet. I would however like to see the original source (digi-beta or whatever) to get to the bottom once and for all.

In 3 weeks I have some time off and have been saving some home movies for editing along with some other intersting stuff I'd like to convert and save. When I do this I'll prove the effect is possible and post a link. Deal?

number 6

17-06-2008, 09:58 PM

Hey NW, the above clip reminds me in some ways of the dodgy shape-shifting vids that one guy used to post all the time. Did you see the reporter allegedly beginning to shape-shift? It was just an unwanted side effect of the video compression process.

I will create an example of my own. When I do you'll owe me a beer!

mynameis

19-06-2008, 08:04 AM

Ok, that's the Cory Lidle plane crash. Firstly, there is no wing slicing going on. Secondly, if you click through to this New York Times article, you will see that most of the plane fell down into the street IN FRONT of the impact zone. It didn't glide effortlessly through the building.

So, in short, not similar at all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/nyregion/06plane.html

It is similar. Hence, why is there a fire inside the building?

Impact came with the plane descending, either because it was losing lift, or because the pilot pushed the nose down, trading altitude for speed, to keep the plane flyable and the turn tight. After the crash, the plane’s engine, propeller and nose landing gear strut were found in an apartment 332 feet above the ground. The rest of the plane fell to the ground.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/02/washington/02lidle.html

You're getting warmer. Use physics to understand why both impacts act the same to different degrees of damage. You are talking about both planes on impact just different properties because of.....A, B, or C.

dave52

19-06-2008, 08:07 AM

It is similar. Hence, why is there a fire inside the building?

Plane effortlessly gliding into tower...? Come on, I could start a fire in my bedroom it doesn't mean that I've recreated the events at the WTC. Why did the most of the plane bounce off and end up in the street? Why didn't the wings slice through the facade...?

mynameis

19-06-2008, 06:50 PM

John you seriously need help!! The footage is all available in your documentaries
for your own eyes to see. Explain how those people you mention faked it.

He is saying webfairy and others like Nico Haupt are fakers. Their videos are known to show edits, pixelation problems, low quality from original source footage etc....No plane melts in their video footage, the planes impacting the buildings are what we observe from the footage

narcolepticwatchman

19-06-2008, 08:04 PM

He is saying webfairy and others like Nico Haupt are fakers. Their videos are known to show edits, pixelation problems, low quality from original source footage etc....No plane melts in their video footage, the planes impacting the buildings are what we observe from the footage

LOL...yeah....

Why doesn't everyone check out some higher res vids for themselves?

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28285

Granted, not all of the vids are there, however, the hezerkani shot is there in all its glory....judge for yourself.

For the 'known knowns' you all go on about with Webfairy etc which I have yet to see any evidence for apart from the bile spewed by the planehuggers, what about the 'known knowns' of fakery and editing with the original videos? why is everyone dodging that issue? 2 that immediatley spring to mind are the nbc chopper 4 streak which is now a ball and the bob and bri edit?? discuss the real issues instead of dodging them......i have yet to see anyone of the plane huggers want to talk about these issues.

mynameis

20-06-2008, 12:44 AM

the third law of motion actually can be used to explain the plane shaped hole quite interestingly. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. That means that when the jet hits the steelwork, the force acting on the steel work is the same as the that produced by the jet.......until there is failure, either on the jet or on the steelwork. The opposite reaction statement doesn't necessarily mean that the steel moves in the opposite way to the direction of the plane , only if the resultant forces of the plane were greater than the force it would take to shear / cut the steel would that happen. Newtons 2nd law can be used to calculate the resultant forces. Mechanical tests would calculate the forces required to make the steel fail. the difference in these forces would determine the outcome in theory. You have just spent about 3 pages arguing how its the wrong law? Your argument is in shreds yet you still try to defend it?

Oh and the post dirct above it about the 'known knowns' was quite well dodged as well.

The third law is incorrect because of the force of gravity + mass are not what is required to make the hole impression at the WTC.

The impact compression of the planes (or the depth of the reaction) are defined by how the degrees of the force of gravity + mass + acceleration of the planes affect the reaction in the third law (without the 2nd law you don't get the 3rd law):

The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

affects the third law:

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Without the acceleration of the plane the reaction does not occur; nor can any impression be made. The mass and force of gravity by themselves will remain in the first law's state:

Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

john white

20-06-2008, 12:58 AM

stealth_0073

20-06-2008, 01:29 AM

mynameis

20-06-2008, 01:31 AM

do you think these people just copied them of
sept_11_tv_archive with some screen capture software,?
theres been a few dvds made since 2002.

As i said those are only streaming files from the original mpeg2
that are hidden on another server "very low rez" hardly can see them.

Even the downloadable archive files? Maybe they changed over. It used to be that you could download a high quality file.

dave52

20-06-2008, 07:51 AM

The third law is incorrect because of the force of gravity + mass are not what is required to make the hole impression at the WTC.

The impact compression of the planes (or the depth of the reaction) are defined by how the degrees of the force of gravity + mass + acceleration of the planes affect the reaction in the third law (without the 2nd law you don't get the 3rd law):

affects the third law:

Without the acceleration of the plane the reaction does not occur; nor can any impression be made. The mass and force of gravity by themselves will remain in the first law's state:

Thankyou mynameis, this is as close as we've got to an answer. Why did it take 4 pages of useless banter to get you to actually start talking...?

I will take this away and think about it (as I've said before, I'm no physicist, but I wanted to see what people had to say).

mynameis

20-06-2008, 11:16 AM

Thankyou mynameis, this is as close as we've got to an answer. Why did it take 4 pages of useless banter to get you to actually start talking...?

I will take this away and think about it (as I've said before, I'm no physicist, but I wanted to see what people had to say).

You'll have to read a few pages back for the explaination. I am also not a truther.

stealth_0073

20-06-2008, 03:56 PM

What kinda crap are you talking here? Now you are talking about the force due to gravity on a vertical plane*?!?!?! WTF?!?!? You obviously do not have any handle on how these laws are applied. Newtons 3rd law ALWAYS applies. the reaction at the steel is equal and opposite to the action of the plane. End of story.

As I said before, you can't cherry pick what law will apply when they all do. thats like you saying that you are gonna live today without the 3rd law being applicable.....it can't happen.

Stop cutting and pasting stuff from the web that you clearly do not understand. The more you try to talk about this the clearer it becomes that you don't have a clue. Go on, dig yourself deeper......I'm getting a good laugh here :D

*thats not in the 'aeroplane' sense btw

dont need any newton laws to explain what the videos show
since there poor CGI military graphics the usa archives especially
sum videos the towers are white in sum there simple Grey boxing
the rest is bluescreen

if you want to be a scientist and explain 911 you better no about video editing
and using filters to show the anomalies.

btw the directed energy weapons are there for you to see in 2 or 3 frames
of video, that means the human eye misses them watching at normal speed.

dave52

20-06-2008, 07:06 PM

if the plane hits the building with a force of a million newtons then the building hits the plane with a force of a million newtons. END of STORY.

This is how I understood it. That is why I have a problem with what I see on tv. No matter how you slice it - hollow aluminium tubes cannot pass through steel and concrete no matter how hard you throw them. I'm willing to accept that the engines may well penatrate to a certain degree, but the wing slicing...?

Incidently, I took the liberty of cross posting some of this conversation on another Forum (as I have admited, my Physics skills are not great), and this is one of the replies I got...

The following caused me to burst into laugher:

"The third law is incorrect because of the force of gravity + mass are not what is required to make the hole impression at the WTC.

The impact compression of the planes (or the depth of the reaction) are defined by how the degrees of the force of gravity + mass + acceleration of the planes affect the reaction in the third law (without the 2nd law you don't get the 3rd law)"

Mass and gravity definitely are not required to make an impression in anything, but mass and velocity certainly are. That mass and velocity has to be a mass composite capable of penetrating that equally resisting mass composite. Something planes are incapable of doing when impacting double steel walls of buildings at any velocity. The higher the velocity, the more the equal and opposite resistance, which is part of what made the OCH such a blatant fallacy compared to proved science laws and principles.

Gravity would be one of the resistance forces all planes encounter the closer they are to sea level. The engines are fighting to keep planes in the air, and gravity is trying to pull them down to the earth's surface. Which is what happens when plane engines stop running in mid-air. Gravity slows velocity. The more velocity at nearer to sea level, the more resistance pressure gravity places on the engines and mass when trying to accelerate.

narcolepticwatchman

20-06-2008, 07:53 PM

This is how I understood it. That is why I have a problem with what I see on tv. No matter how you slice it - hollow aluminium tubes cannot pass through steel and concrete no matter how hard you throw them. I'm willing to accept that the engines may well penatrate to a certain degree, but the wing slicing...?

Incidently, I took the liberty of cross posting some of this conversation on another Forum (as I have admited, my Physics skills are not great), and this is one of the replies I got...

Dave, you had it right all along....i dunno wtf he was on about.....to be honest, you don't need great physics skills....a bit of common sense and logic are all you need.

I found this and it explains quite well

http://crashphysics.blogspot.com/2006/11/why-no-planes-could-have-struck-towers.html

mr_self_destruct

20-06-2008, 08:21 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFQeeuned1A

dave52

22-06-2008, 02:21 AM

Imagine a fast moving bullet hitting a hollow object. The force is proportional to the damage. Same goes for a fast moving bullet hitting a brick wall.

But a bullet isn't a hollow aluminium tube is it? A bullet is a solid object.

mynameis

22-06-2008, 02:52 AM

But a bullet isn't a hollow aluminium tube is it? A bullet is a solid object.

Doesn't matter if it's a plane, bullet, or a planet same as above applies in physics about the inertia/mass+force.

A different way of understanding this, if we could accelerate a feather to the speed of light and fire at a building, what will happen? Same concept.

kaiba101

22-06-2008, 08:34 PM

The one thing that certifies to me that real planes could not have been used was that a real plane would hit the outside of the building and explode on the outside it would not be able to make it into the building completley intact and then explode from the inside it would simply rip to pieces on the outside and also explode on the outside.

mynameis

22-06-2008, 09:08 PM

Structural steel would not yield before the fuckin wing tip yet you believe it would. You are the one going round in circles.

Structural steel does yield because it's not fully encased. The steel is a mesh structure. with gaps. and the inner part after the shell of the building is hollow. These are beams not plates of steel.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/damage/docs/woman_wtc.jpg

The steel bends inwards you can see this for yourself.

Even places where steel gaps were welded are shattered and broken.

narcolepticwatchman

22-06-2008, 09:37 PM

Structural steel does yield because it's not fully encased. The steel is a mesh structure. with gaps. and the inner part after the shell of the building is hollow. These are beams not plates of steel.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/damage/docs/woman_wtc.jpg

The steel bends inwards you can see this for yourself.

Even places where steel gaps were welded are shattered and broken.

Who said structural steel does not yield? What difference does it make that the steel beams are not plates? there is reaction at every beam. The reaction at the tips of the wings is not consistent with the application of newtons 3rd law for each beam / wing impact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q35xHzjxB0

mynameis

22-06-2008, 09:47 PM

Who said structural steel does not yield? What difference does it make that the steel beams are not plates? there is reaction at every beam. The reaction at the tips of the wings is not consistent with the application of newtons 3rd law for each beam / wing impact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q35xHzjxB0

The reaction of the 3rd law of motion is consistent in correlation to the greater inertia of the plane versus the building. You do realize that inertia and the motion is from the 2nd law of motion? Without inertia you get nada....

narcolepticwatchman

22-06-2008, 10:25 PM

The first law of motion is applicable to the building. I don't need to calculate the obvious, as the building is not a complete object, but one made of multiple parts. A car crash example I posted about this 10 pages ago which you ignored should tell you more...

Same goes for the plane.....this is what I keep banging on about. The plane is made up of aluminium, nuts bolts, fuel etc...not a single piece. You are trying to apply newtons laws for a single body which cannot be applied. The inertia, mass etc at the wing is not the same as at the nose. it needs to be broken down....crash physics......failure occurs at the weakest point hence the reason I posted the concrete block example. look at the wing tips on that example with nothing to stop them coz the block is smaller....they keep going....if there was something to stop them then they too would pulverise. using your logic the entire plane would stop when it hit the block including the wings......conversely...the entire plane would penetrate the entire building.....its bollocks and you know it.

And again....all the laws are applicable to everything....i dunno where you are getting this idea that one law applies to one thing and another to the next.....they all apply all the time...just cause the building isn't moving doesn't mean it doesn't conform to newtons laws.

mynameis

22-06-2008, 10:43 PM

narcolepticwatchman

22-06-2008, 10:54 PM

The wings or nose of the plane's inertia has force against the inertia of a steel column at rest. The steel column has less inertia due to the fact that it is multiple pieces held together by joints and welds. The plane has a more compact and air tight structure for a reason, the air pressure of the plane must be stable to fly at high altitudes.

you are arguing against yourself here....you think that a wing is a one piece structure? it is sheets of aluminium held together with botls and rivets.....

http://cellar.org/2002/birdstrike1.jpg

whats got more inertia here.....the bird or the plane lol

mynameis

22-06-2008, 10:56 PM

you are arguing against yourself here....you think that a wing is a one piece structure? it is sheets of sluminium held together with botls and rivets.....

http://cellar.org/2002/birdstrike1.jpg

lol

No I said it is more solid than the building for reasons called holding cabin pressure. General turbulence is another reason.

killtown

22-07-2008, 05:50 PM

1) Busted! quite rightly points out how this is not a "micro precision match" as claimed in September Clues.

2) How do you explain the reverse angle video where debris can be seen ejecting the building in a way that could be interpreted as a CGI "nose out" from the other side of the tower?

3) The speed of the appearance of the supposed "nose out" DOES NOT MATCH the speed of the supposed CGI plane, and it is quite obvious Ace Baker cannot counter this fact (in fact it makes the theory and him look pretty silly). Would you care to answer this point?

4) Also, why did they not use faked footage at the Pentagon and/or Shanksville?
1) What is the definition of a "micro precision match"?

2) Too coincidental they are a near-perfect match in at least one of the exiting frames.

3) You are assuming the CGI perps had the CGI going at the same speed when they had it go behind the tower layer.

4) They didn't have to at the Pentagon and no videos recorded the Shanks non-plane crash.

killtown

22-07-2008, 05:51 PM

the "nose out" has been debunked to my satisfaction at least.
Key phrase.

killtown

22-07-2008, 05:58 PM

Id say that was the most obvious thing that didnt happen on the day!!
One had to because "hundreds of witnesses saw it". ;)

nessa felagund

22-07-2008, 06:36 PM

The past few post have been nothing but pointless bickering and name calling--please get this thread back on topic.

qasrose

22-07-2008, 09:00 PM

This thread is closed for cleanup. When all insults have been removed, it will be reopened for discussion.

Please Do not go to other threads and derail them with pointless insults and name calling

qasrose

22-07-2008, 09:59 PM

I have cleaned up this thread, so it is now back open and ready for people to start posting again. BUT PLEASE REMEMBER, to keep this on topic and not to insult other members and if there is anything constructive you would like to add then please do so.

Otherwise if the post has nothing to do with this thread PLEASE STAY OFF THIS THREAD.

Thank you.

LEE

kale

23-07-2008, 05:12 AM

I think its painfully obvious that no planes at all were used in all 4 incidents.
The real question should be what happened to all those passngers!

dave52

23-07-2008, 07:23 AM

We may never know, but my personal view is that they were all on one plane that landed at Cleveland. They were then killed in the NASA facility there.

It is of course possible that some of the passengers didn't exist at all, but were just created to serve the narrative.

edelweiss pirate

23-07-2008, 12:54 PM

http://911vids.blogspot.com/2008/06/cynics-guide-to-911-conspiracy-theories.html

Chilling!

nessa felagund

23-07-2008, 09:45 PM

It seems that genuine truthseekers have some problems getting to reply to this thread :)

No, just members who want to insult each other and derail threads. Anyone who has a legitimate argument to make is more than welcome to post on any topic.