Rise of the No-Planes theory!! [Archive] - David Icke's Official Forums

abhie

06-12-2007, 06:54 AM

Its popping its head back again. Maybe we missed out on something.

I remember people saying they knew someone on the streets that day who actually saw planes. I wish all the people who actually witnessed live the planes on 911 would come forward and make a clear statement.

Meantime these videos make you think again:

1) First watch this :

ThoughtCrime7: WTC 2 Anomalies - Debunkers Debunked & Buried
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0b34msR6cI

About This Video ThoughtCrime7 fleshes out his critique in this, 'South Tower Anomalies III':
"If you're thinking "what's next, STA the musical?", STA III is the final cut. I would have stopped after the first one, but thanks to many debunkers, I was inclined to try to make the case airtight.

If debunking is merely saying "I don't believe you", then one can easily debunk this movie - and the theory that the earth is round also.

But I believe that debunking requires as much proof as "bunking" - I mean supporting a hypothesis with evidence.

So the best way to debunk this would be to provide countering evidence. For example, if you say that news helicopters regularly shoot from a motionless perspective, then post a link to such a video. If you say the plane disappeared because of a video anomaly, then post a link showing a similar effect, or a website with technical information on the phenomenon. Hell maybe there is a explanation and no one's found it yet - I remain open minded.

This film is not promoting the "no-planes" theory, only the "altered news video" theory - draw your own conclusions. But to ignore the obvious news video anomalies for fear of being associated with the "no-planers" crowd makes as much sense as ignoring the 9/11 coverup for fear of upsetting the establishment. The way I figure it, a truther should fear no truth. I don't think the mainstream media, still trusted by millions, should get a pass without some reasonable explanation for these anomalies."

2) Next , don't miss these videos:>

I can't seem to find the whole set of videos. So im posting whatever links I can get.
SEPTEMBER CLUES:

Part I of ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeIVD5wT4KE

Part II of ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy3hg4MMyqQ

Part III of ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfeA4cKiQeM

abhie

06-12-2007, 07:22 AM

This is a curious little video of footage taken from the Battery park area:
Shock and Awe: CNN Fake is not Real
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvfrrK98O10&feature=related

adimon

06-12-2007, 07:50 AM

If anyone does indeed have a perspective to offer on eyewitnesses or victims they know, I created a thread here to clear up the issue.

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

adimon

06-12-2007, 08:03 AM

That Battery Park video is very interesting also. I'd like to see what kind of setup the bloke who made that video has, with which he conducts his tests and investigations. The phonecall was pretty revealing though.

soglad

06-12-2007, 08:08 AM

No planes? Now that IS retarded.

dave52

06-12-2007, 09:58 AM

No planes? Now that IS retarded.

Classic response - well done.

I hadn't seen that first video, thankyou for posting the link Abhie, that was excellent. I'm still leaning towards the NPT. Just to re-iterate what Adimon said, any real witnesses who saw planes would be most welcome.

teslafire

06-12-2007, 10:20 AM

Don't forget to vote on the NPT poll:

http://davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13539&page=5

Not just for horse race's sake, but it would show a growing divide between what the familiar and established 'truth leaders' are saying versus what the people are saying.

What does it prove anyways?

Why go through all the effort of faking planes...why not bomb the WTC again and make it that much easier on yourselves?

You still get your Patriot Act, all the nonsense airport security, your war on terror..so why the elaborate story hoax?

Alibi and plausible deniability for 'the real perps'? Meaning the truth of Inside Job can only be pinned on those in direct control of the military (i.e. Cheney at Norad) versus a small circle of sabotage.

So they use the cover of planes to scapegoat the operation on Bush...controlled revolution...?

thirdwave

06-12-2007, 10:46 AM

I am open to this theory ... because I think that the technology to do such a thing is quite possible ... and if everyone understood the technology then it would seem more possible....

also it would be easier to fly holograms into the building and then detonate it, rather than risk a plane missing....

also there were all kinds of planes flying around that day and in all the ciaos it would be easy for people to see a plane here and here one there... so on...

I not %100 on it but it is a possibility...

john white

06-12-2007, 12:04 PM

teslafire

06-12-2007, 12:10 PM

soglad

06-12-2007, 12:12 PM

Wow, I just clicked on this thread and the time was 9:11 pm....how's about that? ahah

john white

06-12-2007, 12:22 PM

Wise wordz from the village idiot.

Well if you think I should be removing NPT threads from the forum (as you think about other information not to your liking), I quite dis-agree Tesla, as you well know: we expect members to do their own thinking round here and won't nanny them

But calling me an idiot just shows you can't dispute the facts :)

teslafire

06-12-2007, 12:27 PM

john white

06-12-2007, 12:36 PM

Nah, that's far too easy.

But, lets get serious, lets hear more about you and what you think of things, in general.

I for one would love to hear about the various privileges that your outstanding character affords all of us 'less than truthy truthseekers' oh Great Truthspeaker.

I'm sure you would Tesla: but theres no "Great" about it: just what is

After all, I exposed the battery park photo fake six months ago: never refuted, becuase the case was un-refutable: simply "quick, move on Fred, you've been rumbled". And the more one looks, the more NPT falls apart, and the ONLY thing that holds it together is pushing the latest video and dumping the rest down the memory hole, on the basis that new adherants to the theory won't dig into its past

Like the fact that Webfairy, who now assures us she knew there were no planes "right from the start", spent three years pushing the idea that there was a missile strapped to the bottom of a Plane that wasnt there: same with Killtown

Were you even an NPT believer six months ago Tesla?

Which particular NPT video "Did it for you"?

I'm sure I can find a thorough deconstruction of it for you if you like: perhaps that would help?

teslafire

06-12-2007, 12:40 PM

I'll humour you like a would an aging invalid, but only on a split thread entitled 'The Mighty Thoughts of John White, internet forum professional'.

Lets leave this thread alone, eh? ;)

john white

06-12-2007, 12:54 PM

I'll humour you like a would an aging invalid, but only on a split thread entitled 'The Mighty Thoughts of John White, internet forum professional'.

Lets leave this thread alone, eh? ;)

Again Tesla, not addressing any of the points I made above, and by the use of the word "proffesional" insinuating I am in some way "not genuine", simply shows you dont want to address facts

My statments above, for example, about the prior claims of Webfairy, are facts

How do you reconcile the fact that the people currently working hard to prove to the world there "were no planes" previously spent so much time trying to persuade the world there were missiles strapped to planes?

Really: how do you reconcile that?

They won't talk about it: anyone who tries is simply called a "troll" or some such

Isnt it at least credible to expect them to say "hey, y'know, sorry about this, but in the past we made a mistake, but we are sure we are looking at the same footage "right" now?"

What does it say about the integrety of those who hide behind internet anonimity and pretend the past didn't happen?

adimon

06-12-2007, 12:54 PM

Neither NPT or its companion Beam weapon Theory are beyond imagination: but they are beyond the objective balance of the evidence

Hi John. I'd like to hear some more of your thoughts on this. I can give you a choice of approaches. Would you prefer to outline the 3 or 4 key reasons why NPT doesn't hold any water with you, or alternatively maybe you could briefly debunk the above video? :) The Watson video you pointed me to before picked a lot of holes in September Clues, but this new one is quite interesting.

As I've said before, I neither subscribe nor write off NPT...not yet.

If I had to vote on what brought the buildings down I'd still say thermite at the moment.

Ta John

~Chris~

adimon

06-12-2007, 12:58 PM

How do you reconcile the fact that the people currently working hard to prove to the world there "were no planes" previously spent so much time trying to persuade the world there were missiles strapped to planes?

Isnt it at least credible to expect them to say "hey, y'know, sorry about this, but in the past we made a mistake, but we are sure we are looking at the same footage "right" now?"

What does it say about the integrety of those who hide behind internet anonimity and pretend the past didn't happen?

I think you make a valid point JW, but I think its best to assume that we're all equally non-experts on 9/11. The only experts are the perps and their R&D people (who may or may not have been involved in the construction! :D)

I'll take your word for it on the history of these theorists, because I'm new to online forums, at least on this subject - but its the theories themselves that matter, because without them, we're still in the dark, like a mujaheddin in a cave.

drhemp

06-12-2007, 01:01 PM

No planes is a complete sideshow to the bigger picture.

I met William Rodriguez last year who was the last man out of the Twin Towers who is convinced that planes hit the buildings, as he is convinced that the official version of events is a crock of shit and the buildings were bought down by controlled demolitions. He tells of suitcases from the planes falling from the skies.

Given that some people within the US Government placed explosives in those buildings to make sure they came down after they were hit, it doesn't make sense for them to risk using untried technologies such as holographic planes, if such technologies exist at all, which I seriously doubt, when they can easily fly remote controlled real planes. I spoke with a film maker who told me those videos of the plane appearing to melt into the buildings can be explained by the fact they are videos, rather than film and said if he went to Heathrow Airport and filmed some planes with a video camera you could get similar effects if you played it in slow motion.

In any case, even if this absurd theory is true, it's a total distraction when we should be trying to get people on board by questioning what really happened on that day and to talk about things that are totally provable, such as the fact explosives were heard in the building before the planes hit and that the only way those buildings could come down is with controlled demolition etc.,

Look what happened to David Shayler after he announced last year that no planes hit the buildings - he was made to look a laughing stock, and now he thinks he is Jesus, King Arthur and Leonardo Di Vinci all rolled into one.

teslafire

06-12-2007, 01:08 PM

john white

06-12-2007, 01:13 PM

Hi John. I'd like to hear some more of your thoughts on this. I can give you a choice of approaches. Would you prefer to outline the 3 or 4 key reasons why NPT doesn't hold any water with you, or alternatively maybe you could briefly debunk the above video? :) The Watson video you pointed me to before picked a lot of holes in September Clues, but this new one is quite interesting.

As I've said before, I neither subscribe nor write off NPT...not yet.

If I had to vote on what brought the buildings down I'd still say thermite at the moment.

Ta John

~Chris~

The problem is: this videos can't be "briefly" debunked: it always requires a painstaking scene by scene approach

I can give you an initial impression of it though: but that is all: I'd have to look at the whole thing in detail

Picking what appears to be the latest NPT video's strongest claim, the attempt to show that different videos are the "same" video

To quote Killtown:

The biggest smoking guns that even a 3yr old can see were the overlays he did with show that multiple videos were actually the same shots:

- CNN 9:10 & Devin Clark comparison
http://killtown.911review.org/images/2nd-hit/clark.cnn910.comparison.jpg
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html#CNN_910

- Park Foreman & Naka Nathaniel comparison
http://killtown.911review.org/images/2nd-hit/Foreman.Nathaniel.comparison.jpg
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html#Park_Foreman

and the flight path contradictions:

http://killtown.911review.org/images/2nd-hit/brooklyn.bridge.contradiction.jpg
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html#Brooklyn_Bridge

Looks good, doesnt it?

The problem is, we are dealing with perspective shots of objects far away: its easy to take a part of shots and superimpose them on other shots when dealing with distant objects and make them look like they match, especially when dealing with simple rectangular shapes like the towers, and especially easy when done as "box cutouts" that remove all other frame sof reference apart from focus on a tight box area easy to match

- CNN 9:10 & Devin Clark comparison
http://killtown.911review.org/images/2nd-hit/clark.cnn910.comparison.jpg
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html#CNN_910

- Park Foreman & Naka Nathaniel comparison
http://killtown.911review.org/images/2nd-hit/Foreman.Nathaniel.comparison.jpg
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html#Park_Foreman

Do these really match? Or is this extremely careful and selective editing designed to illicit that immediate reaction "Gosh they look the same!"

Becuase, as they say, first impression count: theres not so many who are going to dig deeper to get at the underlying reality beneath those impressions

The last of the three images presents a different aspect of NPT videos: the claim: regardless of what the film can be analysed as showing: simply claim it shows it. Simon Shack did this a lot in "Septemeber Clues"

http://killtown.911review.org/images/2nd-hit/brooklyn.bridge.contradiction.jpg

Notice how much of the left hand side of the tower is visible in the left hand picture, but not the right: notice how big a differnce in angle of view is actually required to alter perspective enough to see such a large expanse of the left hand side. Notice how the relative height of the arrows is actually the same

Is there really any anomaly here?

Notice how the final shot shown in the banner is from ground level whereas the previous two were either helicopter shots or shot from a high vantage point. Notice how much smaller the towers are: and therefore how much further away the shot is being taken from (a considerable distance). Consider the relative difference is apparant height of an approaching plane would be

Finally: what is this arrow actually pointing at? Anything at all? Considering the blurry resolution of the image as a whole, should we expect to see anything there? Might this be a video compression effect? Is this just a guess at where Ghengis thinks the plane should be?

john white

06-12-2007, 01:24 PM

Again Tesla, not addressing any of the points I made above, and by the use of the word "proffesional" insinuating I am in some way "not genuine", simply shows you dont want to address facts

It shows that I don't respect you or your "debating" abilities. ;)

I have learned this through our debates here which anyone can look up and see what kind of performances you're known for.

My statments above, for example, about the prior claims of Webfairy, are facts

How do you reconcile the fact that the people currently working hard to prove to the world there "were no planes" previously spent so much time trying to persuade the world there were missiles strapped to planes?

Really: how do you reconcile that?

They won't talk about it: anyone who tries is simply called a "troll" or some such

Isnt it at least credible to expect them to say "hey, y'know, sorry about this, but in the past we made a mistake, but we are sure we are looking at the same footage "right" now?"

What does it say about the integrety of those who hide behind internet anonimity and pretend the past didn't happen?

There is no connection between no-planers beyond the common ground of the theory or observations. Several people have come around to this independently, its not a clique, its not a cult or a cabal. So whatever you're bloviating on about is irrelevant to the topics discussed in this thread.

Its true that people do get frustrated with No-Planes theorists, becuase they cannot readily understand why the NPT adherants cannot see the clear demolition of their claims time and time again. At times I've had a "sod it" approach myself to the matter, especially when I was not moderating the 9/11 forum for the period of about six weeks a couple of months ago. Bashing heads against brick walls gets tiresome after a while: but then it is my choice to "bash" isnt it? I often do things based on accepting that somebody has to, and if one is the person who sees that, one is usually the person who should do. But, when the membership as a whole demanded my re-instantment, I raised the standard of my posting again. If you want to judge me for kicking back on occasion given the tirade of invective and smears I walk through on a regular basis for being a man of principle, go right ahead, but you'll be doing it for your benefit, not mine

But none of that has anything at all to do with the substantive point I raised

My statments above, for example, about the prior claims of Webfairy, are facts

How do you reconcile the fact that the people currently working hard to prove to the world there "were no planes" previously spent so much time trying to persuade the world there were missiles strapped to planes?

Really: how do you reconcile that?

They won't talk about it: anyone who tries is simply called a "troll" or some such

Isnt it at least credible to expect them to say "hey, y'know, sorry about this, but in the past we made a mistake, but we are sure we are looking at the same footage "right" now?"

What does it say about the integrety of those who hide behind internet anonimity and pretend the past didn't happen?

Do you see the words "clique, cult or cabal" there?

No?

Then your own attempt to bring in those words and make a "poor me" argument don't carry a great deal of weight, do they?

Address the substantive issue please, or remove your own "bloviating" (your word, your usage) from the thread

killtown

06-12-2007, 01:35 PM

But calling me an idiot just shows you can't dispute the facts :)
Is that why you and your troll buddies at your UK forum always called me names?

killtown

06-12-2007, 01:37 PM

john white

06-12-2007, 01:39 PM

Is that why you and your troll buddies at your UK forum always called me names?

No, thats more advanced, it becuase you wont debate the facts and have lost all credibility there with the membership as a whole. Certainly none of my doing

I did give you a golden opportunity to redress that Killtown:

Still refusing to address the facts in a formal debate?

As I remind you its the NPT fans who pushed to have one but now there is no Pro-NPT debater

Obviously you are seen as a leading figure in NPT circles, surely you can facilitate your collegues to enable the debate?

john white

06-12-2007, 01:48 PM

1) I exposed the battery park photo fake six months ago: never refuted, becuase the case was un-refutable

2) Like the fact that Webfairy, who now assures us she knew there were no planes "right from the start", spent three years pushing the idea that there was a missile strapped to the bottom of a Plane that wasnt there: same with Killtown
1) Link?

2) Link?

And this is why your crediblity is so very very low Killtown

Are you denying Webfairy had a major role in the creation of material and disemination of material regarding "Pod Theory"?

Did she, or did she not?

And is it not true that Web fairy now supports NPT?

Does she, or does she not?

Now: heres the rub:

If I produce a linked quote from webfairy where she states "I knew there were no Planes all along"

What will you do in return?

Will you say "You are right John, Web fairy has tried to flush her three years pushing Pod Theory down the memory hole"

And are you flat out denying you've ever been a bit "poddy" yourself?

Furthermore, you know only to well exactly where my exposure of the battery park fake is to be found. You posted on and ran from the thread, after all

So as I said, this is why your credibility is so low

You can introduce yourself well, show politeness, accept the accolades from your collegues who've signed up here a few days before: just a co-incidence of course

But then its into this "poor me, my freedom of expression is repressed" drama you've got going on

Fact is: you dont address facts

Here's an opportunity to show otherwise: can you manage it?

It involves the risk of posting truth about yourself, rather than the safe gamble of calling me a troll, on the basis that your fans and supporters wont care becuase they want to believe and trust you

killtown

06-12-2007, 01:59 PM

No, thats more advanced, it becuase you wont debate the facts and

1) have lost all credibility there with the membership as a whole. Certainly none of my doing

I did give you a golden opportunity to redress that Killtown:

2) Still refusing to address the facts in a formal debate?

As I remind you its the NPT fans who pushed to have one but now there is no Pro-NPT debater

Obviously you are seen as a leading figure in NPT circles, surely you can facilitate your collegues to enable the debate?
1) Lost all credibility in the eyes of the trolls? :eek:

2) You know my policy of debating with trolls.

killtown

06-12-2007, 02:03 PM

1) And this is why your crediblity is so very very low Killtown

2) Are you denying Webfairy had a major role in the creation of material and disemination of material regarding "Pod Theory"?

Did she, or did she not?

And is it not true that Web fairy now supports NPT?

Does she, or does she not?

Now: heres the rub:

If I produce a linked quote from webfairy where she states "I knew there were no Planes all along"

What will you do in return?

Will you say "You are right John, Web fairy has tried to flush her three years pushing Pod Theory down the memory hole"

3) And are you flat out denying you've ever been a bit "poddy" yourself?

4) Furthermore, you know only to well exactly where my exposure of the battery park fake is to be found. You posted on and ran from the thread, after all

So as I said, this is why your credibility is so low

You can introduce yourself well, show politeness, accept the accolades from your collegues who've signed up here a few days before: just a co-incidence of course

But then its into this "poor me, my freedom of expression is repressed" drama you've got going on

Fact is: you dont address facts

Here's an opportunity to show otherwise: can you manage it?

It involves the risk of posting truth about yourself, rather than the safe gamble of calling me a troll, on the basis that your fans and supporters wont care becuase they want to believe and trust you
1) so low with who, trolls like you?

2) I'm asking about your claim about me.

3) You made the claim that I was a podder theorist. Let's see your proof of that "champ".

4) Too afraid to link to it?

john white

06-12-2007, 02:05 PM

1) Lost all credibility in the eyes of the trolls? :eek:

2) You know my policy of debating with trolls.

So to confirm: you dont debate facts

Anyone who doesnt agree with you is, by definition "a troll"

Can you link any thread, anywhere on the internet, where you have debated the facts of your case with someone who is not convinced by NPT by responsing to and countering the reasoning of their points?

killtown

06-12-2007, 02:13 PM

1) So to confirm: you dont debate facts

2) Anyone who doesnt agree with you is, by definition "a troll"

3) Can you link any thread, anywhere on the internet, where you have debated the facts of your case with someone who is not convinced by NPT by responsing to and countering the reasoning of their points?
1) where did I say that? you're not trying to smear me, are you?

2) where did I say that? you're not trying to smear me, are you?

3) As soon as you post links to your numerous claims

4) Why did you skip my #3 & 4 questions? Chicken?

killtown

06-12-2007, 02:31 PM

But calling me an idiot just shows you can't dispute the facts :)
What does it mean when you call people a "stooge" and a "fraud"?

John White Dec 06, 2007

Obviously, not you stephen, your just a stooge for him, not really your fault mate, can't punish the victims of fraud, can we?

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=101552#101552

john white

06-12-2007, 02:33 PM

1) where did I say that? you're not trying to smear me, are you?

2) where did I say that? you're not trying to smear me, are you?

3) As soon as you post links to your numerous claims

4) Why did you skip my #3 & 4 questions? Chicken?

How typical of you this is Killtown. You utterly ignore my questions and then accuse ME of not being fair in debate!

It's true you turned against Pod theorists (so how is it now with you and Webfairy? All pods forgiven?). I believe your latest line is the "pod" was part of another CGI "mistake"?

I can hardly smear you on your own record: as I say, your credibility issues are certainly not my responsibility

Neither is the inadequacy of the evidence for your notion that no planes hit the Twin Towers

john white

06-12-2007, 02:35 PM

What does it mean when you call people a "stooge" and a "fraud"?

It means your rattled and none to happy to find me standing up to you

If you want to start dragging posts over from other forums to shore up your credibility, you might as well give up and slope back off to your blog now

you could try addressing the questions at hand

Are you denying Webfairy had a major role in the creation of material and disemination of material regarding "Pod Theory"?

Did she, or did she not?

And is it not true that Web fairy now supports NPT?

Does she, or does she not?

Now: heres the rub:

If I produce a linked quote from webfairy where she states "I knew there were no Planes all along"

What will you do in return?

Will you say "You are right John, Web fairy has tried to flush her three years pushing Pod Theory down the memory hole"

3) And are you flat out denying you've ever been a bit "poddy" yourself?

4) Furthermore, you know only to well exactly where my exposure of the battery park fake is to be found. You posted on and ran from the thread, after all

So as I said, this is why your credibility is so low

You can introduce yourself well, show politeness, accept the accolades from your collegues who've signed up here a few days before: just a co-incidence of course

But then its into this "poor me, my freedom of expression is repressed" drama you've got going on

Fact is: you dont address facts

Here's an opportunity to show otherwise: can you manage it?

It involves the risk of posting truth about yourself, rather than the safe gamble of calling me a troll, on the basis that your fans and supporters wont care becuase they want to believe and trust you

killtown

06-12-2007, 02:45 PM

1) How typical of you this is Killtown.

2) then accuse ME of not being fair in debate!

3) It's true you turned against Pod theorists (so how is it now with you and Webfairy? All pods forgiven?). I believe your latest line is the "pod" was part of another CGI "mistake"?

4) I can hardly smear you on your own record: as I say, your credibility issues are certainly not my responsibility

5) Neither is the inadequacy of the evidence for your notion that no planes hit the Twin Towers
1) How typical of you to make all these claims and not post any links to back any of them up.

2) Where did I do this?

3) Still waiting for that proof of your claim that I pushed the pod theory "for years" before switching to NPT.

4) You complaining about credibility issues of another person is like a Klansman complaining that a Nazi is racist.

5) According to who, you? The mod who keeps insulting/smearing members?

killtown

06-12-2007, 02:49 PM

1) It means your rattled and none to happy to find me standing up to you

2) If you want to start dragging posts over from other forums to shore up your credibility,

3) you might as well give up and slope back off to your blog now

4) you could try addressing the questions at hand
1) Standing up to me about what?

2) Careful, posts from other forums might be dragged over here to shore up your own credibility.

3) Oh, I'm "so scared".

4) why don't you ask your questions about the webfariy to, gee i don't know, the webfairy?

john white

06-12-2007, 02:54 PM

1) Standing up to me about what?

2) Careful, posts from other forums might be dragged over here to shore up your own credibility.

3) Oh, I'm "so scared".

4) why don't you ask your questions about the webfariy to, gee i don't know, the webfairy?

Hey, why did you butt into questions that wernt even asked of you for no point whatsoever?

Is Webfairy on this thread? NO

Are you on this thread? YES

Are you both No Planes Theory activists? YES

Then I can ask you about your collegue being as you have entered this thread: just as you refuse to answer

Other people might just leave the thread rather than make their refusal to answer my problem: but I suppose thats why you are you

killtown

06-12-2007, 02:56 PM

Still waiting for your proof that I pushed the pod theory for years.

john white

06-12-2007, 02:58 PM

Still waiting for your proof that I pushed the pod theory for years.

So you never claimed the pod was proof of the hologram?

And you still refuse to confirm that Webfairy did just that?

Your fancy footwork is on display for all to see Killtown:

But as I said before, your poor credibility is not my responsibility

killtown

06-12-2007, 03:01 PM

1) So you never claimed the pod was proof of the hologram?

2) And you still refuse to confirm that Webfairy did just that?

Your fancy footwork is on display for all to see Killtown:

3) But as I said before, your poor credibility is not my responsibility
1) Well since of never really believed holograms were used at the WTC, no.

2) Ask her.

3) Poor credibility in who's eyes?

john white

06-12-2007, 03:16 PM

Well since of never really believed holograms were used at the WTC, no.

So you believed it a little bit for a little while?

Still theres a fundamental question to ask you (whilst your here)

Do you believe anything hit the twin towers?

Balance of probability YES or balance of probability NO will do

steevo

06-12-2007, 03:22 PM

killtown

06-12-2007, 03:23 PM

1) So you believed it a little bit for a little while?

2) Do you believe anything hit the twin towers?
1) I entertained the idea and researched the possibility of it when first getting into NPT, but quickly decided holograms were of a low probability for that theory.

What do you believe hit the WTC and who piloted them if you believe airplanes hit?

2) I don't believe 7X7's did, or anything of similar size.

killtown

06-12-2007, 03:25 PM

The NPT is misinformation and is used, and maybe designed, to put us on the wrong track and open us up to ridicule from everyone we would mention it to IMO. We, and the whole "911 was an inside job" thing would then be very easy to discredit.
That's what they said when I was questioning if a 757 really hit the Pentagon.

http://killtown.911review.org/flight77.html

PS - who "designed" NPT?

steevo

06-12-2007, 03:27 PM

That's what they said when I was questioning if a 757 really hit the Pentagon.

http://killtown.911review.org/flight77.html

We are talking about the twin towers here.
No plane hit the Pentagon. But they did hit the twin towers.

steevo

06-12-2007, 03:28 PM

PS - who "designed" NPT?

I dont know who designed NPT. That's why I say "maybe designed".

killtown

06-12-2007, 03:30 PM

No plane hit the Pentagon. But they did hit the twin towers.
But what about the "hundreds" of witnesses at the Pentagon? (Hey, it's what I get asked all the time about the WTC.)

mr_pixie

06-12-2007, 03:31 PM

John White Dec 06, 2007

Obviously, not you stephen, your just a stooge for him, not really your fault mate, can't punish the victims of fraud, can we?

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/vi...=101552#101552

I'm no ones stooge.

killtown

06-12-2007, 03:32 PM

I dont know who designed NPT. That's why I say "maybe designed".
So the perps sat down at a table and said they needed a bogus theory to spread in the truth movement to distract truthers because they are getting too close to the truth and they happened to come up with one with as much or more evidence to support it as no plane at the Pentagon?

john white

06-12-2007, 03:32 PM

I entertained the idea and researched the possibility of it when first getting into NPT, but quickly decided holograms were of a low probability for that theory.

What do you believe hit the WTC and who piloted them if you believe airplanes hit?

2 airplanes: identity unproven. Pilots unproven: possibly computer controled: unproven

Thats all I need, the planes are a minor issue in demonstrating the Offical Story to be false

But I note you hav'nt answered positively whether or not you think anything DID hit the towers....

Noting your edit:

But you do say "nothing of 767 size"

killtown

06-12-2007, 03:35 PM

2 airplanes: identity unproven. Pilots unproven: possibly computer controled: unproven

1) Thats all I need, the planes are a minor issue in demonstrating the Offical Story to be false

2) But I note you hav'nt answered whether or not you think anything DID hit the towers....
1) where do you ever demonstrate the official story is false?

1a) why do you spend the majority (if not all) of your time debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories and not the official story? Are you a "LIeHOPer"?

2) I only care what didn't.

dave52

06-12-2007, 03:41 PM

steevo

06-12-2007, 03:42 PM

So the perps sat down at a table and said they needed a bogus theory to spread in the truth movement to distract truthers because they are getting too close to the truth and they happened to come up with one with as much or more evidence to support it as no plane at the Pentagon?

Yes they come up with bogus theories and push it to us via the forums. And if they push it enough, they know that some people will start to believe it, it's a well known technique.

john white

06-12-2007, 03:42 PM

1) where do you ever demonstrate the official story is false?

1a) why do you spend the majority (if not all) of your time debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories and not the official story? Are you a "LIeHOPer"?

2) I only care what didn't.

Well thats the thing Killtown: you don't pay attention :)

MIHOP certainly: you do realise that NPT has no bearing on MIHOP one way or another, dont you?

In exactly the same way NPT has no bearing at all on CD

Both exist entirely credibily with no need whatsoever for TV fakery (which is unproven)

And its a minority of my time Killtown, we have many other issues here in the UK y'know: if it wasnt for the behaviour of posters in the truth controversies section requiring my attention on the UK forum leading to me having to look at the issues in detail to make determinations, I doubt I'd have bothered to debate the NPT issue at all

Oh and there's Planetary Consciouness Transformation on the go too!

Its sad that there are people letting minority issues distract them from that: I don't make that mistake

It is, in fact YOU who spend the majority of your time arguing against people who are actively campaigning that 9/11 was an inside job

Please don't blame me for your failings

john white

06-12-2007, 03:50 PM

How quickly this thread has been turned into a slanging match.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you are not a no-planer, either wade in with some good counter-arguments or shut up, don't just try and prevoke an argument.

If you are a no-planer, don't react to it.

It reminds me of my Dad. When I showed him ample evidence for 9/11 being an inside job, he just got angry at me because, truth be told he couldn't handle it and reacted with the easiest emotion available.

Now, when there's ample evidence for, at the very least, a reasonable possibility of no-planes, some people's first reaction is to just get angry.

But Dave: the counter evidence is ignored

Your an empathic guy: are you really suprised the issue often devolves into argument?

After all, there is a great deal of confusion about why NPT theorists don't understand the objective demolition of the case

Are the NPT proponents dis-honest? Confused? Simply unable to grasp why the argument isnt sound? How many times does it have to be taken apart before people let it go?

It reminds me of my Dad. When I showed him ample evidence for 9/11 being an inside job, he just got angry at me because, truth be told he couldn't handle it and reacted with the easiest emotion available.

Thats exactly how posters challenging NPT feel about NPT fans. You do understand that?

Equally, you do understand that NPT is irrelevant to demonstrating 9/11 as an inside job?

Would you say Icke has not demonstrated 9/11 as an inside job?

Does he use NPT theory or beam weapons to do so?

No. He uses motive, means and oportunity

dave52

06-12-2007, 03:56 PM

Equally, you do understand that NPT is irrelevant to demonstrating 9/11 as an inside job?

I entirely agree, the inside-jobiness of 9/11 is not up for debate. But the scope of those involved changes markedly if you factor in the possibility of TV Fakery (which is actually more important than NPT as far as I'm concerned, but whether they can be seperated or not - I'm not sure).

Controlled demolition or beam weaponry is also a very important discussion.

adimon

06-12-2007, 03:56 PM

Bloody hell. I pop out for a couple of pints of Double Dragon, come back, and the thread has tripled in size!

Cheers for your input on the video JW. I'll go over this again once I've finished my current project on PNAC. No doubt about it, these guys had NOTHING to do with 9/11 perps. (Ooh..controversial!) More later guys...

killtown

06-12-2007, 04:21 PM

1) Well thats the thing Killtown: you don't pay attention :)

2) MIHOP certainly:

3) you do realise that NPT has no bearing on MIHOP one way or another, dont you?

4) TV fakery (which is unproven)

5) And its a minority of my time Killtown, we have many other issues here in the UK y'know:

6) if it wasnt for the behaviour of posters in the truth controversies section requiring my attention on the UK forum leading to me having to look at the issues in detail to make determinations,

7) I doubt I'd have bothered to debate the NPT issue at all

8) Oh and there's Planetary Consciouness Transformation on the go too!

9) Its sad that there are people letting minority issues distract them from that: I don't make that mistake

10) It is, in fact YOU who spend the majority of your time arguing against people who are actively campaigning that 9/11 was an inside job

11) Please don't blame me for your failings
1) to what?

2) where do you ever push that?

3) did I ever say it did?

4) According to whom, you?

5) Then why does it look like you spend 90% of your time trying to debunk "controversial" 9/11 theories?

6) Ha! So what, there was bad behavior going on and then requested you to go add to it?!

7) And now you spend most of your time doing it.

8) [roll eyes]

9) Huh??? You spend 90% of your time being distracted on these minority issues!!!

10) Always trying to spin this on me, aye? That's your trademark, huh? Kind of like how an abusive husband tries to blame it on his wife.

john white

06-12-2007, 04:33 PM

As I say Killtown: you dont pay attention: and what you do see (of my activities) is distorted through the lens of your own perception: I can laugh at that, but I certainly don't have to pander to it

Its sad that there are people letting minority issues distract them from that: I don't make that mistake

It is, in fact YOU who spend the majority of your time arguing against people who are actively campaigning that 9/11 was an inside job

Please don't blame me for your failings

Always trying to spin this on me, aye? That's your trademark, huh? Kind of like how an abusive husband tries to blame it on his wife.

I'm sorry, do you feel uncomfortable faced with the reality of your actions across the internet?

Again: your responsibility

The evidence is certainly incontravertable

You've been calling genuine 9/11 truthers shills and trolls for years now:

FACT

crowd control

06-12-2007, 04:36 PM

As I say Killtown: you dont pay attention: and what you do see (of my activities) is distorted through the lens of your own perception: I can laugh at that, but I certainly don't have to pander to it

I'm sorry, do you feel uncomfortable faced with the reality of your actions across the internet?

Again: your responsibility

The evidence is certainly incontravertable

You've been calling genuine 9/11 truthers shills and trolls for years now:

FACT

John are you discussing NPT on this board or not ? You seem to be doing enough discussing it for someone who says they won't or will you discuss the merits of it, but not the details or what ? What's uh the deal ?

lennart

06-12-2007, 04:41 PM

I was just wondering....

People that believe that planes hit the towers here also seen '911Taboo' and 'september clues'?

Because you just can not denie that CNN, FOX and whatelse really messed up big time with the videos. How the hell did they do that so fast and made it look real time? There is no way you can denie that if you watched these videos.

I voted NO on the NPT Poll....but today i would have voted YES, i believe NO PLANES where used on the day of 911.

I,m gonna watch loose change again tonight and have a look what videos they used.....i wonder...i really do!

September Clues part 1 to 8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeIVD5wT4KE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy3hg4MMyqQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ5EXXyN_Us
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU9607IVOiY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqvJyj5zEzg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE3lPxadzNI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9uzpvRzzYQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2WQVwzAI2A

john white

06-12-2007, 04:46 PM

John are you discussing NPT on this board or not ? You seem to be doing enough discussing it for someone who says they won't or will you discuss the merits of it, but not the details or what ? What's uh the deal ?

Simply un-choosing a choice that I will probably choose again

I have to admit Killtown joining the site has encouraged me to review that choice somewhat

lennart

06-12-2007, 04:55 PM

There you go....just watch it and be amazed!

September Clues part 1 to 8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeIVD5wT4KE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy3hg4MMyqQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ5EXXyN_Us
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU9607IVOiY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqvJyj5zEzg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE3lPxadzNI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9uzpvRzzYQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2WQVwzAI2A

john white

06-12-2007, 05:01 PM

Lennart:

Ever visited this website?

Welcome

This is the home of 911Disinformation.com, a site intent on combating the numerous forms of disinformation seeking to undermine the growing 9/11 truth movement. If you are here by accident please do you and your country a favor and start investigating the truth behind 9/11.

http://www.911disinformation.com/

Or watched this video?

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=823734902101057550

lennart

06-12-2007, 05:12 PM

Hey John. I see a lot of people say they seen it. Most of the videos there could be fake too. Most of the videos don,t work and the NPT section also.

I,m gonna watch that video and then i,ll be back! We need to get to the bottom of this:D

Question; did you see 'september clues' john?

john white

06-12-2007, 05:34 PM

sidlittle

06-12-2007, 07:57 PM

Maybe its just that the NPT theorising clique have identified this forum as a platform for them to push their ideas?

(actually: its not a maybe. This forum has simply become a current front, and the illusion of attention often creates the impression something is "rising" even when its more akin to a last gasp effort....funny how, for example, the NPT poll recieved a sudden pro-NPT boost in a very short time period after an influx of a handful of members who came here to post about.... NPT. Polls arnt everything)

Oh beautiful!

You confidently post a poll expecting to announce the death of NPT and it doesn't quite work out for you and your excuse ? erm, forum members who
favor NPT actually had the nerve to come along and join in the debate! :eek:

No, polls aren't everything but thanks for demonstrating so aptly how one's arrogance can spectacularly backfire. :)

Why are you so concerned with what webfairy used to believe? Why does it matter? So she looked into the hologram theory , then decided it was unlikely.
Big deal. What does it matter? Could it be that you are still trying to marginalise npts theorists into a manageable group of cosy back-slappers?

How many times do your bullying friends on the uk911 forum, group NPT'ers with the '911 researchers'? Well, I've never joined that site.

We don't all get on, we don't all agree with each other. You know Genghis is now baned from www.911movement.org for lack of civility in discussion ? I wonder if that would happen to chek at the UK forum :D

Face it John, support for NPT and TV fakery is growing. Killtown isn't our leader, nor Webfairy, Simon Shack , Ace Baker, Morgan Reynolds nor Genghis. We are all individuals with different backgrounds, opinions, ideas and temperaments.

In fact, if anything, sometimes the language you and your supporters use is almost indistinguishable. Now that's cliquey..
they cannot readily understand why the NPT adherants cannot see the clear demolition of their claims time and time again

A similar demolition as applied to September Clues will appear on UK911 shortly for anyone who prefers not to be taken in by tricksters.

john white

06-12-2007, 08:11 PM

Face it John, support for NPT and TV fakery is growing. Killtown isn't our leader, nor Webfairy, Simon Shack , Ace Baker, Morgan Reynolds nor Genghis. We are all individuals with different backgrounds, opinions, ideas and temperaments.

Believe what you like mate

Even NPT supporting sites (few as they are) can't hold it together: as evidenced by the resignation from "movement" of Ghengis and Ace Baker

Of course I remain open to some actual evidence of TV fakery coming forward that can withstand the most basic analysis: having seen flimsy claim after flimsy claim I have to admit my confidence in that happening is low

And that's assuming it could be shown to have been faked to promote the Official Story, and not faked to promote NPT: a single or low number of proven fakes support the later more than the former: to date of course, their are NO proven fakes

And of course, even if that did happen, theres still the gigantic problem of proving every single image fake:

Lets not forget: ONE genuine image: its all over

So by all means: believe what you like: its entirely up to you

But Planes hit the towers:

Thats just how it is

teslafire

06-12-2007, 09:37 PM

I would just like to take a moment to commend John White on his open and easygoing style of debate. He's a rare find, that Mr. White, someone who is willing to put their ego aside for the sake of understanding, someone who doesn't walk in with a boatload of assumptions, a genuine truthseeker not hardened by years of 'virtual actvism'. Never will you find John White being petty or trite to score points. Everyone knows a competitive truthseeker is a wanker and probably never really had his eye on the ball aside from their own personal intrigue, and John White, by example, attempts to dissuage this atmosphere whereever possible.

I feel safe and encouraged to speak my truth knowing that people like John White have the power to regulate my speech and I also would like to applaud the powers that be at this forum for having the wisdom to give Mr. White his authoritaay.

:)

john white

06-12-2007, 09:48 PM

You can both see me as arrogant if you like

It doesnt make you right though

So maybe you could address evidence instead

(in a more meaningful way than "watch this video! your a shill if you dont agree with it, and arrogant if you critically analyise it! What have you ever done for 9/11 truth anyway? Limited hangout truthliter!")

You see: I have been here before

teslafire

06-12-2007, 10:04 PM

You can both see me as arrogant if you like

I prefer 'mental case' edging on messianic entitlement.

It doesnt make you right though

...

So maybe you could address evidence instead

(in a more meaningful way than "watch this video! your a shill if you dont agree with it, and arrogant if you critically analyise it! What have you ever done for 9/11 truth anyway? Limited hangout truthliter!")

You see: I have been here before

Most everyone else has too. And the debate you're asking for has been done numerous times with you at this forum with the same members here, you're simply trolling. Your unchecked idiocy is debasing this entire thread and forum. Please stop and be more attentive to your duties as a Forum Advisor. There are plenty of people, far more cogent than you, who have similar ideas about planes. Wouldn't it be nice if you let them speak for you?

john white

06-12-2007, 10:08 PM

Why are you so concerned with what webfairy used to believe? Why does it matter? So she looked into the hologram theory , then decided it was unlikely.
Big deal. What does it matter? Could it be that you are still trying to marginalise npts theorists into a manageable group of cosy back-slappers?

Its a question of honesty, integrety and track record: on Webfairy's promotion of POD theory disappearing down the memory hole

Do you find such qualities important?

Truthseeking is MORE than simply finding the courage to hold your beliefs even if others insult you or think you mad or dangerous: there is the question of challenging your own beliefs rigourously to make sure one is not mis-informing oneself: the importance of allowing onself not to know the answers to certain questions: the liberation of the self from the need to have concrete beliefs: going where the evidence takes us, not where a particular theory dictates

Killtown isn't our leader, nor Webfairy, Simon Shack , Ace Baker, Morgan Reynolds nor Genghis

You can say that: you can even believe it: but you certainly wouldnt be on this forum declaring your belief that no Planes hit the twin towers without them

Just a question:

What would you do, and how would you feel, if they were wrong?

john white

06-12-2007, 10:14 PM

I prefer 'mental case' edging on messianic entitlement.

Well of course you do. You want to control my freedom of expression. You want to control what is and is not allowed on this forum. You want to control debate. You want this forum to be a reflection of "Truth according to Teslafire: you are mentally disturbed if you disagree"

Sorry to disapoint

Most everyone else has too. And the debate you're asking for has been done numerous times with you at this forum with the same members here, you're simply trolling. Your unchecked idiocy is debasing this entire thread and forum. Please stop and be more attentive to your duties as a Forum Advisor. There are plenty of people, far more cogent than you, who have similar ideas about planes. Wouldn't it be nice if you let them speak for you?

I've reviewed your posts regarding NPT theory. To date, I have yet to see one coherant addressing of a single problem with the theory from you

Again Tesla: you could try addressing the evidence

It would be wise to have your own house in good order, would it not?

Especially before you throw around definitions like "troll"

dave52

06-12-2007, 10:24 PM

So maybe you could address evidence instead

But here's the problem John, you don't address the evidence. You keep referring us back to www.911disinformation.com, but that site hasn't been updated since May. If you watch the ten minute video at the begining of this thread, it really is compelling stuff, not because someone's trying to steer the truth movement, but because the footage from that day has, undoubtably, been frigged with.

teslafire

06-12-2007, 10:28 PM

Incredible.

...I'll go out on a limb; take all the arguments that you think I haven't addressed and compile them into a thread...when I've more than a passing minute I'll dissect them. And though I have done this before, I have a feeling you now have new 'evidence' to throw into the mix. For that sake, and that sake alone, I'll oblige you.

Please do create another thread and do not add to this one as I would hate to feel that we are hijacking it.

john white

06-12-2007, 10:31 PM

But here's the problem John, you don't address the evidence. You keep referring us back to www.911disinformation.com, but that site hasn't been updated since May. If you watch the ten minute video at the begining of this thread, it really is compelling stuff, not because someone's trying to steer the truth movement, but because the footage from that day has, undoubtably, been frigged with.

No link is perfect. Its a start of a discussion point. And if the information on that link is "no good" becuase it hasnt been updated, does that mean you consider it to have proven its case against NPT research up to May this year, but the research that has happened since has not been addressed? Elsewise, I can't see the time of last update as being especially relevant to refuting its case

I'm happy to start addressing specific claims on specific videos

You suggest this film:

http://www.youtube.com/v/R0b34msR6cI

OK

What, in your view, is the strongest claim made in this film (time indexes are handy)

That would be a good start point, would it not? We can look at the claims one by one

masonfree party

06-12-2007, 10:32 PM

howie

06-12-2007, 10:34 PM

Mohammad Atta was on both flights 11 & 175

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/8489/atta13sept2001yb4.jpg

teslafire

06-12-2007, 10:35 PM

William Rodrigez is a 911 fraud...another being paid to spout disinfo... key master bullshit!

How did you come to this conclusion, aside from his disagreement over planes?

masonfree party

06-12-2007, 10:38 PM

How did you come to this conclusion, aside from his disagreement over planes?

Because he is a disciple of James Randi...and has been told to go on this 911 crusade to divert attention from the real 911 truth...and was caught snogging Machon

teslafire

06-12-2007, 10:38 PM

Help me out, I don't quite follow.... link?

masonfree party

06-12-2007, 10:41 PM

Help me out, I don't quite follow.... link?
just a simple janitor my ass!

Magician's assistant
When Rodriguez was younger, he worked with magician James Randi, who refers to Rodriguez as "a long-time colleague,"[2] on many shows. Rodriguez used the stage name "Roudy" and mentioned in an interview with Benjamin Smith of the New York Sun that he helped the Amazing Randi expose fraudulent faith healers and psychics. [3] Rodriguez also stated that he proved adroit at insinuating himself into the good graces of Randi's targets and eliciting incriminating information. Rodriguez also recollects being featured on television in Puerto Rico escaping from a chained straightjacket while hanging from a burning rope.[4]

john white

06-12-2007, 10:48 PM

And worked as a janitor at the WTC for 20 years as deep cover....

Don't look to me about derailing threads Teslafire

lennart

06-12-2007, 11:01 PM

Oh yes mate. I've watched september clues quite carefully

I,m back and watched that video link you gave me. Its interesting but it does not deal with the real difficult videos seen in 'september clues'. Most of the people on google agree with me as you can see(1point average).

Maybe there is more of where that came from that deals with the difficult parts?

I looked up at the CNN website for the originals. This one is where it shows the plane with a strange broken wing. And in many other videos the wings are not broken! That is strange!

Look at this video from the cnn site. The wing is broken! Look at frame 0:08. (there is some advertising first)

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2006/03/31/snow.tapes.released.cnn?iref=videosearch

john white

06-12-2007, 11:15 PM

I,m back and watched that video link you gave me. Its interesting but it does not deal with the real difficult videos seen in 'september clues'. Most of the people on google agree with me as you can see(1point average).

Maybe there is more of where that came from that deals with the difficult parts?

I looked up at the CNN website for the originals. This one is where it shows the plane with a strange broken wing. And in many other videos the wings are not broken! That is strange!

Look at this video from the cnn site. The wing is broken! Look at frame 0:08. (there is some advertising first)

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2006/03/31/snow.tapes.released.cnn?iref=videosearch

In terms of Video refutation of NPT, theres not that much : mostly becuase someone has to be bothered enough to make them

Most of the information is written/still images

Here, for example, is a PDF file which is a full review of every single claim across the september clues series

http://twilightpines.com/images/debunkingseptemberclues.pdf

So that should certainly cover far more detail than Anthony Lawsons film

I dont, btw, concur with every single detail in that review: but its certainly 90% there

steevo

06-12-2007, 11:21 PM

William Rodrigez is a 911 fraud...another being paid to spout disinfo... key master bullshit!

To say that shows how desperate you are :D

john white

06-12-2007, 11:25 PM

where I dont agree with that pdf, btw, is cheifly in the suggestion that the plane could not have penetrated the facade of the WTC without some kind of help: an impact with 3,400,000 KJ force is plenty helpful in itself

helloperator

06-12-2007, 11:29 PM

Play the ball not the man?

lennart

06-12-2007, 11:38 PM

This (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2006/03/31/snow.tapes.released.cnn?iref=videosearch) video from the CNN site shows a plane flying with a broken wing!

The document/pdf file says that it,s due to sunlight/parameters and behaviour of the camara. Now if that was true then you would have seen that. Its not really high quality so if this is the case then you should have seen the plane changing form or flickering or something. I think.

Then in the document they also say that the plane looks a little weird but just look at the buildings they are also not clear. But the buildings changes forms a little because of the bad quality. The plane doesn,t change form!

But this (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2006/03/31/snow.tapes.released.cnn?iref=videosearch) video simply shows an airplane with a broken wing from the beginning to the end. No flickering and not changing form but just a perfectly broken wing from the beginning to the end. It looks very strange!

dave52

06-12-2007, 11:41 PM

What, in your view, is the strongest claim made in this film

Well, do you agree that the two sets of footage have the towers at the same angle? If so...

Where is the plane in video 1?
Where is the backgound in video 2?
How is video 2 so steady, when it is likely shot from a Helicopter?
Why did the broadcasters see fit to slow down Video 2 to half speed?

There you go, 4 questions that need answers.

Incidently, if we're gonna pick faves, question 4 is very important indeed. If we run with the planes into towers idea, who decided that watching a huge jetliner ploughing into a skyscraper on live tv needed some sort of dramatic slow-mo impact? Who takes those decisions?

killtown

07-12-2007, 01:27 AM

1) As I say Killtown: you dont pay attention: and what you do see (of my activities) is distorted through the lens of your own perception: I can laugh at that, but I certainly don't have to pander to it

2) I'm sorry, do you feel uncomfortable faced with the reality of your actions across the internet?

3) The evidence is certainly incontravertable

4) You've been calling genuine 9/11 truthers shills and trolls for years now:

FACT
1) Just like my activities are distorted through the lens of your own perception?

2) No, I'm not ashamed of any of my actions. Are you ashamed of your constant personal attacks and smearing of other people?

3) According to who, you?

4) Just like you and your hater buddies have with me and people like me?

ukor

07-12-2007, 02:11 AM

Well, do you agree that the two sets of footage have the towers at the same angle? If so...

Where is the plane in video 1?
Where is the backgound in video 2?
How is video 2 so steady, when it is likely shot from a Helicopter?
Why did the broadcasters see fit to slow down Video 2 to half speed?

There you go, 4 questions that need answers.

Incidently, if we're gonna pick faves, question 4 is very important indeed. If we run with the planes into towers idea, who decided that watching a huge jetliner ploughing into a skyscraper on live tv needed some sort of dramatic slow-mo impact? Who takes those decisions?

This thread: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11564

answers questions 1 and 2.

3.Mobile cameras use a stabilsation platform, usually based on the Steadicam counterweight principle.

4. The conversion formatting provenance of the videos would need to be looked into to answer that.
NTSC is 29.97fps, PAL is 25fps, flash video is 15fps.
Then you'd need to know if it's interlaced, de-interlaced or otherwise generally mucked about with.
The yahoos who make these video assertions rely on you not looking too deeply into the technical side, or knowing how to.
If you're really concerned it shows something important, check the original archive footage which has a one step conversion from mpeg2 to flash video.
I'm guessing - like the video's producer - that you won't.

lennart

07-12-2007, 03:57 AM

Here is one from the CNN site showing a broken wing!

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2006/03/31/snow.tapes.released.cnn?iref=videosearch

ukor

07-12-2007, 04:59 AM

Here is one from the CNN site showing a broken wing!

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2006/03/31/snow.tapes.released.cnn?iref=videosearch

You mean one where the resolution is so poor the wing can't even be defined.
There's a difference.

ukor

07-12-2007, 05:25 AM

1) Just like my activities are distorted through the lens of your own perception?

2) No, I'm not ashamed of any of my actions. Are you ashamed of your constant personal attacks and smearing of other people?

3) According to who, you?

4) Just like you and your hater buddies have with me and people like me?

Oh my God!
This is the adult sectuion of the forum isn't it?
Not the kids section?
Because what our friend Killtown has got here as his idea of an 'adequate response' is - in various forms -
"I'm rubber and you're glue,
whatever you say
bounces off me and sticks to you".

Unbelieveable!

And like that other overgrown child dealing with his infantilised audience, Bill O'Reilly, out comes the insult "hater", reducing whatever objections there are to an emotional reaction and therefore leaving nothing of substance to be addressed.
No wonder you get banned from forums at the drop of a hat Killtown - you probably insult their intelligence without even realising it.

dave52

07-12-2007, 07:56 AM

3.Mobile cameras use a stabilsation platform, usually based on the Steadicam counterweight principle.

Yes, I understand steadicams, but that doesn't explain how two shots from different sources manage to capture identicle angles without getting in each other's way. And why aren't all helicopters fitted with steadicams?

4. The conversion formatting provenance of the videos...

<snip>

I'm sorry, that's all well and good but video compression and format conversion would not account for the evening news playing footage at half speed. In fact there is quite a lot of this sort of thing covered in TV Fakery circles. There is footage from live broadcasts where the anchor is talking about the days events and they are showing the towers on fire with a "LIVE" banner and the pictures are undoubtedly slowed down feeds or loops. If this was being done at the time, on the day, then we were not being shown a true representation of the days events by the tv news channels.

This is important stuff.

ukor

07-12-2007, 12:03 PM

Yes, I understand steadicams, but that doesn't explain how two shots from different sources manage to capture identicle angles without getting in each other's way. And why aren't all helicopters fitted with steadicams?

<snip>

I'm sorry, that's all well and good but video compression and format conversion would not account for the evening news playing footage at half speed. In fact there is quite a lot of this sort of thing covered in TV Fakery circles. There is footage from live broadcasts where the anchor is talking about the days events and they are showing the towers on fire with a "LIVE" banner and the pictures are undoubtedly slowed down feeds or loops. If this was being done at the time, on the day, then we were not being shown a true representation of the days events by the tv news channels.

This is important stuff.

Firstly, the shots aren't the same angle as shown in the Chek Sez thread - they only appear to be at Youtube low resolution.

And secondly your taking this video as gospel and haven't understood what I said about the framerates of different formats. This is a completely different issue to compression.

dave52

07-12-2007, 12:08 PM

Firstly, the shots aren't the same angle as shown in the Chek Sez thread - they only appear to be at Youtube low resolution.

And secondly your taking this video as gospel and haven't understood what I said about the framerates of different formats. This is a completely different issue to compression.

You didn't address the slow-mo... and no, I'm not taking it as gospel

mishima

07-12-2007, 02:15 PM

one question: back in 2001 there were allready digital cameras and mobile phones that can take pictures. shouldn't there be many pics ore videos of the second imüact? i googled it and I always find the same shots. Maybe someone has a link to pictures and videos from witnesses.

ukor

07-12-2007, 03:06 PM

You didn't address the slow-mo... and no, I'm not taking it as gospel

The frame rate point does address the slo-mo ,referring to how many individual frames per second are used to make up the illusion of a moving image.

Have you checked the original footage - or do you accept as just coincidence that the flash video format frame rate that Youtube uses is exactly half that of the original mpeg file?

dave52

07-12-2007, 03:31 PM

The frame rate point does address the slo-mo ,referring to how many individual frames per second are used to make up the illusion of a moving image.

Have you checked the original footage - or do you accept as just coincidence that the flash video format frame rate that Youtube uses is exactly half that of the original mpeg file?

Ok... I do understand frame rates to an extent, but I would have thought applying your logic would suggest that everything I watched on You Tube would play at half speed....

ukor

07-12-2007, 04:38 PM

Ok... I do understand frame rates to an extent, but I would have thought applying your logic would suggest that everything I watched on You Tube would play at half speed....

No not necessarily, because it would depend on the settings used during the format conversion process(es) and also how many previous conversions the footage used had been subjected to.

The bottom line is the need to be even more wary of "independent" media produced by God knows who, for God knows what reasons, even more so than the MSM in most cases.

howie

07-12-2007, 04:55 PM

The Daily Mail printed frames from 2 videos showing the missing wing.

http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/9538/dailymail13sept2001hy7.jpg

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/4703/dailymail13sept2001amq0.jpg

Download the videos of the nose-out angle here (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13295) & the original 1gb file here (http://www.911archive.info/)

=== File Information ===
File Name: 9-11 - 2104-2146 BBC.mpg
File Size: 1,073,741,824 bytes
Duration: 41:41.491

=== Video Information ===
Video Codec: MPEG-2
Frame Size: 480 x 480 (AR: 1.333)
FPS: 29.970
Video Bitrate: 3000 kbps
Bits per Pixel: 0.434 bpp

=== Audio Information ===
Audio Codec: MPEG-1 Layer 2
Sample Rate: 44100 Hz
Audio Bitrate: 224 kbps [2 channel(s)] CBR
No. of audio streams: 1

ukor

07-12-2007, 05:33 PM

The Daily Mail printed frames from 2 videos showing the missing wing.

http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/9538/dailymail13sept2001hy7.jpg

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/4703/dailymail13sept2001amq0.jpg

...and as can be clearly seen in the example you've just posted, the wing isn't 'missing' at all but rather the shades of grey or so close together the jpeg compression algorithm is having a hard time separating them.

By the same token, where have all the windows and columns of the WTC gone? Were they stolen?

lennart

07-12-2007, 05:36 PM

You mean one where the resolution is so poor the wing can't even be defined.
There's a difference.

The video is not High quality but not amazingly poor too. There is something wrong with that video. I can see the shape of that flying thing (plane?) not changing! Its not changing form.....thats the weird part about it! Not even that it,s broken! But it differs from the rest in that video.

For the ones that didn,t see it: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2006/03/31/snow.tapes.released.cnn?iref=videosearch

supertzar

07-12-2007, 05:37 PM

It seems to me that a lot of the opposition to No Planes is reactionary. It's not an examination of the facts, but an unwillingnes to consider it. What if it is true? Would you still be happy you played it safe or will you feel like a doofus?

dave52

07-12-2007, 05:45 PM

No not necessarily, because it would depend on the settings used during the format conversion process(es) and also how many previous conversions the footage used had been subjected to.

But you don't know one way or the other with respect to this video anymore than I do. So... it's not black it's white, but you don't know it's white, it could be black... or grey. But you're sure I'm wrong... but you don't know.

The bottom line is the need to be even more wary of "independent" media produced by God knows who, for God knows what reasons, even more so than the MSM in most cases.

These clips are form the MSM... that's kind of the point of TV Fakery.

howie

07-12-2007, 06:21 PM

ukor

07-12-2007, 07:25 PM

These clips are form the MSM... that's kind of the point of TV Fakery.

No, you're rather missing the point.
The original footage is from the MSM.
These manipulated clips are put up on Youtube.

dave52

07-12-2007, 07:34 PM

No, you're rather missing the point.
The original footage is from the MSM.
These manipulated clips are put up on Youtube.

As I said in the "black is white" comparison, you don't actually know they've been manipulated. I'm trying to get you to answer questions, but you're just taking the black is white route. It is quite possible that we're getting nowhere really rather quickly...

<sigh>

ukor

07-12-2007, 07:36 PM

That newspaper looks grainy after being saved from the scanner, the original is clearer. The mpeg2 video from BBC archive shows the missing wing clearly, I got that video from archive.org before they deleted it & I haven't converted or compressed the video.

Well forgive me pointing out that you don't seem to know a great deal about it.
MPEG2 is by definition a compressed format, as is all electronic video.
The NPT scam would be a lot less possible if we were still relying on optical film which is an entirely different - and some would say more faithful - process altogether.

Due to the processing limitations when MPEG was conceived, the format relies on selective updating of only part of the CCD image frame scan.

Which has led people thinking that frame by frame analysis will yield levels of data that it was never meant to do.

Essentially you cannot treat digital video as if it was optical film because it isn't and was never meant to do the same job. It provides a reasonable image at its full frame rate and no more.

dave52

07-12-2007, 08:32 PM

Well forgive me pointing out that you don't seem to know a great deal about it.

<sigh - again>

Due to the processing limitations when MPEG was conceived, the format relies on selective updating of only part of the CCD image frame scan.

Which has led people thinking that frame by frame analysis will yield levels of data that it was never meant to do.

Essentially you cannot treat digital video as if it was optical film because it isn't and was never meant to do the same job. It provides a reasonable image at its full frame rate and no more.

Ok, if it's high-quality you want, why are there frames missing during the second impact footage in the Naudet Brothers 9/11 documentary...?

sidlittle

07-12-2007, 08:35 PM

Its a question of honesty, integrety and track record: on Webfairy's promotion of POD theory disappearing down the memory hole

Do you find such qualities important?

Truthseeking is MORE than simply finding the courage to hold your beliefs even if others insult you or think you mad or dangerous: there is the question of challenging your own beliefs rigourously to make sure one is not mis-informing oneself: the importance of allowing onself not to know the answers to certain questions: the liberation of the self from the need to have concrete beliefs: going where the evidence takes us, not where a particular theory dictates

Again, I don't really care about Webfairy but in her defense she supported pods (il take your word for that for i don't know or care), she considered holograms but again it didn't really fit and now she is a believer of NPT. You might see that as jumping on the theory du jour but I see that as someone who is trying to make sense of some very unusual video footage.

The first 911 website I joined was jayhan's letsroll911 site soon after it was set up (spring 2003 I think). I found it interesting but was never comfortable with the missile thing but it led me onto demolition etc. I still knew there was problems with the footage but was happy to ignore it for three years or so and concentrate on the WTC destruction and building 7 (I still talk about building 7 to newbies from the off) It was the attitude of some of those in the movement who seemed to know it all, who told you what did and didn't happen that got me looking at the footage once again. I include you in that.

You can say that: you can even believe it: but you certainly wouldnt be on this forum declaring your belief that no Planes hit the twin towers without them
Well, maybe not but you could also say I might still be believing the official story if it wasn't for Phil Jayhan :eek: Well, perhaps not.

What would you do, and how would you feel, if they were wrong?

You may not believe me John but I can honestly say I WOULDN'T CARE as long as the perps get what they deserve.

sidlittle

07-12-2007, 08:39 PM

..and was caught snogging Machon
Fck me, that can't be a crime surely?!!!!:)

ukor

07-12-2007, 08:47 PM

<sigh - again>

Ok, if it's high-quality you want, why are there frames missing during the second impact footage in the Naudet Brothers 9/11 documentary...?

I've no idea.

What frames are missing?

One thing that does spring to mind is that conversion from NTSC (30fps) to PAL (25fps) involves dropping frames to keep the sound in synch.

Which version are you referring to?

In the version I've seen, we see the impact, we see the explosion and then he ducks.
What do you speculate might be obscured in the missing in the frames?

sidlittle

07-12-2007, 08:55 PM

Believe what you like mate

Even NPT supporting sites (few as they are) can't hold it together: as evidenced by the resignation from "movement" of Ghengis and Ace Baker

Like I said, genghis was banned. He is a hothead and he admits to it. I also don't understand his unwillingness to consider DEW. However, I am happy to promote 911 Taboo as I think it's excellent.
Ace baker destroyed 'Team chek' on nineleven.co.uk over recent weeks. However, no one wants to put up with that level of ABUSE and BULLYING from that clique which includes YOU.
'Arse baker' , oh how amusing chek! What a display of maturity from a family man of his age. Just sounds like someone who has little confidence in his own reasoning.

ukor

07-12-2007, 09:06 PM

'Arse baker' , oh how amusing chek!

...which accurately sums up his presumed level of expertise nicely, I thought.
Of course he skipped before he had to deal with any real questions about the NPT/Fakery scam he's personally involved in.

But now he's been on *gasp* the Uncle Fetzer show and, subsequently suffering delusions of grandeur (DoG).
So should he ever return, he'll be DoG Arse Baker, even if only to me.
A hobby conspiracist if ever there was.

We all need a little humour in this decidedly grim endeavour, and luckily walking egos like Baker are there to provide it.

sidlittle

07-12-2007, 09:18 PM

...which accurately sums up his presumed level of expertise nicely, I thought.
Of course he skipped before he had to deal with any real questions about the NPT/Fakery scam he's personally involved in.

But now he's been on *gasp* the Uncle Fetzer show and, subsequently suffering delusions of grandeur (DoG).
So should he ever return, he'll be DoG Arse Baker, even if only to me.
A hobby conspiracist if ever there was.

We all need a little humour in this decidedly grim endeavour, and luckily walking egos like Baker are there to provide it.

Yes mate but we all know who you are don't we. You're not at your cosy little forum now so why don't you leave your attitude and sorry little insults outside.
Everyone was witness to your complete lack of willingness to debate with 'arse' (ha ha, rubs tear from eye) Baker. How utterly humiliating for you old man.

ukor

07-12-2007, 09:31 PM

Everyone was witness to your complete lack of willingness to debate with 'arse' (ha ha, rubs tear from eye) Baker. How utterly humiliating for you old man.

Baker was the one who bowed out and resigned from the debate
before it even started, as was obvious to anybody with access to their higher functioning faculties.

Being unwilling to be subjected to a Haupt/Fred/bsregistration/Dog4tree/ Webfairy style video character assassination on the web, as happened to John Gold recently, is hardly a crime, is it my speccy little collaborator?

Perhaps you'll denounce them for their tactics, but until then I won't hold my breath (or agree to Baker's arbitrary conditions).

sidlittle

07-12-2007, 09:39 PM

Baker was the one who bowed out and resigned from the debate
before it even started, as was obvious to anybody with access to their higher functioning faculties.

Being unwilling to be subjected to a Haupt/Fred/bsregistration/Dog4tree/ Webfairy style video character assassination on the web, as happened to John Gold recently, is hardly a crime, is it my speccy little collaborator?

Perhaps you'll denounce them for their tactics, but until then I won't hold my breath (or agree to Baker's arbitrary conditions).
Link me to the Jon(?) Gold piece please - I don't know what you're on about. Thanks.

dave52

07-12-2007, 09:59 PM

I've no idea.

What frames are missing?

One thing that does spring to mind is that conversion from NTSC (30fps) to PAL (25fps) involves dropping frames to keep the sound in synch.

Which version are you referring to?

In the version I've seen, we see the impact, we see the explosion and then he ducks.
What do you speculate might be obscured in the missing in the frames?

It's not a conversion thing - go and watch it again, there are frames removed. I have no idea what is obscured by the missing frames, so I won't speculate. And before you bang on about some crappy youtube compression, it was on the BBC as part of their 9/11 programmng in September, I specifically looked out for it - and there it was (or rather wasn't).

ukor

07-12-2007, 10:30 PM

It's not a conversion thing - go and watch it again, there are frames removed. I have no idea what is obscured by the missing frames, so I won't speculate. And before you bang on about some crappy youtube compression, it was on the BBC as part of their 9/11 programmng in September, I specifically looked out for it - and there it was (or rather wasn't).

Well there you go then, you answered your own question.
It was on the BBC so it was converted from NTSC (American) to PAL (BBC/European).
Such conversions routinely drop frames to cope with 30fps to 25fps framerates.

dave52

07-12-2007, 11:38 PM

Well there you go then, you answered your own question.
It was on the BBC so it was converted from NTSC (American) to PAL (BBC/European).
Such conversions routinely drop frames to cope with 30fps to 25fps framerates.

Nope you are wrong. If the conversion from NTSC to PAL caused that sort of frame drop, we in the UK would never be able to watch anything from the US. Friends, Everybody Loves Raymond, Family Guy - nothing. It would be unwatchable.

And why oh why would the people who converted it only allow frame drops on the single most important shot of the extended special edition, leaving the rest of the program smooth as silk.

You, my friend are talking bollocks - now pack it in.

ukor

08-12-2007, 12:09 AM

Nope you are wrong.

You, my friend are talking bollocks - now pack it in.

So kindly explain how else the framerate difference would be taken care of, my friend? 30 into 25 does not go.

And you might care to tell us all when the last time you examined 'Friends' frame by frame was, while you're at it.

You may also care to do a little rudimenatary fact checking before you go accusing people also, 'my friend'.

"The National Television System Committee was established in 1940 by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in the United States (US), to resolve the conflicts which arose between companies over the introduction of a nationwide analog television system in the United States. The committee compromised and selected a 525-line transmission standard. Other technical standards in the final recommendation were a frame rate (image rate) of 30 frames per second consisting of 2 interlaced fields per frame (2:1 interlacing) at 262½ lines per field or 60 fields per second along with an aspect ratio of 4:3, and frequency modulation (FM) for the sound signal."

"For comparison, PAL uses 625 lines (576 visible), and so has a higher vertical resolution, but a lower temporal resolution of 25 frames per second."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC

After all, you wouldn't want to go looking like a complete tosser would you?

howie

08-12-2007, 12:20 AM

dave52

08-12-2007, 12:44 AM

So kindly explain how else the framerate difference would be taken care of, my friend? 30 into 25 does not go.

And you might care to tell us all when the last time you examined 'Friends' frame by frame was, while you're at it.

Stop it, you're being silly. There are frames missing in the Naudet footage of the secend strike. It's not a frame-rate coversion problem, there are frames missing. If frames went missing like that in Friends, it would not have been the smash hit in the UK that it so obviously is. Don't quote me technical information from the 1940s, go and watch the Naudet footage. Find an NTSC version of it if you want, there will still be frames missing.

Honestly, I welcome debate, disagreements are the life blood of the human condition, and I believe that there have been valid points raised by both you and John in the NPT debate, but you're just trying to get me into an argument now.

Have you seen the Naudet footage - yes or no...?

ukor

08-12-2007, 12:44 AM

The framerate makes no difference, the same clip can be found in the ABC,CBS & NBC archives & they are all NTSC & played back on the computer without conversion to PAL format.
That type of nitpicking doesn't apply to the Taylor photographs which show a crystal clear image of the fake plane taken with a 0.3mp sony camera & she had to be sitting next to that Herzakani liar who shot the CNN video which he refuses to talk about.

Dear oh dear, more kneejerk defences.
We were talking about the BBC version our friend had seen, if you were paying attention.

And the Carmen Taylor photo - which you are naturally obliged to call a fake - was taken on a Sony Mavica - a camera (the FD100) I happen to have been professionally familiar with. It actually has a great lens, and produced results similar if not better than my current Canon 7mp.

ukor

08-12-2007, 12:48 AM

Stop it, you're being silly. There are frames missing in the Naudet footage of the secend strike. It's not a frame-rate coversion problem, there are frames missing. If frames went missing like that in Friends, it would not have been the smash hit in the UK that it so obviously is. Don't quote me technical information from the 1940s, go and watch the Naudet footage. Find an NTSC version of it if you want, there will still be frames missing.

Honestly, I welcome debate, disagreements are the life blood of the human condition, and I believe that there have been valid points raised by both you and John in the NPT debate, but you're just trying to get me into an argument now.

Have you seen the Naudet footage - yes or no...?

I have seen the web version of the Naudet footage.
But your attempting to argue a point with no technical knowledge or even a semblance of wanting to find out for yourself beyond your own subjective impressions is plainly fruitless.

dave52

08-12-2007, 12:51 AM

I have seen the web version of the Naudet footage.
But your attempting to argue a point with no technical knowledge or even a semblance of wanting to find out for yourself beyond your own subjective impressions is plainly fruitless.

You do not need technical knowledge to see that cuts have been made at the impact point of the film. Do you need to know that John Bonham used Ludwig drums to enjoy a Led Zep album...?

dave52

08-12-2007, 12:56 AM

Naudet second hit - notice the cuts... er, sorry frame drops due to NTSC to PAL conversion...

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1346987476456520033

ukor

08-12-2007, 01:15 AM

Naudet second hit - notice the cuts... er, sorry frame drops due to NTSC to PAL conversion...

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1346987476456520033

Given the speed of the plane, travelling it's own length in 1/8th of a second - which is a fraction over 3 frames at either rate - I still can't see what's supposed to be missing.

dave52

08-12-2007, 10:05 AM

So I'm the only person who can see cuts in that footage. Oh well...

mr_pixie

08-12-2007, 10:56 AM

Because he is a disciple of James Randi...and has been told to go on this 911 crusade to divert attention from the real 911 truth...and was caught snogging Machon

Yes thanks for this MFP, I think theres more to this story but I carnt say to much because Whitie will be watching:(

ukor

08-12-2007, 11:18 PM

So I'm the only person who can see cuts in that footage. Oh well...

Ok Dave, I did a frame-by-frame analysis of the Naudet footage, and what I see is that 3 frames after the building starts to explode (1/3rd of a second at flash net video rate) there is a pan down - not a cut - for a crowd reaction, then followed by a cut, which is resumed when the explosion shadow is about half way across the face of the North Tower, then a 5 frame panning shot to follow the debris trail of the engine as it exits the South Tower, followed by a reaction shot of the fleeing crowd.

There is no cut during the aircraft run-in or the beginning of the explosion from within the South Tower, and subsequent events are covered by other video sources.

So - once again - I'm not sure what it is that you are suggesting is suspicious. Please clarify, if you can.

ukor

09-12-2007, 01:25 AM

Yes thanks for this MFP, I think theres more to this story but I carnt say to much because Whitie will be watching:(

Originally Posted by masonfree party
Because he is a disciple of James Randi...and has been told to go on this 911 crusade to divert attention from the real 911 truth...

Isn't it just as true that you and Mason Free Party are disciples of the Wood/Reynolds Chapter, with only one degree of separation from the Bush Illuminati Lodge?

masonfree party

09-12-2007, 01:31 AM

Isn't it just as true that you and Mason Free Party are disciples of the Wood/Reynolds Chapter, with only one degree of separation from the Bush Illuminati Lodge?

UKOR..don't forget Andrew Johnson and the likes of CB Brooklyn who look at the real evidence and not the steered evidence.. http://www.checktheevidence.com

masonfree party

09-12-2007, 01:37 AM

ukor...have you ever wondered why the uk nineeleven movement had their constitution meeting at Dave Boyles place in Blackpool...where he shows images of fake planes with pods and gets on to BBC question time to ask a question on 911 and the pod...don't you think thats very odd.

You see some of us aint taken in by these shills who are trying to play truthseekers but behind their masks they are something else...

ukor

09-12-2007, 01:53 AM

Good deflection of the question, but .... not good enough.
One degree of separation. Isn't that true?

masonfree party

09-01-2008, 08:58 PM

bump

mr_pixie

10-01-2008, 06:16 PM

Isn't it just as true that you and Mason Free Party are disciples of the Wood/Reynolds Chapter, with only one degree of separation from the Bush Illuminati Lodge?

What are you saying? That I'm a freemasion:p

dave52

10-01-2008, 11:35 PM

So - once again - I'm not sure what it is that you are suggesting is suspicious. Please clarify, if you can.

Video Here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1346987476456520033)

At 39 seconds, there are three quick cuts, I'm not going to argue - I know what I see. This is old ground for me, but as this thread has been bumped up again, I put the link in for people who may not have seen it.

The question is... Why the cuts? Why cut frames out of some of the most important footage ever recorded? Surely not for dramatic effect. I don't have the answers by the way, it just strikes me as a strange thing to do.

I'm going to bed now - good night...

chappel

11-01-2008, 12:06 AM

When I see videos like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DopaHxL8zu0 the no plane theory has credibility. Just think about it, if they had the building rigged of explosives, how can you gurantee a succesful controlled demolition by ramming a plane into the building. Not only that, the planes that apparently hit the tower seemed to slide in the building like a hot knife through butter, there was no plane damage falling from the building on impact.

masonfree party

11-01-2008, 12:42 AM

i email people on Ebay selling Loose change etc...and most are very open minded and grateful for the links to september clues and judy woods site..here's a couple of emails i received:
Hi Steve,
Cheers for your email.
Ill check out your links, cheers for the tip offs. Not seen these ones before.
There is alot of information out there on the web and not all of it agrees. Its hard sometimes to know what is real and what is disinformation.
cheers
John

Hi Steve,
Cheers for your email, will check out those sites tomorrow, but I have an easy one for you....go to youtube.com and type in september clues. There are 8 parts each 10 minutes long but you will only really need to see the first couple of parts and we will both agree there were no planes whatsoever!! However that can be too radical an idea to someone who is new to the idea of 911 being an inside job!! Don't want to scare people off before they start their awakening journey!!
All the best
Matt

weston white

11-01-2008, 01:59 AM

Video Here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1346987476456520033)

At 39 seconds, there are three quick cuts, I'm not going to argue - I know what I see. This is old ground for me, but as this thread has been bumped up again, I put the link in for people who may not have seen it.

The question is... Why the cuts? Why cut frames out of some of the most important footage ever recorded? Surely not for dramatic effect. I don't have the answers by the way, it just strikes me as a strange thing to do.

I'm going to bed now - good night...

I don't know this seems sort of like you are just nitpicking at his filmography skills to me, in his defense I believe he was a student at the time, so I doubt he has yet to master his craft, at least during the time of the attacks.

He was a panning up and down between the buildings and the crowd, he seemed very interested in recording the crowds reaction to the event, rather then the event itself. As well when you run with an cheapo electronic device (or move it around quickly such as in a shaking fashion) it does cause it to distort the media and can even cause it to blackout, i.e. running with a CD player causes the disk to skip sometimes even with the ones that have a built in time buffer.

As well his movements could have been a nervous reaction to the impact or the realization of it. But it does show a plane hitting the tower and you can clearly hear the audio of it and see the resulting explosion.

weston white

11-01-2008, 02:01 AM

dave52

11-01-2008, 08:03 AM

I don't know this seems sort of like you are just nitpicking at his filmography skills to me

No, I'm not having a pop at his skills, I am specifically talking about the missing frames and asking why. With regards to the other points you made, I don't believe they were using "cheapo" cameras, maybe not top notch, but not cheap either.

Also, do you really think that a documentary of such magnitude and importance would be edited by "amateurs"? Assuming that the Naudet situation was exactly as it seemed (two amateur French film students who happened to be working at a NYFD station leading up to and including 9/11), the rights to this footage would have been bought by the highest bidder (Paramount in this case?) and professionally edited and produced.

Here is a link to the IMDB page (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0312318/fullcredits#directors)

masonfree party

11-01-2008, 12:42 PM

If you are sending him links to September Clues why is he also sending you back links to the same?

because he didn't realise my link to socialservice site was september clues

weston white

11-01-2008, 03:59 PM

No, I'm not having a pop at his skills, I am specifically talking about the missing frames and asking why. With regards to the other points you made, I don't believe they were using "cheapo" cameras, maybe not top notch, but not cheap either.

Also, do you really think that a documentary of such magnitude and importance would be edited by "amateurs"? Assuming that the Naudet situation was exactly as it seemed (two amateur French film students who happened to be working at a NYFD station leading up to and including 9/11), the rights to this footage would have been bought by the highest bidder (Paramount in this case?) and professionally edited and produced.

Here is a link to the IMDB page (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0312318/fullcredits#directors)

You do have some points, very valid points, I do realize that, yet still at best this validates the Naudet footage as yet just another red herring. It does not rule out the fact that airplanes were actually used or not. I feel there is still aways to go before that theory is factually proven.

weston white

11-01-2008, 04:01 PM

because he didn't realise my link to socialservice site was september clues

I was just wondering, it seemed weird to me.

dave52

11-01-2008, 04:21 PM

You do have some points, very valid points, I do realize that, yet still at best this validates the Naudet footage as yet just another red herring. It does not rule out the fact that airplanes were actually used or not. I feel there is still aways to go before that theory is factually proven.

I agree, it could well be a red herring, it's just another thing to add to the anomoly list. It doesn't really offer proof or otherwise for the no-plane theory, but I think it could add a little bit of credance to the TV Fakery camp. As I say, I don't know why there are frames missing, I just can't understand why anyone would remove frames unless there was something that the directors didn't want you to see. They would have predicted that the conspira-loons would be analysing all the footage frame by frame, that's what makes me wonder.

Call it a nagging doubt for now. Thanks for discussing this without getting silly, most tv fakery / npt chat tends to descend into a flame war.
:rolleyes:

weston white

11-01-2008, 05:05 PM

I agree, it could well be a red herring, it's just another thing to add to the anomoly list. It doesn't really offer proof or otherwise for the no-plane theory, but I think it could add a little bit of credance to the TV Fakery camp. As I say, I don't know why there are frames missing, I just can't understand why anyone would remove frames unless there was something that the directors didn't want you to see. They would have predicted that the conspira-loons would be analysing all the footage frame by frame, that's what makes me wonder.

Call it a nagging doubt for now. Thanks for discussing this without getting silly, most tv fakery / npt chat tends to descend into a flame war.
:rolleyes:

I do have to agree with you on that, it would add much to your concern though if the missing frame theory could be proven rather the speculative, I myself am not savvy in film processing, though I see what you mean about the missing frames, in my opinion it could be to contributed to the equipment malfunctioning, which is why I think it would be great if reviewing the film footage file would show that the frames actually skip their segments. That is my only negative argument in your offense on this matter.

I do find it strange that there was so much film on the plane crashes during 9/11 from ground level so early in the day... many seem to be staged, so I am skeptical.Though I do believe in people such as Steven Jones, David Griffin, etc.