18 threads

[llogun]

have been made by the npt pigs can fly campain in the last week or so. they are doing there best to cause trouble you can see it a mile away. They are not interested in 911 and at the end of the day they are just insulting the people that died that day. Mods come and go, true so do trolls and there are a few on here. trolls dont last long here. so why dont you troll off to another web site where people might believe in hologram pigs. Most people here believe in the truth not some bullshit hologram so you can make as many threads you like you will go away in the end.

[zarah]

From what Ive read and watched regarding the npt, it's not so far fetched, I dont think.

You seem pretty sure that planes were involved, but how can you be sure?

[dave52]

Most people here believe in the truth.

Truth is good. What actually happened that day? Facts please. I sure as hell don't know what happened, but I'm open enough to listen to any theory, what ya got...?

By the way. If you don't like a thread - don't participate.

I have read threads on here that have nothing to do with NPT, but there are some people on here that just love an argument so they steer it that way. Two to tango and all that.

[llogun]

Because im not stupid .im here for the truth and if i thought for one minute it was true i would say so. untill some one comes up with HARD HARD evidence which no one as and know one will. planes hit the trade centers.

[dave52]

I was hoping for some truth - can you tell me exactly what happened that morning...?

[eternal_spirit]

From what Ive read and watched regarding the npt, it's not so far fetched, I dont think.

You seem pretty sure that planes were involved, but how can you be sure?


...................
Hi Zarah :)
If David copperfield can walk through the wall of China and men have been levitating for thousands of years etc etc ( of course they can't in reality it's an illusion ) This is basic stuff compared to what they maybe able to do with the holographic and who knows what technology and trick they have, NPT is possible IMO.

[llogun]

Truth is good. What actually happened that day? Facts please. I sure as hell don't know what happened, but I'm open enough to listen to any theory, what ya got...?

By the way. If you don't like a thread - don't participate.

I have read threads on here that have nothing to do with NPT, but there are some people on here that just love an argument so they steer it that way. Two to tango and all that.

Im not here to have argument i can see that some here do. ive caught some out before for being a troll and i can smell a fish with some on here. I dont want to talk to trolls do you.

[dave52]

Hey llogun - you can up that thread count to 19, you just started a new one... :)

Seriously guys - all we have are theories, we can't have too many facts because the Perps are too damn good and they've been doing it for too damn long. We know something's not right, but we cannot conclusively say how 9/11 went down.

All theories should be welcome, from Military Planes with missile pods all the way through to project blue beam. The trick is to discuss things as nicely as we can. I'm not pointing fingers - 9/11 is an immotive subject, and I will be the first to admit, I've been involved in some heated exchanges.

And just to be clear - I completely agree with eternal_spirit. Anything is possible. I'm off to bed - up early for work in the morning (boo hiss).

[eternal_spirit]

Im not here to have argument i can see that some here do. ive caught some out before for being a troll and i can smell a fish with some on here. I dont want to talk to trolls do you.

..................


Arguments spill over from other threads and different topics. I stay clear of 911 threads. You wanna see some of my threads the trolls, miss quotes, pro satanists makes these look like a walk in the park.

[john white]

have been made by the npt pigs can fly campain in the last week or so. they are doing there best to cause trouble you can see it a mile away. They are not interested in 911 and at the end of the day they are just insulting the people that died that day. Mods come and go, true so do trolls and there are a few on here. trolls dont last long here. so why dont you troll off to another web site where people might believe in hologram pigs. Most people here believe in the truth not some bullshit hologram so you can make as many threads you like you will go away in the end.

18 threads?

Try @ 26 PAGES of threads out of 31 as a true proportion to the garbage spam (and I have my browser set to maximum threads displayed per page)

This section is drowning is disinformation, is dominated by a handful of cheerleaders and sockpupets, and is an Insult to both 9/11 Truth and David Ickes own views on the subject: it is a tragedy that anyone coming to David Ickes forum will get the opposite of Truth about 9/11 from a significant proprtion of the material here

Still thats forums for you, at least if the conspiracy theory victims are focusing on here they have less time to make pains of themselves on more credible forums (as far as 9/11 is concerned)

[limelady]

Yes, and anymore unnecessary NPT threads will be merged with others already here.....there is surely enough of them already....some would likely say far too many already! :cool:

[dave52]

Let's not forget that most good no-plane discussions on here tend to get hi-jacked and turned into arguments. Some people just don't want us talking about no-planes. Maybe a certain degree of control could be employed...?

Having said that, I think it would be good for MFP just to have one great big Judy Wood appreciation thread where he can add links to her latest offerings, rather than a new thread every ten minutes.

[john white]

Let's not forget that most good no-plane discussions on here tend to get hi-jacked and turned into arguments

Well Dave heres your chance to start turning that around and debating the issues

Some resources to help you out:

from http://911disinformation.com

Videos (http://www.911disinformation.com/noplanes/NoPlanesCounterEvidence.html#EvidenceVideosAnchor)

Plane Photos (http://www.911disinformation.com/noplanes/NoPlanesCounterEvidence.html#EvidencePlanePhotosAn chor)

Plane Parts (http://www.911disinformation.com/noplanes/NoPlanesCounterEvidence.html#EvidencePlanePartPhot osAnchor)

Eyewitnesses (http://www.911disinformation.com/noplanes/NoPlanesCounterEvidence.html#EyeWitnessesAnchor)

Eyewitnesses (1st Hand) (http://www.911disinformation.com/noplanes/NoPlanesCounterEvidence.html#FirstHandEyeWitnesses )

Eyewitnesses (2nd Hand) (http://www.911disinformation.com/noplanes/NoPlanesCounterEvidence.html#EyeWitnesses2ndHandAn chor)

Earwitnesses (http://www.911disinformation.com/noplanes/NoPlanesCounterEvidence.html#EarWitnessesAnchor)

Plane Debris Eyewitnesses (http://www.911disinformation.com/noplanes/NoPlanesCounterEvidence.html#PlaneDebrisEyeWitness esAnchor)

Miscellaneous Eyewitnesses (http://www.911disinformation.com/noplanes/NoPlanesCounterEvidence.html#MiscEyeWitnessesAncho r)


see also:

from http://georgewashington.blogspot.com

No Planes Theory: R.I.P. (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/09/no-planes-theory-rip.html)

The Fatal Flaw in the No Plane Theory (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2001/09/fatal-flaw-in-no-plane-theory.html)

and:

from http://arabesque911.blogspot.com

9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Definitions and Examples (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/911-disinformation-and-misinformation.html)

September Clues, TV Fakery: Debunked (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/september-clues-debunked.html)

The 9/11 Plane Theories and the "Conspiracy Theory Method" (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/07/no-plane-disinformation-and-conspiracy_21.html)

and:

from http://journalof911studies.com

A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories (http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf) by Eric Salter

Interpreting the Boeing-767 Deceleration During Impact with the WTC Tower: Center of Mass Versus Tail-end Motion, and Instantaneous Versus Average Velocity (http://journalof911studies.com/letters/Boeing767DecelerationTowers.pdf) by Dr Greg Jenkins

and finally:

Debunking "September Clues" (http://truthaction.org/debunkingseptemberclues.pdf) by Nick Irving

[raffles]

Hey john, what the biggest piece of info you've seen that destroys the ntp ?

[john white]

Hey john, what the biggest piece of info you've seen that destroys the ntp ?

Hmmm interesting question

I wouldnt over focus on any one peice of information: any single point of view can be argued against by anyone with a modicum of skill so saying "this single point proves it" is a bit of a noob thing to do truthseeking wise

Looking at the big picture, its a theory that postulates total control of every image and every witness. That in itself is an extraordinary proposition for an event with such an orgy of evidence. With an event with very little evidence, like the pentagon or shanksville, its easier to see that the presentation of that situation could be controled.

With thousands in New York gawping at the towers at the time of the second hit, especially the crowds from across the Hudson with excellent views (over those close up in manhatten), hundreds of cameras from all different angles and distances, and the images being utterly consistant every single time, NPT has an enourmous mountain to climb right from the start, and has to declare "LIAR! AGENT!" for every single person who witnessed events in New york. One single genuine image, one single genuine witness: its then all over for NPT. I'd say a lot of 9/11activists recognise this very swiftly, and the question then becomes "whats going on in the heads of those who dont?"

Then there are the troubling problems of creating the plane shaped damaged in the exterior of the towers and simulating the fireball without a plane to cause it (Thats a LOT of jet fuel to have stored up there ready and NO missile could produce a fuel fireball that massive)

Finally we can look at all the obvious frauds misclaims and misdirections, the refusal to take responsibility for those claims, the repitition of those claims inspite of compelling evidence demonstrating there falsity, and the general atagonistic attitude of the main movers and shakers (Judy Wood, Killtown Fred Webfairy etc etc) and we end up with a theory only fit for the bin pile

[boots]

Another thing that bugs me with this no plane theory

How would they fake the noise of the two planes before and at impact?

What was it holographic sound now:rolleyes:

[cheeney1]

And Holographic Buildings with Halographic People Dying..:rolleyes:
Nearly 3000 of Them

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

Hi John:

Those last two Posts of yours are so excellent, I 'screenshot' them and 'Bookmarked' them.

You're doin a helluva job, thank you



Kind Regards: Snoops

[masonfree party]

Remember shill HQ employed an Eton boy called Anthony Lawson to try and debunk the nose out ,nose in evidence ...this appeared on nineeleven.co.uk as a 'sticky ' thread and got 20,000 hits...later Lawson's account was suspended for whatever reason.But why make his pathetic debunking film a 'sticky'....the mods there have alot of explaining to do

http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/7441869F563747B3AF0D66273C8BAB7E/nosed-out.aspx

watch and learn Dondaz..the plane appears to pierce the building..words of the reporter not mine

[ekx_dissillusioned]

Remember shill HQ employed an Eton boy called Anthony Lawson to try and debunk the nose out ,nose in evidence ...this appeared on nineeleven.co.uk as a 'sticky ' thread and got 20,000 hits...later Lawson's account was suspended for whatever reason.But why make his pathetic debunking film a 'sticky'....the mods there have alot of explaining to do

http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/7441869F563747B3AF0D66273C8BAB7E/nosed-out.aspx

watch and learn Dondaz..the plane appears to pierce the building..words of the reporter not mine


Contradicts your whole "space laser" theory. Or is the laser beam dressed up as a plane, that just so conveniently pops through the other side as a laser disguised as a plane?

It's an interesting video but it doesn't really prove your npt at all.

[llogun]

Remember shill HQ employed an Eton boy called Anthony Lawson to try and debunk the nose out ,nose in evidence ...this appeared on nineeleven.co.uk as a 'sticky ' thread and got 20,000 hits...later Lawson's account was suspended for whatever reason.But why make his pathetic debunking film a 'sticky'....the mods there have alot of explaining to do

http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/7441869F563747B3AF0D66273C8BAB7E/nosed-out.aspx

watch and learn Dondaz..the plane appears to pierce the building..words of the reporter not mine

You are the one that wants to watch and learn. i cant believe you keep going on about crap you are the sort of person that will keep going on. Why. Because you are not here for the truth. you just keep going round and round like a broken record. you cant pull the wool over my eyes as to what your game is. If i was you, you need to read some of david icke books, he as wrote a really good one about the trade centers hes a very good researcher and he knows a lot about holograms too. Have a read and see what you think.

[masonfree party]

You are the one that wants to watch and learn. i cant believe you keep going on about crap you are the sort of person that will keep going on. Why. Because you are not here for the truth. you just keep going round and round like a broken record. you cant pull the wool over my eyes as to what your game is. If i was you, you need to read some of david icke books, he as wrote a really good one about the trade centers hes a very good researcher and he knows a lot about holograms too. Have a read and see what you think.


read most of his books years ago...anyway why go on about holograms...just stick to the facts...aluminium planes cannot travel right through massive concrete and steel skyscrapers and the nose cone appear intact the other side...ffs use ya brain....and also there was no wreckage found of the phantom plane ...its not rocket science mate!

[masonfree party]

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=2455

The first Sept Clues came out on June 5, 2007. Lawson's put out his first 9/11 video (WTC 7) exactly one month later: July 5, 2007. After that, he's been all about trying to debunk NPT, just as NPT is starting to really take off in popularity/acceptance.


In one of his anti-NPT videos, he credits the following people:


QUOTE
Eric Salter, Xenomorph, Nick Irving, & Chek


I'm not too familiar with Xenomorph and Nick Irving, but Salter is perhaps the most well-known "truther" who only seems to debunk truther theories and "Chek" is well known as one of the biggest POS trolls and anti-NPTers at the UK troll forum that is, most likely, controlled by perps and just like Salter and Lawson, "Chek" seems to only spend his time at that forum trying to debunk NPT.


Lawson is obviously well educated and has a knack for making persuasive videos, so the burning question is:

If Anthony Lawson is a legit truther, why does he spend most of his time debunking no-plane theories and not the official story?

As this 10% truther says in one of his videos:


QUOTE
"It is impossible to know the true agendas of some of these apparent 9/11 truth sites"


I agree. What is your true agenda Lawson?


I think it's clear what Lawson's true agenda is in the 9/11 truth movement is by "visual identification based on experience," or as Lawson says in his snooty English voice:

"This is an orange."

[llogun]

your the one going on about holograms. At the end of the day you are not here for the truth .Its as clear as day, you are here to try to put people off from learning which you wont do. The only reason im talking to you is because i want to let people know the workings of trolls but i think most can see that now. Why dont you just keep going on about holograms and holograms and more holograms. Thats what trolls do keep going on and on and dodging questions and you have got 1st price for being one. One day you might wake up.

[masonfree party]

your the one going on about holograms. At the end of the day you are not here for the truth .Its as clear as day, you are here to try to put people off from learning which you wont do. The only reason im talking to you is because i want to let people know the workings of trolls but i think most can see that now. Why dont you just keep going on about holograms and holograms and more holograms. Thats what trolls do keep going on and on and dodging questions and you have got 1st price for being one. One day you might wake up.

thats a blatant lie ! i've never mentioned holograms..its shayler and Lear who have done that...for obvious reasons i may add...i'd rather stick to the hard evidence that judy wood and morgan reynolds portray on their websites:

judywood.com nomoregames.net

[llogun]

your not having me on a string. you no i no what you are here for bye troll

[dave52]

Well Dave heres your chance to start turning that around and debating the issue

Ok John, that's a lot of info to get through (and please bear in mind I have a Family, Job, etc).

I will respond to this info, but it'll take a bit of time.

Right off the bat - the photos and videos (not that many of them loaded for me) are a little bit tricky as my whole thing is TV and Image fakery. I will say though, that most of the plane part pictures have no points of reference. And a picture of a truck with the words "Aircraft Parts" sprayed on the back really doesn't count for much. If I spray-paint the word "Dragon" on the back of my car, it doesn't mean there is a dragon in my car.

The Bob and Bri "what we saw" video is cut at the point of plane impact, so nothing to see there. Maybe they suffered from the same "blast wave fucks up video" problem that the Naudet footage had problems with.

You got unnamed witnesses on video, and the guy with the glasses (who was on the roof - I forget his name) got called out ages ago. He didn't see a damned thing.

Give me some time John. Ok...?

[dondaz]

http://www.livevideo.com/video/socia...nosed-out.aspx (http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/7441869F563747B3AF0D66273C8BAB7E/nosed-out.aspx)

watch and learn Dondaz..the plane appears to pierce the building..words of the reporter not mine

More waffle! I've already seen enough of what you have presented in this forum and I've had you try it to me in person. The game is up mate, you've been well and truly rumbled. I'm not asking for a confession from you because I know what I know!

You're the one that has to live with yourself!

Good thread llogun.

[dave52]

A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories (http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf) by Eric Salter

Salter Absurdity Update (http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=80)

It seems as thought Salter (The video expert) may have been out of the game for a few years after all...

[john white]

Salter Absurdity Update (http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=80)

It seems as thought Salter (The video expert) may have been out of the game for a few years after all...

Right

You ask me for some time and the first thing you come back with is a character smear?

Just piss off until you get serious is what I feel like typing, so there you are: I just have

[john white]

Right having expressed my feelings

Dave:

This is what you need to address:

As it explains, we cannot descern truth from any single peice of evidence or where its come from, but from the summation of the whole

Hey john, what the biggest piece of info you've seen that destroys the ntp ?

Hmmm interesting question

I wouldnt over focus on any one peice of information: any single point of view can be argued against by anyone with a modicum of skill so saying "this single point proves it" is a bit of a noob thing to do truthseeking wise

Looking at the big picture, its a theory that postulates total control of every image and every witness. That in itself is an extraordinary proposition for an event with such an orgy of evidence. With an event with very little evidence, like the pentagon or shanksville, its easier to see that the presentation of that situation could be controled.

With thousands in New York gawping at the towers at the time of the second hit, especially the crowds from across the Hudson with excellent views (over those close up in manhatten), hundreds of cameras from all different angles and distances, and the images being utterly consistant every single time, NPT has an enourmous mountain to climb right from the start, and has to declare "LIAR! AGENT!" for every single person who witnessed events in New york. One single genuine image, one single genuine witness: its then all over for NPT. I'd say a lot of 9/11activists recognise this very swiftly, and the question then becomes "whats going on in the heads of those who dont?"

Then there are the troubling problems of creating the plane shaped damaged in the exterior of the towers and simulating the fireball without a plane to cause it (Thats a LOT of jet fuel to have stored up there ready and NO missile could produce a fuel fireball that massive)

Finally we can look at all the obvious frauds misclaims and misdirections, the refusal to take responsibility for those claims, the repitition of those claims inspite of compelling evidence demonstrating there falsity, and the general atagonistic attitude of the main movers and shakers (Judy Wood, Killtown Fred Webfairy etc etc) and we end up with a theory only fit for the bin pile

(Dondaz)

This needs some serious debunking JW, but I don't think there's a living soul that could actually challenge what you have just said! Sums the npt up lock stock and smoking barrels.

Challenge the info guys!

[john white]

Bring this back to this discussion:

Let's not forget that most good no-plane discussions on here tend to get hi-jacked and turned into arguments

Well Dave heres your chance to start turning that around and debating the issues

Some resources to help you out:

from http://911disinformation.com

Videos (http://www.911disinformation.com/noplanes/NoPlanesCounterEvidence.html#EvidenceVideosAnchor)

Plane Photos (http://www.911disinformation.com/noplanes/NoPlanesCounterEvidence.html#EvidencePlanePhotosAn chor)

Plane Parts (http://www.911disinformation.com/noplanes/NoPlanesCounterEvidence.html#EvidencePlanePartPhot osAnchor)

Eyewitnesses (http://www.911disinformation.com/noplanes/NoPlanesCounterEvidence.html#EyeWitnessesAnchor)

Eyewitnesses (1st Hand) (http://www.911disinformation.com/noplanes/NoPlanesCounterEvidence.html#FirstHandEyeWitnesses )

Eyewitnesses (2nd Hand) (http://www.911disinformation.com/noplanes/NoPlanesCounterEvidence.html#EyeWitnesses2ndHandAn chor)

Earwitnesses (http://www.911disinformation.com/noplanes/NoPlanesCounterEvidence.html#EarWitnessesAnchor)

Plane Debris Eyewitnesses (http://www.911disinformation.com/noplanes/NoPlanesCounterEvidence.html#PlaneDebrisEyeWitness esAnchor)

Miscellaneous Eyewitnesses (http://www.911disinformation.com/noplanes/NoPlanesCounterEvidence.html#MiscEyeWitnessesAncho r)


see also:

from http://georgewashington.blogspot.com

No Planes Theory: R.I.P. (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/09/no-planes-theory-rip.html)

The Fatal Flaw in the No Plane Theory (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2001/09/fatal-flaw-in-no-plane-theory.html)

and:

from http://arabesque911.blogspot.com

9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Definitions and Examples (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/911-disinformation-and-misinformation.html)

September Clues, TV Fakery: Debunked (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/september-clues-debunked.html)

The 9/11 Plane Theories and the "Conspiracy Theory Method" (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/07/no-plane-disinformation-and-conspiracy_21.html)

and:

from http://journalof911studies.com

A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories (http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf) by Eric Salter

Interpreting the Boeing-767 Deceleration During Impact with the WTC Tower: Center of Mass Versus Tail-end Motion, and Instantaneous Versus Average Velocity (http://journalof911studies.com/letters/Boeing767DecelerationTowers.pdf) by Dr Greg Jenkins

and finally:

Debunking "September Clues" (http://truthaction.org/debunkingseptemberclues.pdf) by Nick Irving

[dave52]

Right

You ask me for some time and the first thing you come back with is a character smear?

Actually, the first thing I came back with was:

Right off the bat - the photos and videos (not that many of them loaded for me) are a little bit tricky as my whole thing is TV and Image fakery. I will say though, that most of the plane part pictures have no points of reference. And a picture of a truck with the words "Aircraft Parts" sprayed on the back really doesn't count for much. If I spray-paint the word "Dragon" on the back of my car, it doesn't mean there is a dragon in my car.

The Bob and Bri "what we saw" video is cut at the point of plane impact, so nothing to see there. Maybe they suffered from the same "blast wave fucks up video" problem that the Naudet footage had problems with.

You got unnamed witnesses on video, and the guy with the glasses (who was on the roof - I forget his name) got called out ages ago. He didn't see a damned thing.

The "character smear" wasn't meant to be a character smear, it was a link to some investigation into Eric Salter's work and conversations with him, as is this...

http://www.geocities.com/aa11analysis/angryeric.htm

You don't want to talk about the frame cut in the Bob and Bri footage...?

[gribz]

have been made by the npt pigs can fly campain in the last week or so. they are doing there best to cause trouble you can see it a mile away. They are not interested in 911 and at the end of the day they are just insulting the people that died that day. Mods come and go, true so do trolls and there are a few on here. trolls dont last long here. so why dont you troll off to another web site where people might believe in hologram pigs. Most people here believe in the truth not some bullshit hologram so you can make as many threads you like you will go away in the end.

Ok, can I just ask you 1 simple question.

Do you believe American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon??

This is the easiest decision to make on 9/11 - there is absolutely no way that plane hit that building. So are we just supposed to run a truth movement but claim that a plane that didnt exsist or hit was involved??

The hologram argument and the NPT are 2 totally different things.

Maybe we should change the question to NCPT - No Commercial Plane Theory! Because not 1 part of any commercial plane part has been found at any location.

[llogun]

it was missle and you can see the hole were it went in

[john white]

Actually, the first thing I came back with was:



The "character smear" wasn't meant to be a character smear, it was a link to some investigation into Eric Salter's work and conversations with him, as is this...

http://www.geocities.com/aa11analysis/angryeric.htm

You don't want to talk about the frame cut in the Bob and Bri footage...?

You mean do I want to concentrate on a small peice of minutae as an EXCUSE to avoid any consideration of the theory as a whole?

Thats where your going wrong Dave

YES IT WAS a character smear: Holmgren just looking to cast any bit of doubt he could on Salter

Why was he doing that?

So that HE could avoid having to confront the problems with the theory as a whole!

Bob and Bri Video doesnt show the impact you say:

Lets LINK it first so we can see what we are looking at shall we?

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-5370762387415552903&hl=en

Well it shows a whole lot, but you know its a funny thing The woman was in dreadful shock watching from her apartment had a camera on the towers for 20 mins, and just happened to have stopped filming when the second impact happened!

Shes a person Dave: this stuff happens!

But a human being happens to miss the vital moment on a home-made video and that for you proves no Planes theory? Is that what your saying to me?

Sod the masses of people who saw the impact, sod all the other evidence, one manahatten resident didnt have the lens pointing the right way at the exact moment: NPT shoe in?

Its not as if the credible reason to conclude a plane hit the towers is based ONLY on her video is it?

Even though you would seem to like it to be.... and it avoids confroting the footage where there IS "something to see"

And again: Video and explosive impacts dont always get on together (when I mentioned the Naudet brothers footage) : You see conspiracy I see photograpahy!

You Scoff I see physical truth: and all of these claims of missing footage are never proven anyway, its just CLAIMS: of a FRAME cut! For heavens sake:

What about the frames that are there even if you believe there are frames that arnt?

But again, all this "frame cut" quibbling has one purpose

To avoid confronting the theory as a whole!

Same with you: Same with Holmgren!

[lizzy]

Yes, and anymore unnecessary NPT threads will be merged with others already here.....there is surely enough of them already....some would likely say far too many already! :cool:

Is that really the correct approach LL?

IMO , 911 is of the MOST major importance. If anything the more this subject stays on the front burner , the better.

No plane went into the Penagon, so why is'nt it possible that 'smoke and mirrors' were used on the towers as well.

It is the most pivotal event in our lifetime. It has heralded the NWO's hundred years war to consolidate humanities global chains.

[limelady]

Is that really the correct approach LL?

IMO , 911 is of the MOST major importance. If anything the more this subject stays on the front burner , the better.

No plane went into the Penagon, so why is'nt it possible that 'smoke and mirrors' were used on the towers as well.

It is the most pivotal event in our lifetime. It has heralded the NWO's hundred years war to consolidate humanities global chains.


Oh I agree that the NPT has every right to be discussed here Lizzy, and in my book it certainly IS possible no planes hit the twin towers that day, so the last thing I'd ever do is attempt to silence any 9/11 NPT discussion.... besides which, I'm still undecided myself on much of what happened that day. But surely there is no need to start so many threads when there are already threads discussing the same issues that posts can be added to?

[dave52]

Calm down John - deep breaths...

Bob and Bri Video doesnt show the impact you say:

Lets LINK it first so we can see what we are looking at shall we?

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-5370762387415552903&hl=en

Well it shows a whole lot, but you know its a funny thing The woman was in dreadful shock watching from her apartment had a camera on the towers for 20 mins, and just happened to have stopped filming when the second impact happened!


You linked this video as part of the NPT Rebutal. I'm merely pointing out that footage that doesn't show an impact is pointless. In fact it adds to my argument and takes away from yours.


I see physical truth: and all of these claims of missing footage are never proven anyway, its just CLAIMS: of a FRAME cut! For heavens sake

Just to be clear, people need to skip to 11:30 on the linked video. She didn't happen to stop filming and miss the impact. The impact has been cut from this footage. I suspect there are only a few seconds missing. What I find interesting is that, even though the forground noise is cut with the image (you can catch the end of the people in the room saying "God"), the sirens in the background seem to be cross faded rather than there being an abrupt cut.

Also notice the "Oh My God" mantra, similar to the "Holy Shit" mantra that's all over 9/11. I link again the "Oh My God" video that you dismissed a little while ago, just incase others viewing this thread missed it.

Oh My God (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjYnnnh9Ros)


it was missle and you can see the hole were it went in

So they could've used missiles at the WTC, and then used video fakery and the constant mind control "see the plane, see the plane" mantra to reinforce the myth of planes... yes...?

No plane went into the Penagon, so why is'nt it possible that 'smoke and mirrors' were used on the towers as well.


Yes, that is what I'm trying to say. Good shout Lizzy.

[mr_self_destruct]

How many no-planers are prepared to admit that EVEN IF there were no planes, it's an argument that would NEVER be accepted by the vast majority of humankind? It's just too far out there for most people to comprehend. That's the reason it should be dropped, IMO (as if it's going to be).

[dave52]

How many no-planers are prepared to admit that EVEN IF there were no planes, it's an argument that would NEVER be accepted by the vast majority of humankind? It's just too far out there for most people to comprehend. That's the reason it should be dropped, IMO (as if it's going to be).

Yes, I am prepared to admit, it's a long way out there and may never be swallowed by the public. But don't fool yourself into thinking that Loose Change is universally accepted by the man in the street. We are all nut-job conspiracy loons as far as the masses are concerned.

So rather than pandering to a public that will never wake up anyway, we should look into all the possibilities.

[john white]

You linked this video as part of the NPT Rebutal. I'm merely pointing out that footage that doesn't show an impact is pointless. In fact it adds to my argument and takes away from yours.

Actually it shows you havnt understood the site very well: its video resources to show what happened that day: its not "video resources to disprove NPT": some of the pictures are actually from killtowns site! In that sources are referenced: thats some images of plane parts btw

Its called "letting the evidence speak for itself" (and it speaks of planes)

So Dave, here we have you choosing to pick one video that doesnt show what you want to think its about showing, becuase its actually simply about one record of events, from a good perspective btw

Errr but the camera didnt record the impact? so what?

What about all the camera that did?

What about the eyewitness evidence recorded on that tape?

Does that "not count" for you?

Are you calling the woman a LIAR becuase she states on that film she saw a plane (not a commercial plane in her pov btw) fly into the tower?

You are, arnt you Dave?

Well arnt you?

"Shes a Liar" you say, "and the proof is she did'nt record the second impact on tape"

"And Im going to ignore all the other evidnece and cling to this one little bit becuase then I can claim to myself that I've looked at the evidence"

Please! If thats good enough for you, then fair enough, but its also a joke

[mr_self_destruct]

So rather than pandering to a public that will never wake up anyway, we should look into all the possibilities.

That sounds a bit defeatist...are you suggesting this while still having a view to prosecutions, or has the issue become more of a personal mystery for you? I wouldn't judge that by the way, if that's the case, that would be entirely your prerogative.

[lizzy]

Oh I agree that the NPT has every right to be discussed here Lizzy, and in my book it certainly IS possible no planes hit the twin towers that day, so the last thing I'd ever do is attempt to silence any 9/11 NPT discussion.... besides which, I'm still undecided myself on much of what happened that day. But surely there is no need to start so many threads when there are already threads discussing the same issues that posts can be added to?

Ok, Gottcha LL.:)

[dave52]

its not "video resources to disprove NPT"

I never said that the website was about disproving NPT, you put it forward as part of your evidence to disprove NPT.


Errr but the camera didnt record the impact? so what?

What about all the camera that did?

Well, that is kinda the basis for the TV fakery investigation John, this camera had it's footage cut as did the Naudet second hit. There are only a handful of shots that show the impact, and we've discussed them to death. We wont agree.


Are you calling the woman a LIAR

Quite frankly John, I don't know her from Adam. Do we have her name, her background, her occupation? Do we know why this footage took so long to be released (a good couple of years wasn't it?).

Do you want to discuss the audio? Or the "Oh my God" woman..?

[dave52]

That sounds a bit defeatist...are you suggesting this while still having a view to prosecutions, or has the issue become more of a personal mystery for you? I wouldn't judge that by the way, if that's the case, that would be entirely your prerogative.

No, it's not defeatist, although it does feel a little hopeless at times. I'm merely saying that we can agree that the Official Story is a lie, but I'm not convinced that the Loose Change default conspiracy viewpoint goes far enough.

If it comes to prosecutions, it would be good to nail the right people. All the right people.

[john white]

Well, that is kinda the basis for the TV fakery investigation John, this camera had it's footage cut as did the Naudet second hit. There are only a handful of shots that show the impact, and we've discussed them to death. We wont agree.


CUT? did it? did it? CUT?

Why is an amatuer camera person not expecting another damn plane to hit the other damn building putting the camera down and missing the shot such a hard thing for you to accept?

But oh no! Its cut!

LOL

Look, missing the point again, there are certianly far more than "a handful" of shots that do capture the 2nd impact (whats a handful dave? 5? !0?)

So why dont you get on with dealing with some of them?

Becuase otherwise what we have here is your retreating to the safety of the "safe" zone where you can maintain your belief without having to confront that which dissolves your belief.

No I'm sure we wont agree thats whats going on, even though it is

[dave52]

But oh no! Its cut!

Yes John, yes it is.

the "safe" zone where you can maintain your belief without having to confront that which dissolves your belief.

Er... Ok. As we can't face the concept of video fakery, let's try physics fakery. Can you explain to me how this plane dissolves into the building (and can we please not pretend that the building is only made of glass and air - that's very silly).

WTC Second Hit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mksti5xcT6E)

Pay particular attention to the way the right wing slices in without any resistance...

Just for some background info, here is an interesting documentary on how the WTC was constructed.

Building the WTC Towers (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3135892053682639810)

[john white]

Can you explain to me how this plane dissolves into the building

You what?

It doesnt: it impacts the building

Shall we talk about interlacing, resolution and the properties of Video? Shall we talk about Video footage being deliberately tampered with by NPT pushers like Webfairy? Shall we talk about Web fairy deliberatley reducing resolution and removing 75% of frames in order to create the famed "melting" effect?

Want to face up to that Dave? Want to face up to TV fakery FRAUD by the characters behind NPT?

Been there done that, with you: I REMEMBER

But you can just ignore all that then can you Dave?

Just as you can ignore the fact that YES, you are calling the people in the "Bob and Bri" Video that YOU demanded I look at liars but now want to dive into "melting planes" to avoid the responsibility for facing up to the meaning of your own opinions

Your such a coward!

Why is it so hard for you to say "yes that is what I mean: they didnt record the second impact becuase it didnt happen becuase there was no plane, therefore they are liars"

Whys that Dave?

You dont want to upset them?

Or you dont want to face the truth about your own beliefs?

Its easier for you to lie about mine, is it?

Er... Ok. As we can't face the concept of video fakery, let's try physics fakery. Can you explain to me how this plane dissolves into the building (and can we please not pretend that the building is only made of glass and air - that's very silly).


And try and claim I dont know how the WTC was contructed?

Its you who dont know!

Surface area mostly glass! FACT

Internal volume mostly air! FACT

Light steel latice exterior framwork in interlocking sectional panels clad in aluminium! FACT

Solid steel interior columns welded into 48 contiguous beams that ran the height of the building! FACT

So what are you dribbling about?

Oh I know! "An aircraft traveling at 500 miles an hour impacting that sationary tower didnt have the nessacary mass to produce enough energy on impact to smash theough the exterior lattice and for parts of it that didnt impact the central core to exit the other side?"

Thats what you mean isnt it Dave? Isnt it? Care to deny that? Got the courage to admit that?

YOU WHAT?

Wheres your maths to show it should bounce of like a rubber ball?

Wheres your science?

Guess what I've got on my "side" here pal? Shall I post the equations?

Its more than you can! But of course, you wouldnt understand them anyway

[dave52]

Just as you can ignore the fact that YES, you are calling the people in the "Bob and Bri" Video that YOU demanded I look at liars

Actually, I didn't say they were liars, because I don't know if they are or not. They appear to have allowed an edited version of their video get uploaded to the web with their names still attached to it. The fact that she says she saw a plane that didn't look like a comercial aircraft could point to the possibility of a missile. Which could account for the editing of the video.


Your such a coward!

Why thankyou.... thankyou very much...


Why is it so hard for you to say "yes that is what I mean: they didnt record the second impact becuase it didnt happen becuase there was no plane, therefore they are liars"

I never said there was no impact - I said it wasn't a plane.


Guess what I've got on my "side" here pal? Shall I post the equations?

Its more than you can! But of course, you wouldnt understand them anyway

I'd like to see your equations. I might not be able to get my head around all of them, but it will give me something to work on. Could you start by telling me how you determined the speed of the aircraft, because I'm not sure that this information is available.

Thanks. :)

[synergy777]

npt could be a deliberate tactic to discredit the 911/false flag.

the false flag was neocon/cia/mossad job, which could have been a combo job of agents and hawk/aircraft control software. using software they override the controls of the plane and most probobaly give it cordinates/etc to fly to.

also why have some of the highjackers turned up alive after the event ? why did the highjackers have crash proof passports that fell to the floor outisde of the towers ?

[dave52]

Hi Synergy777, I'm not sure what you mean... Do you think NPT is a distraction from remote controlled planes...? And high-jackers turning up alive could back up NPT or remote controlled planes.

[graflok]

NPT is a conspiracy to invalidate the real 9/11 conspiracy which is to spread the
idea of reptilians in order to invalidate the real NWO conspiracy and distract us from
the shooter on the grassy knoll which was a conspiracy to debunk the real
assassin who was the driver of the car.


Please note: No part of this post should be construed as an insult to the dead
because I have only the highest regard for the dead and always have. In fact,
some of my favorite people are dead.

[mr_self_destruct]

The no planers need to produce a decent documentary. September Clues and 9/11 Amateur are just that - amateur.

[graflok]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N2RrQWsGes

[steevo]

It's funny how they let the NPT onto Fox News and dont ridicule the theory or demonise this fellar :cool:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q8tA2iqaXo&feature=related

[dave52]

It's funny how they let the NPT onto Fox News and dont ridicule the theory or demonise this fellar :cool:

I agree, I think Morgan Reynolds was lucky to be on with that host rather than O'Reily or Hannity and Colmes. But that is one of only two NPT interviews that I've ever seen on mainstream media (the other being Shayler on Sky News in the UK - but I'm certain they didn't know he was gonna talk about that - and he took them all by suprise).

It might be interesting to see how much air time Alex Jones, David Ray Griffin, Dylan Avery and Webster Tarpley have been given since 9/11.

[mr_pixie]

I agree, I think Morgan Reynolds was lucky to be on with that host rather than O'Reily or Hannity and Colmes. But that is one of only two NPT interviews that I've ever seen on mainstream media (the other being Shayler on Sky News in the UK - but I'm certain they didn't know he was gonna talk about that - and he took them all by suprise).

It might be interesting to see how much air time Alex Jones, David Ray Griffin, Dylan Avery and Webster Tarpley have been given since 9/11.


David Ray Griffin has been given a platform at the EU Parliament, what does that tell you?

[mr_pixie]

npt could be a deliberate tactic to discredit the 911/false flag.

the false flag was neocon/cia/mossad job, which could have been a combo job of agents and hawk/aircraft control software. using software they override the controls of the plane and most probobaly give it cordinates/etc to fly to.

also why have some of the highjackers turned up alive after the event ? why did the highjackers have crash proof passports that fell to the floor outisde of the towers ?


The highjackers turned up alive after the event because there were no planes :)

[synergy777]

i think there were planes, but with cia/mossad operatives and remote control hijacking, as the flightpaths were quite accurate for amateur pilots, the lone gunmen tv show hypothesis

i could be wrong, to me the most important thing of 911 is the controlled demolition of the towers, falling into their own footprint at an alarming rate, and so quickly after the planes hitting them.

this shows planning, hence foreknowledge.

also the sudden change in volumes of options trading, with regards to the airlines involved, alot of money was made on the fact the shares of the air companies fell.

[mr_self_destruct]

This discussion was quite interesting, especially the bit about the supposed "nose-out" shot at the end (20 mins+):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4669137903152322593&q=ace+baker&ei=o-c2SIiYOo3-2gL3uszfAw

[dondaz]

We are all nut-job conspiracy loons as far as the masses are concerned.

That's not true at all. The masses know something is wrong with the official 911 version and they themselves are asking questions about it big time. Which is why the npt has been engineered to distort the real issues that we can prove. The masses are waking up mate. Don't kid yourself otherwise!

I will refure back to this what john has said:


Hey john, what the biggest piece of info you've seen that destroys the ntp ?
Hmmm interesting question

I wouldnt over focus on any one peice of information: any single point of view can be argued against by anyone with a modicum of skill so saying "this single point proves it" is a bit of a noob thing to do truthseeking wise

Looking at the big picture, its a theory that postulates total control of every image and every witness. That in itself is an extraordinary proposition for an event with such an orgy of evidence. With an event with very little evidence, like the pentagon or shanksville, its easier to see that the presentation of that situation could be controled.

With thousands in New York gawping at the towers at the time of the second hit, especially the crowds from across the Hudson with excellent views (over those close up in manhatten), hundreds of cameras from all different angles and distances, and the images being utterly consistant every single time, NPT has an enourmous mountain to climb right from the start, and has to declare "LIAR! AGENT!" for every single person who witnessed events in New york. One single genuine image, one single genuine witness: its then all over for NPT. I'd say a lot of 9/11activists recognise this very swiftly, and the question then becomes "whats going on in the heads of those who dont?"

Then there are the troubling problems of creating the plane shaped damaged in the exterior of the towers and simulating the fireball without a plane to cause it (Thats a LOT of jet fuel to have stored up there ready and NO missile could produce a fuel fireball that massive)

Finally we can look at all the obvious frauds misclaims and misdirections, the refusal to take responsibility for those claims, the repitition of those claims inspite of compelling evidence demonstrating there falsity, and the general atagonistic attitude of the main movers and shakers (Judy Wood, Killtown Fred Webfairy etc etc) and we end up with a theory only fit for the bin pile

Still waiting for this info to be debunked. But you npt won't get into it will you. 'Just skip that part, no-one will notice if we change the subject and throw another piece of trash footage in there. All nice and innocently, to create a false perception of themselves and leave themselves with plausible denyibility. Typical masonic/tavstock trick, only the most guilible get conned by it!

[llogun]

Yes there was hundreds of people watching the trade centers that day after the first plane hit the first tower. I cant see hundreds of people coming forword saying they didnt see a plane hit the second tower and the reason why is because a plane hit it. Its that simple. For the ones who make a post saying there were people who didnt see a plane hit the trade center ANSWER they was not looking

[dave52]

There were hundreds of people watching the tower that was on fire, not the one that was fine and dandy.

Without doubt some people saw something hit the second tower, but most probably only saw the explosion. Of those that did see something hit the tower, many were probably unsure as to what it was, but assumed it was a plane. By the time that they went to bed that evening, the news media would've convinced them it was a plane.

Would this look like a plane if you only caught it out of the corner of your eye for a split second...?

http://www.armedforces.co.uk/navy/listings/navytomahawkb.jpg

[dave52]

Still waiting for this info to be debunked.

And I'm still waiting for John's calculations...

[mr_self_destruct]

Did you watch the last video I linked to in this thread, Dave52? Because that pretty much debunked the "nose out" clip IMO (they tracked the speed of the supposed CGI plane and showed that the clip couldn't be a "nose out" animation error, as it would have appeared through the other side of the tower much sooner).

I've been thinking about the no plane theory a lot. I no longer think it's outside the realms of possibility, as when you think about it it would actually be the safest and easiest way of carrying out the operation. I think it would also be very possible to make everyone believe something had happened when it actually hadn't. However, the evidence just isn't convincing enough for me and the nose-out debunk mentioned above was compelling.

[gribz]

Good shout Dave52 - Its pretty much what I think hit the south tower, but it was probably modified with wings.

[dave52]

Did you watch the last video I linked to in this thread

Yes, I watched that the other day. I like Ace Baker, he's got a lot more interesting things to say when it comes to the audio side of things imho. I thought the debate ended in a score draw. The nose out is a strange one, I think the video evidence (and that clip in particular) is a strange one. The "debris" could've been part of a missile which is why they tried to cover it with some of the plane cut out, it could've been a CGI mistake, but I think it unlikely that the debris just happened to look like the nose of the plane. I don't buy the "you don't see the plane at the begining because of the camera's light filters". The plane should've been in the wide shot imho.

I too think that the no-planes thing makes sense from an operational point of view. We may never know for sure...