September Clues - New 911 Video

[raffles]

Heres a great new video in 4 parts that does a very good job in explaining that the planes where actually cgi

Part1 http://www.livevideo.com/video/6F393F4DE41C4CF798CBB438E6378129/september-clues-part1.aspx

Part2 http://www.livevideo.com/video/9CA2E0D39C0A44EBA589A972F80FC2A6/september-clues-part2.aspx

Part3 http://www.livevideo.com/video/E0E8DC73928D42D4A01CF664B22E16B5/september-clues-part3.aspx

Part4 http://www.livevideo.com/video/3F706266A8524D6AA3CCC4CFC2F0F257/september-clues-part4.aspx

[john white]

This Vid is the latest production from www.911researchers.com (the group that destroyed scholars for 9/11 truth)

Superficially, it’s convincing, but actually, its nonsense. I advise anyone intrigued by this to research the background of the people producing it: a group that has been pwned for fabricating evidence and engages in vicious character assassination and vilification of "opposing" prominent 9/11 Truthseekers without any convincing evidence, including putting out rumours that genuine eyewitnesses are members of Al Qaeda. I kid you not

Perhaps its well meaning: perhaps not: but the argument it presents is certainly deceptive

It’s also worth reading through the threads in the "Truth Controversies" section of the UK 9/11 forum...

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewforum.php?f=27

As a quick overview of part one: we have the shock revelation that people with a viewpoint on the opposite side of WTC1 didn’t see the plane approach because the building was directly between them and the approaching plane, and so to them, there was a sudden "explosion", and the nose that is not a nose but an engine yet again...

[bigus_dickus]

what a bunch of BS!

[hagbard_celine]

This information is rather like the Pentagon missle sub-theory. There's evidence that says one thing, but other evidence that contradicts it. A dozen witnesses saw flight 77, yet the damage to the Pentagon doesn't fit with it being hit by an airliner. Likewise if this stuff is true then all the witness on the ground who saw the planes had to be wrong. But if it's wrong then where was the plane in the shot before the close-up?

[john white]

This information is rather like the Pentagon missle sub-theory. There's evidence that says one thing, but other evidence that contradicts it. A dozen witnesses saw flight 77, yet the damage to the Pentagon doesn't fit with it being hit by an airliner. Likewise if this stuff is true then all the witness on the ground who saw the planes had to be wrong. But if it's wrong then where was the plane in the shot before the close-up?

Oh the whole TV fakery hypothesis is in worse trouble worse than that... eyewitnesses, per se, don't mean so much in any situation, becuase of how human perception works: ask any courtroom ;)

BUT: (and this is one of only many salient points) the TV fakery argument always hinges on "mistakes" in "CGI" (it has to, the mistakes have to be there or there would be no evidence of fakery!): but the explosive fireballs always match in every shot from every angle in existance, every time: and fireballs are far more difficult to CGI than a tube with wings that is a fixed shape... so if the fireballs were faked, why would "they" then fudge up the planes? (which none of the TV fakery evidence has ever, upon closer analysis, actually shown, no matter how messed about with the footage has been by "eager researchers exposing the truth" (*ahem*)).

But, if the fireball was genuine, it means getting thousands of gallons of fuel onto the relevant floor of the WTC rigged to blow (with "Aircraft debris" ready to be ejected from the towers with the explosion....)

[infinitetruth]

I don't buy the CGI theory at all. One guy said he was in the tower at the time (he was rescued by a fireman) and said that he saw the plane flying straight towards him into the tower and I believe he was telling the truth.

I don't believe there was a plane at the pentagon because the damage did not look enough to be plus they have camera footage and they refuse to release it ALL. Why? If it was defo a plane why not let everyone see it?

The no WTC planes theory is just a way to discredit those who have genuine evidence on 9/11 being a cover up and an inside job.

[bigus_dickus]

they use that "zooming in" video to prove that there is no plane in the far shot, assuming that the plane was flying from almost the opposite direction that it actually did. no one seems to notice that huge logo with the helicopter on the up right corner, that covers the plane in a couple of frames. then they wonder how the plane suddenly appeared on the zoomed in shot. the plane was moving downwards and made a steep turn in the last second and it's behind that stupid logo, dumbass. :mad:

[zedd]

Heres a great new video in 4 parts that does a very good job in explaining that the planes where actually cgi

Part1 http://www.livevideo.com/video/6F393F4DE41C4CF798CBB438E6378129/september-clues-part1.aspx

Part2 http://www.livevideo.com/video/9CA2E0D39C0A44EBA589A972F80FC2A6/september-clues-part2.aspx

Part3 http://www.livevideo.com/video/E0E8DC73928D42D4A01CF664B22E16B5/september-clues-part3.aspx

Part4 http://www.livevideo.com/video/3F706266A8524D6AA3CCC4CFC2F0F257/september-clues-part4.aspx

Are you ****************?

EDIT: Please don't insult other users. Read the forum guidelines

[narcolepticwatchman]

This is what they don't want us to find out.........makes sense when you see it all put together like this.

Missiles hit the buildings.....all of them. Wescam military cameras mixed cgi footage with real shots to show the images we saw on tv.

If they know the truth is coming out, would they not rather enforce the fact that planes hit buildings to let the ambiguity of who was responsible still linger in the minds of the people who don't know what side of the fence they stand? If there were no planes, fake psyops witnesses and forged footage there can only be one culprit. This is what they don't want everyone realising and why they don't want it to come out.

Is Dylan Avery a pawn? Loose change was very well produced.....one of the slickest documentaries i have seen actually.....very hollywood.

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/06/loose-change-frontman-dylan-avery.html

I started seeing all this octopus stuff appear recently and to be honest i thought it was improbable and very unlikely. Now I am convinced.

[john white]

This is what they don't want us to find out.........makes sense when you see it all put together like this.

Missiles hit the buildings.....all of them. Wescam military cameras mixed cgi footage with real shots to show the images we saw on tv.

If they know the truth is coming out, would they not rather enforce the fact that planes hit buildings to let the ambiguity of who was responsible still linger in the minds of the people who don't know what side of the fence they stand? If there were no planes, fake psyops witnesses and forged footage there can only be one culprit. This is what they don't want everyone realising and why they don't want it to come out.

Is Dylan Avery a pawn? Loose change was very well produced.....one of the slickest documentaries i have seen actually.....very hollywood.

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/06/loose-change-frontman-dylan-avery.html

I started seeing all this octopus stuff appear recently and to be honest i thought it was improbable and very unlikely. Now I am convinced.

Is it worth debating this I wonder? In terms of appeals to imagination NPT serves very well... it creates a nice neat little bubble explanation that is egoically soothing and easy to understand. Unfortunately the evidence provided is appaling, and the behaviour of its advocates reprehensable...

I advise anyone intrigued by this to research the background of the people producing it: a group that has been pwned for fabricating evidence and engages in vicious character assassination and vilification of "opposing" prominent 9/11 Truthseekers without any convincing evidence, including putting out rumours that genuine eyewitnesses are members of Al Qaeda. I kid you not


(And that Dylan Avery hitpeice is a prime example: he made a succesful net documentary! But he doesnt agree with the doctrine! Must be working for THEM!")

Remember: if your not with the No Planers your with the terrorists!

I advise a stiff cup of coffee narcolepticwatchman

[crowd control]

Is it worth debating this I wonder? In terms of appeals to imagination NPT serves very well... it creates a nice neat little bubble explanation that is egoically soothing and easy to understand. Unfortunately the evidence provided is appaling, and the behaviour of its advocates reprehensable...



(And that Dylan Avery hitpeice is a prime example: he made a succesful net documentary! But he doesnt agree with the doctrine! Must be working for THEM!")

Remember: if your not with the No Planers your with the terrorists!

I advise a stiff cup of coffee narcolepticwatchman

You say the NPT evidence is appalling however I do not agree, in fact, it all makes sense to me. Maybe you let us know what appals you about it and we can discuss it.

Why do you think the wings went right through the building john? Aluminium a couple of millimetres thick vs a grid of high strength, forged, structural steel? The plane went right through because they could not animate the impact. They could not show what would really happen to the plane in such a scenario, and from the multiple shots they released. There would be (more) mistakes all over the place. The plane had to enter the building although it could never happen like that really.

[crowd control]

John, I wonder what you think of this appaling evidence. Can you explain?

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/spinning-wtc.html

[zedd]

John no offence intended but who are you to advise me what I need? What do you know about me or the research I have carried out to come to the conclusions that I have? You say the NPT evidence is appalling however I do not agree, in fact, it all makes sense to me. Maybe you can tell me what appals you about it and we can discuss it.

Btw, I never said Dylan Avery was a terrorist. I am just concerned that by not considering this evidence in his documentary, Avery is not giving people access to the full truth, in other words, covering up. Why?

I'll let you know why I think it all adds up. If indeed it came out that there was no plane, it could mean only one thing. 100% inside job not with only collusion from a small section of the government, but active planning and participation of hundreds within government, police forces, media, military. It removes any ambiguity surrounding who did fly the planes. It removes the finger of blame that points over the middle east without question and turns it back on itself.

Why do you think the wings went right through the building john? Aluminium a couple of millimetres thick vs a grid of high strength, forged, structural steel? The plane went right through because they could not animate the impact. They could not show what would really happen to the plane in such a scenario, and from the multiple shots they released. There would be (more) mistakes all over the place. The plane had to enter the building although it could never happen like that really.

This sounds like nothing but garbage. Not considering what some people claim as "evidence" doesn't mean you are covering anything up for one thing. EVERYONE thinks they have the answers but the majority of the time it seems as though it is simply madness in seeing what you want. I would much rather have someone use actual facts and arguements that are actually plausible as opposed to the lunacy of saying that the whole event was somehow done in CGI, or holograms, or using laserbeams.

You go on to claim that by using the CGI angle you would somehow be ensuring that 9/11 will be exposed as an inside job because the only way to have the CGI event take place would be to have such a grand and all-encompassing conspiracy. The one huge drawback to your arguement however is that any evidence at all toward the CGI conclusion is extremely minimal and speculation to boot. Sorry, but once the CGI angle is exposed as the sham it is any rational arguement put forth about 9/11 would be laughed at since you clowned the whole concept with the CGI horseshit.

You can prove that 9/11 was an inside job without banking on CGI bullshit by going on facts and making speculations that are at least reaonsable and plausible (i.e. Cheney was ordering a stand down in the bunker) seculations.

Your last paragraph simply takes the cake. Basically you don't wish to account for weight or velocity when it comes to the aircrafts in question. I guess someone should point you to videos of trained martial artists who break stacks of concrete with pretty much any part of their body. Using your warped logic, it would be impossible to break concrete with your fists (or any other body part) because the concrete is completely solid and much harder than your body parts. Therefore, martial artists utilize CGI to fool us into thinking that they break the blocks because if they didn't their hand would simply bounce off the block and their bones would break.

Then again, I'm probably just a CIA agent trying to throw you off the path you are on because you are sooooooo close to the truth...

[crowd control]

Ok Zed, give me your explaination for the obvious video fakery? Why does the nose come out of the building intact? Why do the towers spin fixed on the one side whilst the background rotates? Why are the flight paths not the same in all of the videos? Why is the plane missing from on of the live shots only to be apparent in the later broadcasts? Why do CNN obviously cover the impact with their logo on the most important TV shot in history?

I eagerly await your response and explaination of the above.


All truth goes through three stages.........

[john white]

Ok Zed, give me your explaination for the obvious video fakery? Why does the nose come out of the building intact?

Becuase its not the nose, its the right hand engine

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/7425/wtc2exit39nome1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8195/wtccomplexoverviewjb8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/6558/wtc2engineho3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Why do the towers spin fixed on the one side whilst the background rotates?

Its what happens with a long range zoom lens when a circling helicopter is holding the zoomed in object in the centre of the frame. I'll let my campaigning collegue chek explain further:

I notice both Ray and Fred are still peddling the sadly mistaken idea that the Verrazano bridge, being 7 miles away, shouldn't appear in the original photo.
It's a bit like the Eiffel Tower or the Great Pyramid being there, according to the ever imaginative Fred.

Fred, by the way, is the "researcher" and ... er ...'film maker', who understands nothing of how camera lenses or digital formats work.

I found this photo which illustrates very clearly the compression of distance effect of a telephoto lens.

The photo was taken on the runway at the Biggin Hill airshow last weekend (showing a 29 Sqn RAF Typhoon F2 for anybody interested), and according to Google Earth, the crow-flying distance to Canary Wharf Tower (the triangular topped building in the distance) is 12.75 of our British miles.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/chek_16/iBTelephotoBigginHillIMG_070602_035.jpg

Why are the flight paths not the same in all of the videos?

They are in the original footage. There has, however, been more than one instance of original footage being tampered with to make it appear fake

Why is the plane missing from on of the live shots only to be apparent in the later broadcasts?

Amazingly, some of the live shots are on the opposite side of the towers and can't see the plane, on account of a giant skyscrapper in the way: helps to know what direction the planes came in from, don't you think? Unless your pushing NPT and making part 3 of this video :rolleyes:

Why do CNN obviously cover the impact with their logo on the most important TV shot in history?

Being as its a Live shot, how would they know to frame an impact they didnt know was about to happen in a shot focused on the smoking (and therefore at the time very newsworthy) WTC1?. Totally moonbat allegation, imagination before reason at its worst

I eagerly await your response and explaination of the above.

Happy to oblige

All truth goes through three stages.........

Only, and this is important, only IF it is True....

And for every bit of truth that makes the grade, theres a big pile of bullshit getting composted

[john white]

John, I wonder what you think of this appaling evidence. Can you explain?

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/spinning-wtc.html

Covered that above: Killtown doesn’t know how camera's work (or doesn’t care)

[john white]

You say the NPT evidence is appalling however I do not agree, in fact, it all makes sense to me. Maybe you let us know what appals you about it and we can discuss it.

Why do you think the wings went right through the building john? Aluminium a couple of millimetres thick vs a grid of high strength, forged, structural steel? The plane went right through because they could not animate the impact. They could not show what would really happen to the plane in such a scenario, and from the multiple shots they released. There would be (more) mistakes all over the place. The plane had to enter the building although it could never happen like that really.

If you have a camera filming at 60 frames per second, and a plane traveling at 500 mph hits a building, how many frames get taken in the time it takes for the length of the plane to travel into the building? And if 3 frames in four of that footage are removed, and the resolution is reduced through a filter to remove the definition nessacary to see the shower of debris that didnt make it into the tower, is it supprising that it can be made to appear to have "melted"?

Seeing on its own is not believing: one has to examine what one is seeing and ask questions of it. Otherwise, its swapping one Illusion for another (Planes brought down the towers! (OCT) for No Planes hit the Towers! (NPT))

You talk about the "impossibility" of aluminium breaking steel: yet steel can be cut by water if the water is pressurised high enough. Mass and Speed cannot be left out of the equation. Any idea how much the wings of a Boeing, which are where the fuel is stored, weigh? And the structure of the WTC towers, in terms of surface area, was mostly panes of glass , so the argument is upside down and back to front anyway. Can a plane traveling at 500mph break a pane of glass if it hits it? Even on your own level of reasoning, the answer can only be "Yes"

The plane shredded itself around the infrastructure as impact occured and collision unfolded, and the total energy of the impact was enough to snap the exterior steel beams and the aluminium cladding. http://www.dc911truth.org/images/woman_wtc.jpg
But not the core colums: they were a very different story:

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/4895/wtccorenm6.png (http://imageshack.us)

Which is why the only bits of plane to make it out of the other side were the parts that didnt impact the central core (see engine, landing gear, bits of fuselage detailed above)

[zedd]

Well, John pretty much manhandled you so the only thing I have left to add is more of common sense type things like the fact that the CGI theory makes you have to explain ten times as much with a hundred times less information.

Like:
-Where did the original planes go?
-Where did the people go?
-What explaination is there for seeing planes from the street by normal people?
-How about the molten steel that poured out of the buildings? Was this advanced CGI as well?
-What about all the remains being used to pave roads? Did they rob graves ahead of time and grind corpses up?

The list could go on and on and none of them could be answered in any realistic manner or using any facts or proof, unlike the reality that they simply used the planes and explosives.

[narcolepticwatchman]

Becuase its not the nose, its the right hand engine

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/7425/wtc2exit39nome1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8195/wtccomplexoverviewjb8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/6558/wtc2engineho3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)



Its what happens with a long range zoom lens when a circling helicopter is holding the zoomed in object in the centre of the frame. I'll let my campaigning collegue chek explain further:





They are in the original footage. There has, however, been more than one instance of original footage being tampered with to make it appear fake



Amazingly, some of the live shots are on the opposite side of the towers and can't see the plane, on account of a giant skyscrapper in the way: helps to know what direction the planes came in from, don't you think? Unless your pushing NPT and making part 3 of this video :rolleyes:



Being as its a Live shot, how would they know to frame an impact they didnt know was about to happen in a shot focused on the smoking (and therefore at the time very newsworthy) WTC1?. Totally moonbat allegation, imagination before reason at its worst



Happy to oblige



Only, and this is important, only IF it is True....

And for every bit of truth that makes the grade, theres a big pile of bullshit getting composted

John, first of all, who told us that the engines were found where they were found? is this the same people that told us about the wreckage found at the pentagon and shanksville? Do you still think a plane hit the pentagon btw? There were apparently eyewitnesses there as well.

Next, your photography friend has not given any explaination at all except that someone doesn't understand photography. Right, if I have an image in the foreground, and I rotate so that the background moves, the image in the foreground will move too. Is this some type of special camera that makes objects rotate whilst others do not? C'mon, give me a break.

Your amazing point....about the impacts being shown from different angles doesn't explain anything either. I'm talking about the fact that the plane is not there in one showing of the footage....yet later on that day the plane has been drawn in and the background has been removed so the missile streak is no longer there. its obvious.

Lastly, the live shot was not live as you say. CNN showed the shot the first time in all its glory (well with the fade to black included as well) but the 2ND time, they put up their logo.

your last post is slack mate. You have not given any explainations at all, instead posted some half hearted, half researched piece and tried to pass it off as the truth.

Maybe its you that needs the coffee friend.

[narcolepticwatchman]

Well, John pretty much manhandled you so the only thing I have left to add is more of common sense type things like the fact that the CGI theory makes you have to explain ten times as much with a hundred times less information.

Like:
-Where did the original planes go?
-Where did the people go?
-What explaination is there for seeing planes from the street by normal people?
-How about the molten steel that poured out of the buildings? Was this advanced CGI as well?
-What about all the remains being used to pave roads? Did they rob graves ahead of time and grind corpses up?

The list could go on and on and none of them could be answered in any realistic manner or using any facts or proof, unlike the reality that they simply used the planes and explosives.

1. the original plane serial numbers were not in service.....who knows where they are now, but I'd guess it would be a lot less hassle to lose a plane than to pull off the 911 stunt.
2. What people? The passengers? Same as the pentagon non-flight.
3. Psyops witnesses, look at the people who saw planes in interviews....i have noticed more than a few blatant actors....the rest would have seen explosions and tv pictures......giving them the impression they saw it with their own eyes, in broad daylight and on live tv.
4. I'm not doubting there was other measures in place to make sure the towers fell mate. Molten steel does not mean a plane hit.
5. I'm not saying people didn't die.....if a missile hits a building and it falls to the ground with people in it, of course there will be fatalities.

[narcolepticwatchman]

Becuase its not the nose, its the right hand engine

How do you know this is the right hand engine for sure anyway...pixel comparison has been carried out and its the exact same as the nose, the exact same rate of flight ie nothing has slowed the impact despite it hitting steel mesh etc


They are in the original footage. There has, however, been more than one instance of original footage being tampered with to make it appear fake

By whom? my friend is reviewing footage from the news archives on the day. Has this been tampered with?



Totally moonbat allegation, imagination before reason at its worst

Do you relise what you sound like here? You sound like someone straight off of Fox news mate.

[john white]

I've seen No Plane Theory arguments day in day out for six months, and continue to see them every day, over at www.nineeleven.co.uk. Theres an absolute wealth of threads now looking into every single aspect of no planes theory in the "Truth Controversies"section. I'm of the opinion that its all flam, and the simple truth is that planes were used to hit the towers: and that's an informed opinion. If anyone doesnt share that opinion: good luck to them! It's up to each individual to inform themselves: and if that means people want to accept no planes theory and ignore the fact that all of the major proponents have been shown to be deceptive and manipulative time after time after time, I certainly know I can't "save" people from themselves: I'm happy I've given people more than enough incentive to look deeper just with my posts on this thread, and if trusting someone just becuase they claim to be a 9/11 truther is what people want to do, its up to them to learn they've still got a lot to understand about truthseeking

As an exercise, all anyone has to do about proving the nose footage to be tampered with is follow the formula I've set out and check it out for themselves, including, if nessacary, researching how to pick up the skills to check it out. Sure, I could just link one of several articles that brutality and faultlessly pwned Webfairy's manipulation of that image: but what would be the point? Its open minds that are needed here, not doctrinal fanatacism

There's a good one btw: Webfairy, Miss Rosalie Grable, who claimed to have known there were "no Planes" pretty much straight away after 9/11 in a recent post. Funny that: becuase if that was so, why did she spend three years attempting to prove "pod theory" (missiles attached to the plane) on a plane she knew wasnt there? Beggars belief

[narcolepticwatchman]

I've seen No Plane Theory arguments day in day out for six months, and continue to see them every day, over at www.nineeleven.co.uk. Theres an absolute wealth of threads now looking into every single aspect of no planes theory in the "Truth Controversies"section. I'm of the opinion that its all flam, and the simple truth is that planes were used to hit the towers: and that's an informed opinion. If anyone doesnt share that opinion: good luck to them! It's up to each individual to inform themselves: and if that means people want to accept no planes theory and ignore the fact that all of the major proponents have been shown to be deceptive and manipulative time after time after time, I certainly know I can't "save" people from themselves: I'm happy I've given people more than enough incentive to look deeper just with my posts on this thread, and if trusting someone just becuase they claim to be a 9/11 truther is what people want to do, its up to them to learn they've still got a lot to understand about truthseeking

As an exercise, all anyone has to do about proving the nose footage to be tampered with is follow the formula I've set out and check it out for themselves, including, if nessacary, researching how to pick up the skills to check it out. Sure, I could just link one of several articles that brutality and faultlessly pwned Webfairy's manipulation of that image: but what would be the point? Its open minds that are needed here, not doctrinal fanatacism

There's a good one btw: Webfairy, Miss Rosalie Grable, who claimed to have known there were "no Planes" pretty much straight away after 9/11 in a recent post. Funny that: becuase if that was so, why did she spend three years attempting to prove "pod theory" (missiles attached to the plane) on a plane she knew wasnt there? Beggars belief

So you spend a lot of times on forums, big deal. Don't we all. There is a lot of information on forums and a lot of presumption and contradictory information. You could believe that aliens did it if you believe everything. Do you think that gives you superior knowledge on this subject than me? I too have done thorough research on this subject. This is my informed opinion.

Btw, you still haven't answered what you think hit the pentagon or given any decent explaination for the points raised in my previous post......rotating buildings, doctored footage (no background and a plane that wasn't there in the earlier footage) etc

[john white]

Btw, you still haven't answered what you think hit the pentagon or given any decent explaination for the points raised in my previous post......rotating buildings, doctored footage (no background and a plane that wasn't there in the earlier footage) etc

I don't know what hit the Pentagon: becuase there is no conclusive evidence: unlike what hit the Towers, where there is a wealth of evidence. if you think differently about that: you are fooling yourself. And the rest of your post simply confirms why its wise for me not to expend energy conversing with a poster who can't actually read the posts I've already made. Narcoleptic indeed.

[narcolepticwatchman]

I don't know what hit the Pentagon: becuase there is no conclusive evidence: unlike what hit the Towers, where there is a wealth of evidence. if you think differently about that: you are fooling yourself. And the rest of your post simply confirms why its wise for me not to expend energy conversing with a poster who can't actually read the posts I've already made. Narcoleptic indeed.

I did read the post you previously made. That is insulting my intelligence and your narcoleptic comment was just plain insulting mate. Why do you feel the need to resort to this condesending and arrogant attitute? The point was your previous posts do not explain anything.

Nice opt out mate.

[john white]

When I say "read" I mean comprehend: your posts betray that you havn't. If thats an insult to you: its one you inflicted yourself. And I stand by every word

[narcolepticwatchman]

When I say "read" I mean comprehend: your posts betray that you havn't. If thats an insult to you: its one you inflicted yourself. And I stand by every word


Again, condesending and arrogant. I can't comprehend now? I can't understand? Do you think i'm stupid? I know that when you take a video and you are spinning around something, the background will spin also, but so will the foreground. The towers do not mov in that shot. No matter wha type of cameras you use you will not get that to happen unless you have to separate shots meged into one.

I know that i seen two identical ongles on the towers, one with a background, one without. One with a plane, one without. This is impossible unless cgi was used.

I know that I seen CNN hidethe impact and fade to black not the first, but the second time of showing the footage. This is no coincidence.

What exactly can't I comprehend? You have failed to give valid explanations for all of the above. What do your photographer friends comments prove exactly? Why is the footage from the same angles totally contradictory in terms of what is apparent in the footage? Oh and while i'm at it, what about the evidence which shows that the plane was not in shot until the final zoom......its flight path and speed have been calculated taking into account drag factors and there is no way the plane could have possibly been flying fast enough to justify not being in shot before the zoom.

[zedd]

There is also the fact that there is no actual reason for not just using real planes and instead relying on a CGI circus. The technology to remote control operate planes exists and has for awhile. It would be infinitely more efficient to simply use the planes.

The problem with "conspiracy theorists" is that a good portion of them want to be the Hollywood hero that figures it all out and is being monitored by the CIA, FBI and the Illuminati while they try to bring their glorious message to the masses. It isn't good enough for some people to have a relatively (in comparison to the CGI BS) simple explaination for what happened. They always need to add their own twists and basically use the theory as some sort of springboard to launch into some ridiculous script they have in their head.

Sometimes other people figure it out before you. Sometimes you can't be the hero. Sometimes people post heavily edited/hoaxed videos just to fuck with you because they know it will work. Sometimes conspiracies are done using the most logical, easiest, and reliable methods.

Sooooooometiiiiiiiimes I feel I've got to (AH AH) run away, I've got to (AH AH) get away from the Robert Langdon wanna-bes.

[narcolepticwatchman]

There is also the fact that there is no actual reason for not just using real planes and instead relying on a CGI circus. The technology to remote control operate planes exists and has for awhile. It would be infinitely more efficient to simply use the planes.

The problem with "conspiracy theorists" is that a good portion of them want to be the Hollywood hero that figures it all out and is being monitored by the CIA, FBI and the Illuminati while they try to bring their glorious message to the masses. It isn't good enough for some people to have a relatively (in comparison to the CGI BS) simple explaination for what happened. They always need to add their own twists and basically use the theory as some sort of springboard to launch into some ridiculous script they have in their head.

Sometimes other people figure it out before you. Sometimes you can't be the hero. Sometimes people post heavily edited/hoaxed videos just to fuck with you because they know it will work. Sometimes conspiracies are done using the most logical, easiest, and reliable methods.

Sooooooometiiiiiiiimes I feel I've got to (AH AH) run away, I've got to (AH AH) get away from the Robert Langdon wanna-bes.

Zedd, I have no idea what your point is with that last post. Why is using planes infinitley more efficient? How can you say this for sure? Are you some sort of expert on the subject of flying planes into buildings now? Infinitley, that sure is a lot.....considering that nothing on this scale had ever been attempted before you would have to be pretty sure that its gonna work to be 'infinitley more efficient'. What if the planes missed their targets? What if they didn't do enough damage to the buildings? The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of fully laden jetliners whereas missiles were not in the equation when the buildings were designed. Remember that these missiles can be aimed with surgical prescision. The military have had thousands of previous data to go on and can easily determine hit rates, predict damage inflicted and accuracy unlike the planes. Infinitley more efficient? Do not make me laugh. That statement is absurd.

Do you doubt that CGi could have been used? Do you doubt that fake witnesses could have been interviewed. Is it impossible? All of the evidence is in the videos.

Another thing, why are the forums banning all discussion on NPT?

Yet another condesending and arrogant post with no basis or substance whatsoever.

[bigus_dickus]

and invisible giant godzilla stepped on wtc 7 and demolished it..

but it doesn't matter, these people died, what matters is why and who is behind this... even if there weren't any bombs or graphics or missiles or drones, those towers are gone and so are those people. someone did it. was it the shadow government, the military industries, was it osama, was it bush and the arabs with the jews? they are all still free and our people are still dead.

[zedd]

Zedd, I have no idea what your point is with that last post. Why is using planes infinitley more efficient? How can you say this for sure? Are you some sort of expert on the subject of flying planes into buildings now? Infinitley, that sure is a lot.....considering that nothing on this scale had ever been attempted before you would have to be pretty sure that its gonna work to be 'infinitley more efficient'.

Because if you look at the pros and cons of each you will see that actually carrying out the attack makes the attack authentic and you do not have to now fill the streets of New York with "plants" who will claim they saw planes. You also need not have "plants" pretend they lost someone that was on one of the flights. You need not try to coordinate some kind of CGI event across all media outlets which may or may not work. You need not make sure this CGI event actually looks realistic. Then you have to make up video showing people like Atta being in the airports when, if you just remote control fly the plane he could have simply got on the plane prepared for whatever he was supposed to do.

The real thing is always better than synthetic and simply carrying out the attack is infinitely, endlessly, and massively more efficient and effective than some, apparently flimsy and clumsy if it actually was true, CGI event. I don't need to be a "flight expert" to have eyes that can see and a mind that can think in a rational manner.

What if the planes missed their targets? What if they didn't do enough damage to the buildings? The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of fully laden jetliners whereas missiles were not in the equation when the buildings were designed. Remember that these missiles can be aimed with surgical prescision. The military have had thousands of previous data to go on and can easily determine hit rates, predict damage inflicted and accuracy unlike the planes. Infinitley more efficient? Do not make me laugh. That statement is absurd.

How is a plane that has precision remote control miss two massive skyscrappers? Especially if there was some sort of beacon signal being sent from WTC7? Not only that, one of the planes hit the corner of the building (Building 2 I believe) which is pretty damn close to a miss when you are dealing with jetliners and skyscrappers. Why not make the CGI, or "missle" (Which you JUST brought up and has nothing to do with CGI), make a direct hit dead on? I never said anything about missles not being used at the Pentagon but I'm sure as hell not going to make a definitive claim about it that could possibly end up being easily debunked by simply showing the Pentagon video. I would much rather rely on real science and evidence I can see like the fall speed of the buildings and things of that nature. You know...tangible evidence that is available to everyone and cannot be refuted by anything other than the dismantling of physics?

Do you doubt that CGi could have been used? Do you doubt that fake witnesses could have been interviewed. Is it impossible? All of the evidence is in the videos.

I 100% doubt that CGI was used. I 100% believe that "fake witnesses were used" but only in a limited scope (Because you didn't need them to lie about some massive CGI event...the event actually took place). This guy is a perfect example:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7807592959569136609&q=9%2F11+fake+witness&hl=en

Having the attack means you only need to do half the work. Planting stooges to explain how the buildings were brought down is all you need, unless you go with the CGI idea where you now need to plant people all over the place that now have to also lie about seeing the planes and losing loved ones who were on the flight.

Incredibly innefficient.

Another thing, why are the forums banning all discussion on NPT?
Because, to put it as honestly and bluntly as possible...people like you make people who believe conspiracies look bad. They just can't accept that there is no need for their spin to a story or that the conspiracy isn't as grandiose as they believe it should be. This is how myths are created and how stories are distorted as they get passed on. People like you. I'm sorry this has to be said and I'm not doing it to be mean.

Yet another condesending and arrogant post with no basis or substance whatsoever.

Nothing condescending or arrogant here. I'm not going to claim I know all aspects about what happened all I am saying is that there are some things that you can say are almost a guarantee that did not happen. My posts have substance but they are attempting to appeal to reason which is often times lost in the conspiracy world.

[narcolepticwatchman]

Because if you look at the pros and cons of each you will see that actually carrying out the attack makes the attack authentic and you do not have to now fill the streets of New York with "plants" who will claim they saw planes. You also need not have "plants" pretend they lost someone that was on one of the flights. You need not try to coordinate some kind of CGI event across all media outlets which may or may not work. You need not make sure this CGI event actually looks realistic. Then you have to make up video showing people like Atta being in the airports when, if you just remote control fly the plane he could have simply got on the plane prepared for whatever he was supposed to do.

Do you not think I have looked into the pros and cons of both scenarios? Have you actually read my other posts? I have only recently came around to the NPT idea. I sepnt months arguing like yourself.

As far as the plants go, why is this such an outrageous idea? I mean, it worked with the pentagon and with Shanksville (or do you think there was an actual crash there?) Everything that happened with those two flights could be easily replicated at New York. I don't see whay there is such a big issue....unless you actually witnessed the planes yourself, first hand and not on footage, then you are in exactly the same boat as me. ALL OF THE FIRST HAND WITNESSES WHO REPORTED PLANES WORKED FOR THE MEDIA FFS.

The real thing is always better than synthetic and simply carrying out the attack is infinitely, endlessly, and massively more efficient and effective than some, apparently flimsy and clumsy if it actually was true, CGI event. I don't need to be a "flight expert" to have eyes that can see and a mind that can think in a rational manner.


How is a plane that has precision remote control miss two massive skyscrappers? Especially if there was some sort of beacon signal being sent from WTC7? Not only that, one of the planes hit the corner of the building (Building 2 I believe) which is pretty damn close to a miss when you are dealing with jetliners and skyscrappers. Why not make the CGI, or "missle" (Which you JUST brought up and has nothing to do with CGI), make a direct hit dead on? I never said anything about missles not being used at the Pentagon but I'm sure as hell not going to make a definitive claim about it that could possibly end up being easily debunked by simply showing the Pentagon video. I would much rather rely on real science and evidence I can see like the fall speed of the buildings and things of that nature. You know...tangible evidence that is available to everyone and cannot be refuted by anything other than the dismantling of physics?

Again, you don't seem to have taken cognisance of my point. How many times have planes been flown into targets by remote control? How many missiles have been fired in history? I think missile data will be a lot more accurate don't you? The remote plane that was referenced in loose change was crash laneded into a wall......the wall stood intact. Do you not think this would place some doubt as to what would actually happen if the plane hit the trade centres? The is a total unknown....in fact, a missile strike, I would argue, is, to use your own ludicrous statement, infinitley more efficient than an unknown plane impact.



I 100% doubt that CGI was used. I 100% believe that "fake witnesses were used" but only in a limited scope (Because you didn't need them to lie about some massive CGI event...the event actually took place). This guy is a perfect example:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7807592959569136609&q=9%2F11+fake+witness&hl=en

Having the attack means you only need to do half the work. Planting stooges to explain how the buildings were brought down is all you need, unless you go with the CGI idea where you now need to plant people all over the place that now have to also lie about seeing the planes and losing loved ones who were on the flight.

Incredibly innefficient.

You mean they would have to pull the same act as they did with Shanksville and the Pentogon? it was incredibly innefficient there too was it? Nonsense. You already accept there were fake witnesses, what about the people who say they saw missiles....were they fake too? Btw, the question was do you doubt it could have been used. Not if you think it was. I love it how people answer questions without actually answering the question.


Because, to put it as honestly and bluntly as possible...people like you make people who believe conspiracies look bad. They just can't accept that there is no need for their spin to a story or that the conspiracy isn't as grandiose as they believe it should be. This is how myths are created and how stories are distorted as they get passed on. People like you. I'm sorry this has to be said and I'm not doing it to be mean.



Nothing condescending or arrogant here. I'm not going to claim I know all aspects about what happened all I am saying is that there are some things that you can say are almost a guarantee that did not happen. My posts have substance but they are attempting to appeal to reason which is often times lost in the conspiracy world.


First of all, your previous post on this thread have been nothing but condesending and arrogant. Your first post called someone retarded ffs. You give conspiracy theorists a bad name. I am looking at tangeble evidence and makinig a judgement based on that. Tell me what is wrong with that? Have you watched the videos? What is your explaination for the totally contradictory videos? (I asked John White earlier and he couldn't give an answer of any substance, maybe you can do better seeing as he has bailed from the discussion.)

A half truth is still an untruth.

[narcolepticwatchman]

but it doesn't matter, these people died, what matters is why and who is behind this... even if there weren't any bombs or graphics or missiles or drones, those towers are gone and so are those people. someone did it. was it the shadow government, the military industries, was it osama, was it bush and the arabs with the jews? they are all still free and our people are still dead.

Exactly. As I said in one of my previous posts, if CGI was used, then the perpetrators are known. The finger points directly back on themselves.

[narcolepticwatchman]

Ok John White and Zedd, this engine you say is what people are calling the noe and was projected throught the building onto a rooftop quite a distance away......where is it on this footage? Does it appear after the camera zooms back? Surely not. Surely it would be visible flying through the air considering its size.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Also note that the plane is charcoal despite banking so that the belly is in direct sunlight and no buildings are tall enough to cast a shadow on it at the height of impact. (look at the shadow of the explosion for the location of the sun)

[1 2 free]

If the plane is computer generated then the nose of the plane is computer generated. Which means they inserted the CG plane into the footage, 'disolved' it into the building and then deliberately added the nose appearing out of the other side for no reason at all other than to give themselves away. Doesn't make a lot of sense.

I notice they pause the 'nose' each time it appears rather than let the footage run. Now why would they do that? Does the 'nose' just pause as it appears out of the other side? Does it magically disappear? Or does it fly forwards as if it's not really a nose at all but a larger rather less destructable part of the plane ie an engine?

[narcolepticwatchman]

If the plane is computer generated then the nose of the plane is computer generated. Which means they inserted the CG plane into the footage, 'disolved' it into the building and then deliberately added the nose appearing out of the other side for no reason at all other than to give themselves away. Doesn't make a lot of sense.

I notice they pause the 'nose' each time it appears rather than let the footage run. Now why would they do that? Does the 'nose' just pause as it appears out of the other side? Does it magically disappear? Or does it fly forwards as if it's not really a nose at all but a larger rather less destructable part of the plane ie an engine?

Hi 1-2-free, thanks for joining the discussion.

In response to your post, the reason why the nose comes out, is because they have two images superimposed over each other. One with a plane flying into (literally inside) the tower, the other with the prerecorded explosion (17 seconds before). On the explosion shot, the helicopter is trying to maintain a constant position, but crucially, slightly before impact, the chopper moves to the right, slightly. This means that the reference frame of the towers for the cartoon plane shot will be slightly out and it was...by exactly the amount that the chopper drifts. so now the two images don't marry exactly and you get nose out.

As for your other point, the networks fade to black on this shot straight after they notice the nose coming out. There is no footage which would show the crucial seconds after the impact on this angle. Did you watch the 4 parts of the video? It is all way better explained in those.

The spinning towers video clip is one of the most convincing examples I have seen of 2 composite shots being used in the same way described above.


killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/spinning-wtc.html

[john white]

In response to your post, the reason why the nose comes out, is because they have two images superimposed over each other. One with a plane flying into (literally inside) the tower, the other with the prerecorded explosion (17 seconds before). On the explosion shot, the helicopter is trying to maintain a constant position, but crucially, slightly before impact, the chopper moves to the right, slightly. This means that the reference frame of the towers for the cartoon plane shot will be slightly out and it was...by exactly the amount that the chopper drifts. so now the two images don't marry exactly and you get nose out.

As for your other point, the networks fade to black on this shot straight after they notice the nose coming out. There is no footage which would show the crucial seconds after the impact on this angle. Did you watch the 4 parts of the video? It is all way better explained in those.

The spinning towers video clip is one of the most convincing examples I have seen of 2 composite shots being used in the same way described above.


You are keen to shill for Killtown, aren’t you? Straight out of the NPT meme handbook

Both of your points above have already been demolished on page 2 of this thread: but you ignore it. "It didn’t happen!" "I believe!" "This simple explanation suits me! Its so much easier than understanding a far more complex Truth!" Absolutely typical of those taken in by the NPT hoax, duplicated across every 9/11 site on the web (well bar 2, where Killtown and friends hang out)

As I said in one of my previous posts, if CGI was used, then the perpetrators are known. The finger points directly back on themselves.

How tempting it is to think so (for you). But its a delusion: and if it did happen, and NPT theory was ever the basis of indictment proceedings, and the original unaltered footage was played in court, that would be 9/11 truth dead in an instant . Open your eyes

Provable foreknowledge. Protection of the Patsies. Stand-down of Norad. Exposure of Controlled Demolition WTC1 WTC2 WTC7. Destruction of evidence. Whitewash of 9/11 Commission. Protection of Bin Laden

All provable, all credible, all damning, and all what the genuine majority of the 9/11 Truth movement is pushing on and demolishing the official story on: and its the above which has spread 9/11 truth until now more than 30% of Americans are calling "inside job"

But whether by self deceit or deliberate deception, what do NPT theorists offer? Squinting at mesed with pixels and denial of the vast majority of the evidence

But if anyone reading this would like to know how to really open eyes and spread 9/11 truth, then the information in these two films will give you everything you need (and all checks out from multiple sources):

Press for Truth:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481&q=press+for+truth

9/11 Mysteries Demolition cut

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8129564295534231536&q=911+mysteries

And absolutely dont take my word for it, but dig deeper yourself. Zelicow's background is a real eye opener

[1 2 free]

Hi 1-2-free, thanks for joining the discussion.

In response to your post, the reason why the nose comes out, is because they have two images superimposed over each other. One with a plane flying into (literally inside) the tower, the other with the prerecorded explosion (17 seconds before). On the explosion shot, the helicopter is trying to maintain a constant position, but crucially, slightly before impact, the chopper moves to the right, slightly. This means that the reference frame of the towers for the cartoon plane shot will be slightly out and it was...by exactly the amount that the chopper drifts. so now the two images don't marry exactly and you get nose out.

As for your other point, the networks fade to black on this shot straight after they notice the nose coming out. There is no footage which would show the crucial seconds after the impact on this angle. Did you watch the 4 parts of the video? It is all way better explained in those.

The spinning towers video clip is one of the most convincing examples I have seen of 2 composite shots being used in the same way described above.


killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/spinning-wtc.html

So in 17 seconds a live shot of the exploding WTC and a prerecorded shot with a plane were combined and rebroadcast? Is that what you're saying? It's not a very credible argument.

As for your claim that 'slightly before impact, the chopper moves to the right, slightly'. This doesn't happen. The helicopter drifts to the left throught he whole clip.

[travisbickle]

Anyone still claiming this is an engine or natural occurance are either a few pence short of a pound or enemies of 911 truth. If real planes hit the WTC why did they broadcast so many fake images, live and afterwards?

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/TheHoleThatWasNotThere.jpg

[john white]

LOL! Look what turned up. Prepare for the deluge Sean, "The Posse" is on its way over...

[narcolepticwatchman]

You are keen to shill for Killtown, aren’t you? Straight out of the NPT meme handbook

Both of your points above have already been demolished on page 2 of this thread: but you ignore it. "It didn’t happen!" "I believe!" "This simple explanation suits me! Its so much easier than understanding a far more complex Truth!" Absolutely typical of those taken in by the NPT hoax, duplicated across every 9/11 site on the web (well bar 2, where Killtown and friends hang out)

Demolished??? Is that what you call demolished? Some half hearted response with no explaination then when further elboration is called for you bail?? Demolished? Good job Bush and his cronies didn't employ you to take down the towers or they would still be there today......



How tempting it is to think so (for you). But its a delusion: and if it did happen, and NPT theory was ever the basis of indictment proceedings, and the original unaltered footage was played in court, that would be 9/11 truth dead in an instant . Open your eyes

My eyes are open. Yours don't seem to be if you think that some fancy camera could make the WTCs rotate.


Provable foreknowledge. Protection of the Patsies. Stand-down of Norad. Exposure of Controlled Demolition WTC1 WTC2 WTC7. Destruction of evidence. Whitewash of 9/11 Commission. Protection of Bin Laden

All provable, all credible, all damning, and all what the genuine majority of the 9/11 Truth movement is pushing on and demolishing the official story on: and its the above which has spread 9/11 truth until now more than 30% of Americans are calling "inside job"

But whether by self deceit or deliberate deception, what do NPT theorists offer? Squinting at mesed with pixels and denial of the vast majority of the evidence

But if anyone reading this would like to know how to really open eyes and spread 9/11 truth, then the information in these two films will give you everything you need (and all checks out from multiple sources):

Press for Truth:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481&q=press+for+truth

9/11 Mysteries Demolition cut

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8129564295534231536&q=911+mysteries

And absolutely dont take my word for it, but dig deeper yourself. Zelicow's background is a real eye opener

I have researched this stuff too, its undeniable also, but so is the evidence for forged footage of the crashes and media involvement. Again, you are still pointing to Osama.....do you really think he orchestrated it all or any Arabs were involved?

Again, I applaud all of the researchers for the work they have done on 911, however, overlooking this evidence and discounting it for such unsubstantiated reasons you have given on page 2 is ludicrous. A half truth is still a lie.

[narcolepticwatchman]

So in 17 seconds a live shot of the exploding WTC and a prerecorded shot with a plane were combined and rebroadcast? Is that what you're saying? It's not a very credible argument.

As for your claim that 'slightly before impact, the chopper moves to the right, slightly'. This doesn't happen. The helicopter drifts to the left throught he whole clip.

I messed up when I said right, I meant left. Apologies.

Look, you are saying my argument isn't credible when you obviously havent spared 40 minutes of your time to watch the September 11th Clues video or do any research yourself on NPT. Do not waste my time with pointless posts until you have at least seen the evidence yourself.

And while you are at it research Wescam, the militry camera systems that were used by choppers on the day. Saying an argument lacks credibility when you have no idea of the capability of the equipment they posses is a bit niave.

[john white]

I have researched this stuff too, its undeniable also, but so is the evidence for forged footage of the crashes and media involvement. Again, you are still pointing to Osama.....do you really think he orchestrated it all or any Arabs were involved?

Again, I applaud all of the researchers for the work they have done on 911, however, overlooking this evidence and discounting it for such unsubstantiated reasons you have given on page 2 is ludicrous. A half truth is still a lie.


You avoided my comment about what will happen if NPT ever got into court and falls at the first hurdle when the original footage is shown. If you don’t want to address Webfairy being exposed for seriously tampering with footage, that's your responsibility. And as for "social service", when we can find out who "social service" is and how to get his data to peer review the other angle "nose out" (if we ever can) then we shall see how well that claim stand up as well. And if you don't want to face up to how telephoto lenses work that’s also your responsibility: but it wouldn’t hurt to use your empathy to see how ridiculous the claims on a "spinning" tower are to those who've bothered themselves to seek the facts. And again we have the inference "if you don't support NPT you must be backing Osama Bin Laden as responsible for the attacks". Well, not according to the FBI. And there is no evidence for any Arabs being on the planes, other than one airport CCTV image, the extremely dubious in-flight phone calls, and evidence (essentially) impossible from ground zero (DNA and passports)

A half truth is still a lie

Maybe that’s your subconscious talking? Until you can show me that you have seriously questioned NPT and still find it the most credible information and can answer ALL of the dire problems with the hypothesis, settling for half truth is exactly what you are doing. Footage has been faked alright: and you've bought into it. I won't call you a Liar, because your just a person who has deeper to look into things to me: but your own reasoning is condemning you, so maybe take your own advice

[1 2 free]

I messed up when I said right, I meant left. Apologies.

Look, you are saying my argument isn't credible when you obviously havent spared 40 minutes of your time to watch the September 11th Clues video or do any research yourself on NPT. Do not waste my time with pointless posts until you have at least seen the evidence yourself.

And while you are at it research Wescam, the militry camera systems that were used by choppers on the day. Saying an argument lacks credibility when you have no idea of the capability of the equipment they posses is a bit niave.

I watch all four parts yesterday when they were posted at Rense.com (didn't take them long to yake them down did it? I wonder why) and rewatched some of it again today to check up on what you were saying. As for my research it probably could be better but nothing I've seen or heard so far has remotely convinced me. And people who push this theory have a habit of saying things like you 'are either a few pence short of a pound or enemies of 911 truth' if you disagree with them or just generally attacking researchers who disgree with them. It makes it very hard to take them seriously.

You didn't answer my 17 second delay question. Also if the nose of the plane only appeared because the helicopter was moving to the left (I assume the CGIers didn't consider that a helicopter might actually be moving) then how come I can see the 'nose' appearing on a shot taken from the complete opposite side of the building? Or is that not the 'nose?

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/TheHoleThatWasNotThere.jpg

[narcolepticwatchman]

You avoided my comment about what will happen if NPT ever got into court and falls at the first hurdle when the original footage is shown. If you don’t want to address Webfairy being exposed for seriously tampering with footage, that's your responsibility. And as for "social service", when we can find out who "social service" is and how to get his data to peer review the other angle "nose out" (if we ever can) then we shall see how well that claim stand up as well. And if you don't want to face up to how telephoto lenses work that’s also your responsibility: but it wouldn’t hurt to use your empathy to see how ridiculous the claims on a "spinning" tower are to those who've bothered themselves to seek the facts. And again we have the inference "if you don't support NPT you must be backing Osama Bin Laden as responsible for the attacks". Well, not according to the FBI. And there is no evidence for any Arabs being on the planes, other than one airport CCTV image, the extremely dubious in-flight phone calls, and evidence (essentially) impossible from ground zero (DNA and passports)



You are pulling me up about missing out on one of your comments? After bailing without giving any elaboration on your so-called explainations for missing backgrounds, rotating backgrounds and missing planes........give me a break bud. You want to have a discussion but you want to pick and choose when you join in so you can try and stick the boot in? Get real.

Why should I address a webfairy issue? Its not my problem or issue. Nothing at all to do with me, if you have an issue take it up with webfairy. What we are talking about here is the evidence given in the videos linked on the first page of this thread.

As for the telephoto lense issue, granted i'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure you aint either. I do not care what type of lense you have. You cannot keep the foreground in focus at a constant angle and stay at that angle whilst the background rotates. There are two instances of this happening.

I did not infer you backed Osama as being behind the attacks.....you did that yourself in your last post, i was merely picking up on that fact you left the door open for him to be involved in the enquiry. You mentioned his name first mate.

Maybe that’s your subconscious talking? Until you can show me that you have seriously questioned NPT and still find it the most credible information and can answer ALL of the dire problems with the hypothesis, settling for half truth is exactly what you are doing. Footage has been faked alright: and you've bought into it. I won't call you a Liar, because your just a person who has deeper to look into things to me: but your own reasoning is condemning you, so maybe take your own advice

Until I can show you? What is this? School? I don't need to show you anything. So I have bought into fake footage have I? Go on then, elaborate, what footage are you on about. There we go again with the condesending attittude and the presumption that you know more than i do about all this, seriously mate, you are putting yourself on a pedestal of your own design here. You seem like a smart guy mate but your pomposity is sickening.

[narcolepticwatchman]

I watch all four parts yesterday when they were posted at Rense.com (didn't take them long to yake them down did it? I wonder why) and rewatched some of it again today to check up on what you were saying. As for my research it probably could be better but nothing I've seen or heard so far has remotely convinced me. And people who push this theory have a habit of saying things like you 'are either a few pence short of a pound or enemies of 911 truth' if you disagree with them or just generally attacking researchers who disgree with them. It makes it very hard to take them seriously.

If nothing has remotely convinced you then fair enough.

You didn't answer my 17 second delay question. Also if the nose of the plane only appeared because the helicopter was moving to the left (I assume the CGIers didn't consider that a helicopter might actually be moving) then how come I can see the 'nose' appearing on a shot taken from the complete opposite side of the building? Or is that not the 'nose?

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/TheHoleThatWasNotThere.jpg

I didn't answer your 17 second delay question because it is explained clearly in the video. If you have a memory like a goldfish that is not my problem.

As for the other angle, the cap certainly shows what appears to be the nose.....to me. Now, I have no idea what it actually is, but I know it cant be the real nose, that is impossible and there is no hole. I can only offer conjecture in response. Think about it this way though. If you put out a live shot which is a fuck up, and you are going to be putting out a few more, non-live, amateur videos later on, would you not try to make all of the previous angles fit your new ones as much as possible? I know i would. Its called covering your tracks. When was the last video shown first to the public? The first shot was live / delayed 17 seconds, the second one wasn't.

[crowd control]

we're all after the same thing. let's inject a bit of peace, respect and love into the proceedings.

[john white]

Why should I address a webfairy issue? Its not my problem or issue. Nothing at all to do with me, if you have an issue take it up with webfairy. What we are talking about here is the evidence given in the videos linked on the first page of this thread.

So I have bought into fake footage have I? Go on then, elaborate, what footage are you on about

No Planes evidence being sexed up not your problem: you want to believe it so it doesnt matter. OK

As for the telephoto lense issue, granted i'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure you aint either. I do not care what type of lense you have. You cannot keep the foreground in focus at a constant angle and stay at that angle whilst the background rotates. There are two instances of this happening.

You don't know how they work but want to believe they don't work in the way they do. OK

I did not infer you backed Osama as being behind the attacks.....you did that yourself in your last post, i was merely picking up on that fact you left the door open for him to be involved in the enquiry. You mentioned his name first mate.

Again, you are still pointing to Osama.....do you really think he orchestrated it all or any Arabs were involved?

You didnt bring in Osama when you brought in Osama. OK

Until I can show you? What is this? School? I don't need to show you anything. . There we go again with the condesending attittude and the presumption that you know more than i do about all this, seriously mate, you are putting yourself on a pedestal of your own design here. You seem like a smart guy mate but your pomposity is sickening.

You want to claim extraordinary revelation but don't have to show actual comprehension of anything. Its enough just to say "look! This film (which i'm not going to question!) proves it, so just accept it!" . OK. Exactly like NPT theorists accuse the mases of doing when they accepted what they so on TV. Talk about repeating mistakes!

Do I sound like I know more than you? Well that's becuase, tbh honest, most likely I do, and theres times to be gentle and times to just cut straight to it, and I've seen enough of the kind of syhsters pumping out disinformation garbage to sucker in those who havnt learned how to observe their own thinking to last me a lifetime

[narcolepticwatchman]

No Planes evidence being sexed up not your problem: you want to believe it so it doesnt matter. OK


You still haven't shown me the example......and is it fake or sexed up....or both? What are you babbling about? Point me to the footage you say is specifically fake.


You don't know how they work but want to believe they don't work in the way they do. OK

Show me an example of these lenses doing what you say they can do (other than the WTC). Also, show me the proof that those lenses were telephoto lenses.


You want to claim extraordinary revelation but don't have to show actual comprehension of anything. Its enough just to say "look! This film (which i'm not going to question!) proves it, so just accept it!" . OK. Exactly like NPT theorists accuse the mases of doing when they accepted what they so on TV. Talk about repeating mistakes!

I don't show any comprehension because I don't agree with you? What makes you think I didn't question anything in the film either? you are presuming based on what? You have no idea what evidence i have looked at on 9/11 as a whole to come to the conclusions I have today.

Do I sound like I know more than you? Well that's becuase, tbh honest, most likely I do, and theres times to be gentle and times to just cut straight to it, and I've seen enough of the kind of syhsters pumping out disinformation garbage to sucker in those who havnt learned how to observe their own thinking to last me a lifetime


To be honest, your last paragraph astounds me. There is a wealth of information that is out there for everyone to look at. You presume that i have not read anything. Get off your high horse. You don't even know me, you have no idea my level of education, you have no idea how many hours I have spent researching this, you have no idea of my level of knowledge retention and ease of recollection. Now i'm not for a second saying that this is more than yours or less than yours because I do not know you enough. I wouldn't presume, unlike yourself. Thats just absurd.

[john white]

Also if the nose of the plane only appeared because the helicopter was moving to the left (I assume the CGIers didn't consider that a helicopter might actually be moving) then how come I can see the 'nose' appearing on a shot taken from the complete opposite side of the building? Or is that not the 'nose?

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/TheHoleThatWasNotThere.jpg

LOL! Very good point

"So good "they" cocked it up twice?"

Or is it possibly an object that is extremely bright (on account of being engulfed in flames): like the right hand engine?

In addition, if the object was simply a CGI error, why did it then continue to trail smoke on a parabola all the way to hitting the deck, caught from multiple angles? Why make all the extra effort? (not that its credible "they" did)

In fact, by trying to pull the same hoodwink from two different angles, the NPT theorists have shot themselves in the foot

Its funny that the video cuts out before showing the full descent of the "CGI error": kind of like NPT's own "fade to black". And I wonder if the tower with NYC's main transmitter being struck buck the plane had anything to do with that momentary loss of signal? Surely not?


http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/7425/wtc2exit39nome1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Just what is that extremely bright object flying through the sky? It couldn't be... could it?

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8195/wtccomplexoverviewjb8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/6558/wtc2engineho3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

...The right hand engine?

[narcolepticwatchman]

LOL! Very good point

"So good "they" cocked it up twice?"

Or is it possibly an object that is extremely bright (on account of being engulfed in flames): like the right hand engine?

In addition, if the object was simply a CGI error, why did it then continue to trail smoke on a parabola all the way to hitting the deck, caught from multiple angles? Why make all the extra effort? (not that its credible "they" did)

In fact, by trying to pull the same hoodwink from two different angles, the NPT theorists have shot themselves in the foot

Its funny that the video cuts out before showing the full descent of the "CGI error": kind of like NPT's own "fade to black". And I wonder if the tower with NYC's main transmitter being struck buck the plane had anything to do with that momentary loss of signal? Surely not?

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/7425/wtc2exit39nome1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Just what is that extremely bright object flying through the sky? It couldn't be... could it?

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8195/wtccomplexoverviewjb8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/6558/wtc2engineho3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

...The right hand engine?

i have seen that video. There is no way that is an engine flying through the sky. to say it is is nothing more than conjecture on your part. There is no hole for the engine to go through. Look at the size of it whilst on the plane. Then look at the wreck. The wreck is still huge. Where did it exit the building on that photo?

[narcolepticwatchman]

BTW John, your argument seems to hinge a lot on the fireball. Tell me what NPT you have looked into that does not acknowledge real exlosions.

The buildings were hit by missiles......as was the pentagon.....and / or there were explosives in the building. There is no doubt that there was a real explosion mate.

now, the way that its thought it was done was thus.

1. The real explosions were filmed (from multiple angles)
2. The cgi planes were then drawn in

I'm not going to insult your intelligence (as you have mine) and tell you how blue screen works.

You are going to have the same explosion from all angles. Why wouldn't you? Your argument is fundamentally flawed.

[john white]

i have seen that video. There is no way that is an engine flying through the sky. to say it is is nothing more than conjecture on your part. There is no hole for the engine to go through. Look at the size of it whilst on the plane. Then look at the wreck. The wreck is still huge. Where did it exit the building on that photo?

Right on the corner of Floor 81

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/6640/630wtc2northfaceexitmarqh4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I grant you its not a very exciting hole, but thats reality for you, it often disappoints. Its certainly big enough though. The main point is, just because an explosive event looks a certain size when captured through the medium of a video camera, doesnt mean the object in the middle of the exploding flames and dust is the same size as the outline of the explosion itself

Another point about the claimed "nose out" on the "September clues" vid part three, is IF the nose out was a computer graphic extended too far, how come its emerging at a different angle from that the plane entered on? Course thats not an issue for a part of the plane that has fractured off and crashed through the infrastructure...

Such as, of course, an engine with the momentum to keep on going when the rest of the plane smacked into the central core...

[john white]

BTW John, your argument seems to hinge a lot on the fireball. Tell me what NPT you have looked into that does not acknowledge real exlosions.

The buildings were hit by missiles......as was the pentagon.....and / or there were explosives in the building. There is no doubt that there was a real explosion mate.

now, the way that its thought it was done was thus.

1. The real explosions were filmed (from multiple angles)
2. The cgi planes were then drawn in

I'm not going to insult your intelligence (as you have mine) and tell you how blue screen works.

You are going to have the same explosion from all angles. Why wouldn't you? Your argument is fundamentally flawed.

And the cause of the explosions is??? Even Killtown won't touch that one

The impact floors on both towers were active, open plan office space with people in them... Exactly how did thousands of gallons of jet fuel get stored in there rigged to blow? No space for them in the core, filled as it was with elevators. Same for "debris" ready to be ejected...

No, my argument that a plane flew into the towers stands up rather well as fitting all the facts:

Boeing 767-200ER Technical Characteristics. ... Maximum Fuel Capacity, 23980 U.S. gal (90770 L). Maximum Takeoff Weight, 395000 lb (179170 kg) ...

(The planes on 9/11 were half tanked... so thats 10,000 gallons of jet fuel going up)

[1 2 free]

I didn't answer your 17 second delay question because it is explained clearly in the video. If you have a memory like a goldfish that is not my problem.

As for the other angle, the cap certainly shows what appears to be the nose.....to me. Now, I have no idea what it actually is, but I know it cant be the real nose, that is impossible and there is no hole. I can only offer conjecture in response. Think about it this way though. If you put out a live shot which is a fuck up, and you are going to be putting out a few more, non-live, amateur videos later on, would you not try to make all of the previous angles fit your new ones as much as possible? I know i would. Its called covering your tracks. When was the last video shown first to the public? The first shot was live / delayed 17 seconds, the second one wasn't.

Actually that goldfish thing is somewhat of a myth. Goldfish have very good memories.

As for the second video it was shown on the same day. We know that because it was included in the BBC's dodgy WTC 7 broadcasts (forward to about 0:55)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TZfWE9R6hCM

[narcolepticwatchman]

And the cause of the explosions is??? Even Killtown won't touch that one

The impact floors on both towers were active, open plan office space with people in them... Exactly how did thousands of gallons of jet fuel get stored in there rigged to blow? No space for them in the core, filled as it was with elevators. Same for "debris" ready to be ejected...

No, my argument that a plane flew into the towers stands up rather well as fitting all the facts:

Boeing 767-200ER Technical Characteristics. ... Maximum Fuel Capacity, 23980 U.S. gal (90770 L). Maximum Takeoff Weight, 395000 lb (179170 kg) ...

(The planes on 9/11 were half tanked... so thats 10,000 gallons of jet fuel going up)


Now you are putting words into my mouth. I did not say anything about jet fuel being planted into the towers. Do explosives and cruise missiles not cause similar explosions to those witnessed? If there is an explosion i'm sure the 'debris' would take care of itself.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

I'm glad aslo that your are an expert on what 10,000 gallons of jet fuel looks like when it explodes. Again, another absurd statement .....this time you try to make it look intelligent by spouting some facts about an aeroplane..........yeah, those numbers sure got me convinced......:rolleyes:

[john white]

So thats where we've got to, is it? "A cruise missile hit the towers". Well Cruise missiles certainly go bang, but 500ft + radius explosions? Only when there something for them to hit to blow up. And not a single image of a cruise missile hitting the towers from all of the angles of all the cameras both commerical and private pointing at WTC2 that morning... which are all showing a PLANE

Now lets see... does that mean that a Plane hit the towers... or that "they" are so powerful they could guarentee that in the entire city, no-one would capture the evidence to blow the official story apart, and could fix every image from every camera. Thats why NPT is a theory of desperate denial, based on using images of a Plane to argue that a Plane isn't there

And this is supposed to be the ultimate proof that 9/11 is an inside job! Laughable. You've been conned

[narcolepticwatchman]

So thats where we've got to, is it? "A cruise missile hit the towers". Well Cruise missiles certainly go bang, but 500ft + radius explosions? Only when there something for them to hit to blow up. And not a single image of a cruise missile hitting the towers from all of the angles of all the cameras both commerical and private pointing at WTC2 that morning... which are all showing a PLANE

Now lets see... does that mean that a Plane hit the towers... or that "they" are so powerful they could guarentee that in the entire city, no-one would capture the evidence to blow the official story apart, and could fix every image from every camera. Thats why NPT is a theory of desperate denial, based on using images of a Plane to argue that a Plane isn't there

And this is supposed to be the ultimate proof that 9/11 is an inside job! Laughable. You've been conned

There you go again, cherry picking points from my posts to try to poke fun. I posted the cruise missile video to show what the explosions look like. I gave two possible theories other than planes which could have caused the explosions. Explosives and cruise missiles. You should be a politician

[john white]

If you want to argue that NPT isn’t a theory based on using images of a Plane to argue that a Plane isn't there, good luck to you. Even if (and its a big if) images could be shown to be faked at source (as opposed to faked by various NPT theory advocates) all it takes is ONE genuine image of a plane: just ONE: and NPT lies in ashes

I find it very interesting that NPT arose directly after the 5th anniversary of 9/11 last year: that’s directly after the 9/11 Truth movement had found enormous consensus and was really shifting public opinion: just as I find it highly significant that Fetzer split Scholars for 911Truth and backed Beam Weapon Theory just after the Dems took congress last November: mission accomplished for Jim. Should have listened to the JFK investigators when they warned us Fetzer was rotten: as in using 9/11 Truth to bump up anti republican feeling and get out the democratic vote. Not that those opposames have an interest in truth: just power. And just why DID key "researchers" suddenly claim to have known there were no planes all along when they had just spent the previous three years claiming there were missile pods on planes that, apparently, they knew weren’t there? So often I debate NPT theorists who claim to be able to think outside the box, but really are simply regurgitating what they've been told/sold and been excited by, without checking where stuff is coming from, and the previous form of the people pushing it

So here's a simple YES/NO proposition for you narcolepticwatchman:

One genuine image of a plane and NPT falls apart

Do you agree: YES or NO

[1 2 free]

Now you are putting words into my mouth. I did not say anything about jet fuel being planted into the towers. Do explosives and cruise missiles not cause similar explosions to those witnessed? If there is an explosion i'm sure the 'debris' would take care of itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WS9U5jTwWlY

I'm glad aslo that your are an expert on what 10,000 gallons of jet fuel looks like when it explodes. Again, another absurd statement .....this time you try to make it look intelligent by spouting some facts about an aeroplane..........yeah, those numbers sure got me convinced......:rolleyes:

It's the size of the explosion that's important here. Look at the dimensions of the WTC and then look at the actual size of that ball of flames. Nothing in your video clips comes close to that.

this time you try to make it look intelligent by spouting some facts

My God!!! Spouting facts!!!!! The bastard!! How can we trust him again? :rolleyes:

[1 2 free]

So thats where we've got to, is it? "A cruise missile hit the towers". Well Cruise missiles certainly go bang, but 500ft + radius explosions? Only when there something for them to hit to blow up. And not a single image of a cruise missile hitting the towers from all of the angles of all the cameras both commerical and private pointing at WTC2 that morning... which are all showing a PLANE


Not to mention the literally thousands of people who were stood in the street, in their workplaces and in their homes staring at the burning north tower. The sheer volume of people who witnessed the second plane hit was enormous and yet in that video we have some bloke mentioning what 'sounded' like a missile and erm...no one mentioning seeing a missile. The best they can come up with is a bunch of people who didn't see what hit the south tower which is used to imply thet it wasn't a plane. Nothing to do with the tower being in the way. Nope. Although that angle used to discredit the lady from Chelsea who claims she did see a plane. Funny eh?!

[travisbickle]

Not to mention the literally thousands of people who were stood in the street, in their workplaces and in their homes staring at the burning north tower. The sheer volume of people who witnessed the second plane hit was enormous and yet in that video we have some bloke mentioning what 'sounded' like a missile and erm...no one mentioning seeing a missile. The best they can come up with is a bunch of people who didn't see what hit the south tower which is used to imply thet it wasn't a plane. Nothing to do with the tower being in the way. Nope. Although that angle used to discredit the lady from Chelsea who claims she did see a plane. Funny eh?!


thousands of witnesses? yeah right, do the planehuggers want their humble pie now or later?

http://www.pippahunnechurch.com/humblepie2.gif

[john white]

thousands of witnesses? yeah right, do the planehuggers want their humble pie now or later?



No need: I'm not the one being served

And just why DID key "researchers" suddenly claim to have known there were no planes all along when they had just spent the previous three years claiming there were missile pods on planes that, apparently, they knew weren’t there? So often I debate NPT theorists who claim to be able to think outside the box, but really are simply regurgitating what they've been told/sold and been excited by, without checking where stuff is coming from, and the previous form of the people pushing it

Got an answer to the above or is it just a case of "la la la" with your fingers in your ears?

[intuition]

That doesnt explain the video where the fireman are stood on the street and hear the play flying overhead and move there heads following the plane as it hits the first tower.So were the fireman video images aswell? lol.They obviously heard a plane as it flew overhead.

[john white]

I am a failure troll

yes i know, glad you've realised

[thirdwave]

This information is rather like the Pentagon missle sub-theory. There's evidence that says one thing, but other evidence that contradicts it. A dozen witnesses saw flight 77, yet the damage to the Pentagon doesn't fit with it being hit by an airliner. Likewise if this stuff is true then all the witness on the ground who saw the planes had to be wrong. But if it's wrong then where was the plane in the shot before the close-up?


the thing is.... when that Brazilian guy was shot by the police... and they lied about the story and had a whiteness speak on the BBC about a total crock of shit.... when the real story came out they then went on to explain how eye witnesses can THINK they have seen something when you don't always get it right... this was a small section on the news they had on... so it seems when it suits the agenda then petrified eye witnesses can tell the truth.... but when it exposes them then eye witnesses don't know what they are seeing....

and on top of that the complete rubbish that the "Eye whiteness" spewed out about the shooting... was %100 wrong.. not a twsited view on it... .... which opens wide evidence that eye witness's can either lie or be fake witnesses... there for physical evidence is much more powerful...

[narcolepticwatchman]

If you want to argue that NPT isn’t a theory based on using images of a Plane to argue that a Plane isn't there, good luck to you. Even if (and its a big if) images could be shown to be faked at source (as opposed to faked by various NPT theory advocates) all it takes is ONE genuine image of a plane: just ONE: and NPT lies in ashes

I find it very interesting that NPT arose directly after the 5th anniversary of 9/11 last year: that’s directly after the 9/11 Truth movement had found enormous consensus and was really shifting public opinion: just as I find it highly significant that Fetzer split Scholars for 911Truth and backed Beam Weapon Theory just after the Dems took congress last November: mission accomplished for Jim. Should have listened to the JFK investigators when they warned us Fetzer was rotten: as in using 9/11 Truth to bump up anti republican feeling and get out the democratic vote. Not that those opposames have an interest in truth: just power. And just why DID key "researchers" suddenly claim to have known there were no planes all along when they had just spent the previous three years claiming there were missile pods on planes that, apparently, they knew weren’t there? So often I debate NPT theorists who claim to be able to think outside the box, but really are simply regurgitating what they've been told/sold and been excited by, without checking where stuff is coming from, and the previous form of the people pushing it

So here's a simple YES/NO proposition for you narcolepticwatchman:

One genuine image of a plane and NPT falls apart

Do you agree: YES or NO

YES that is obvious.

To be honest, I have no idea what hit those buildings. My previous posts have been conjecture....much like most of the theories (your engine and exit hole for example) banded about online today. I agree, there is solid, substantiated evidence which is enough to get the senior people involved hung, however, to me, these video clips most certainly do not add up.

Now, I'm gonna leave it at this.....because we are not going anywhere and this is getting a bit repetative.....

1. NPT has some substance but also a lot of loose ends. Its plausible but not ultimatley provable....at the moment.
2. There are certainly video clips which were faked and broadcast on the news.
3. There is a major problem in the movement at the moment. Whoever is correct, if anyone at all, it looks like the age old divide and conquer strategy is being played out as we speak.

[travisbickle]

YES that is obvious.

To be honest, I have no idea what hit those buildings. My previous posts have been conjecture....much like most of the theories (your engine and exit hole for example) banded about online today. I agree, there is solid, substantiated evidence which is enough to get the senior people involved hung, however, to me, these video clips most certainly do not add up.

Now, I'm gonna leave it at this.....because we are not going anywhere and this is getting a bit repetative.....

1. NPT has some substance but also a lot of loose ends. Its plausible but not ultimatley provable....at the moment.
2. There are certainly video clips which were faked and broadcast on the news.
3. There is a major problem in the movement at the moment. Whoever is correct, if anyone at all, it looks like the age old divide and conquer strategy is being played out as we speak.


FACT is the news channels on nine11 broadcast fake plane strikes LIVE (Fox etc) and interviewed real time witnesses (Theresa Renaud etc) who lied about seeing this happen.
Why would they need to do this if real planes were used?

[narcolepticwatchman]

So in 17 seconds a live shot of the exploding WTC and a prerecorded shot with a plane were combined and rebroadcast? Is that what you're saying? It's not a very credible argument.


http://www.livevideo.com/video/0A68FD7C73F8440E9CDCAE38D86C5129/september-clues-part5.aspx

No comment on credibility.....if you doubted that before then you always will....just some further viewing on the subject specifically concentrating on the 17 second discrepancy between the seismic data and the official impact time for the 2nd strike.

[crowd control]

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

John White......seen this vid about a month ago but never clicked that it was for you until now.

What are your thoughts on it? You been able to come up with an explanation for it yet? Lastly, why did you get Fred banned from posting on the UK 9/11 forum?

[tinmenace]

This is at least the second time someone has posted that John White banned/censored someone on a different forum. Last time they said it had something to do with someone posting anti-zionist information (John said that it wasn't him that did the censoring), and now here it is again...

:confused:

Do you have a suspicion what the ban was about? Any idea at all?

[john white]

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

John White......seen this vid about a month ago but never clicked that it was for you until now.

What are your thoughts on it? You been able to come up with an explanation for it yet? Lastly, why did you get Fred banned from posting on the UK 9/11 forum?

Well, being as your asking, I'm a Mod on the UK 9/11 forum: I can't Ban anybody! Fred got banned for his behaviour, to whit being consistantly abusive: Here's some examples, from where Fred had gone completely off the rails convinced that anyone who didnt agree with him was the same person:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=8699

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=8696&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

And thats basically repeated over about a hundred posts. Course it is true that Fred was consistantly abusive towards myself. Why was that? Well probably becuase I pwned his sorry arse and am not intimidated by faux truthers who fancy themselves. Here's a good example of the kind of exposure Fred couldnt tolerate, where his case for CNN footage being faked was conclusively taken apart by yours truly:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=8678&highlight=

This is at least the second time someone has posted that John White banned/censored someone on a different forum. Last time they said it had something to do with someone posting anti-zionist information (John said that it wasn't him that did the censoring), and now here it is again...

Do you have a suspicion what the ban was about? Any idea at all?

My winning ability to make friends and influence people. All forums have rules, those that can't keep to them get banned. Easy as. Its certainly got nothing to do with No Planes Theory, misguided distraction though I personally consider it to be based on the available evidence: Killtown for one is still happily posting

However, I could quite happily understand how anyone getting there information only from Fred's self serving and distorted blog entries on
www.911researchers.com could think he was hard done by. Nothing like an agitator playing the victim card

[sidlittle]

Lets keep this simple now.

1. Does this massive protrusion below resemble the engine part immediately below it?

2. Does Mr White's 'exit hole' come anywhere close to aligning with the object????


http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p280/telecasterisation/relate.jpg

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/6640/630wtc2northfaceexitmarqh4.jpg

ANSWERS:

1. NO
2. NO (In fact JW's exit hole is on the wrong facade!)


So, How about we drop the 'engine' angle and think of something else..?

[john white]

Apart from the fact that its YES: it does

Whats the dimension of a 767 engine sid?

Whats the dimension of the hole? (Clue: whats the height of one WTC tower floor?)

Can't really make it any simpler to understand than that: there is no "protuding nosecone": its an illusion of perception

[parallel]

one fact that cant be denied. the nwo did it and it was mass murder. just think how they are laughing right now, they think this is funny, everybody fighting over thier lies. neither a plane or a missile could have done this alone and thermite dosent just apear, if we just stick to the facts we are sure of we can win truth eventually. the longer it goes on the more senarios we can imagine. thats what they want and they will hold back the truth in the hope we go round and round in circles until nothing matches up anymore.

[john white]

NO (In fact JW's exit hole is on the wrong facade!)

BTW Sid, are you going to say "sorry!" when you realise both that my picture is described perfectly correctly and that your comments has revealed the flawed nature of your own observational process?

Just wondering

[narcolepticwatchman]

BTW Sid, are you going to say "sorry!" when you realise both that my picture is described perfectly correctly and that your comments has revealed the flawed nature of your own observational process?

Just wondering


Whats he got to apologise for? If the engine could fit through one floor then why have you pointed to one window out of hundreds which is on the adjacent side to where the area of interest is. His point is valid.

There you go again batting people down with valid points with zero explaination. are you some sort of NPT police?

I take it you accept the latest NWO offering showing the finite element analysis computer simulation as well? Because that is exactly what your explaination seems to fit.

Does it not strike you as being odd, that now, almost 6 full years after the attacks, a finite element analysis simulation is just being done and the results broadcast on the mainstream media.....now, just as the NPT start to get a bit of attention and following.

Do you doubt that a wescam could pull something like this off? I mean, is it possible? If its possible, then it is also probable.

[john white]

Does it not strike you as being odd, that now, almost 6 full years after the attacks, a finite element analysis simulation is just being done and the results broadcast on the mainstream media.....now, just as the NPT start to get a bit of attention and following.

Nope. NPT has nothing to do with it: you might as well claim its the exposure of pod theory!

Its the 98% of 9/11 Truthers doing hard campaigning on the real isues!

Prior knowledge. Stand-down of NORAD. Protection of the patsies. Controlled demolition WTC WTC2 and especially WTC7. Allowing bin Laden to escape. Whitewash of 9/11 commission. Exposing PNAC

I am well aware Fred and co have delusions of grandeur, but unfortunatley for them, their self important claims do not make them true. If they did, the countless polls about NPT theory on all the credible 9/11 forums would be showing something other than a meer 3 to 5% support for the TV fakery case

9/11 truth has defeated the left brain trap of Popular Mechanics and JREF (oh how the skeptics wail!), and it will defeat the right brain trap of Fetzer, Woods, Reynolds, Holmgren, Webfairy, Killtown and NPT

In fact, its already done so, as the bombing of "September Clues" has clearly shown. The tearing apart of the NPT camp from within is now inevitable, and has in fact been underway for some little time now: its only by attacking everyone else that they have held it together this long, and that game is old

[narcolepticwatchman]

Nope. NPT has nothing to do with it: you might as well claim its the exposure of pod theory!

How can you be so sure? You can't. You are passing off your opinions as undeniable fact.


Its the 98% of 9/11 Truthers doing hard campaigning on the real isues!

the countless polls about NPT theory on all the credible 9/11 forums would be showing something other than a meer 3 to 5% support for the TV fakery case
Can you count? Also, what makes a site 'credible' in your book? You sound like you should be on Fox news.


Prior knowledge. Stand-down of NORAD. Protection of the patsies. Controlled demolition WTC WTC2 and especially WTC7. Allowing bin Laden to escape. Whitewash of 9/11 commission. Exposing PNAC

So you have already said. You are repeating this ad nauseum mate. You are like a propagandist. I'm sure we are all well aware of this stuff, thank you.

I am well aware Fred and co have delusions of grandeur, but unfortunatley for them, their self important claims do not make them true.

The only person who this has been levelled at in this thread is you. Same goes.

[narcolepticwatchman]

Shayler seems to agree with the NPT

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=9060379095349825616&q=shayler&total=142&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

Btw, so did Dean Warwick before he died mysteriously.

[bigus_dickus]

but the buildings were designed to take any incoming plane in, that's why they don't collapse instantly. the engineers who designed them have said this 30 years ago.

[john white]

Shayler seems to agree with the NPT

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=9060379095349825616&q=shayler&total=142&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

And? Icke definately does NOT support NPT. Does that make him right just becuase he's Icke? Neither is Shayler right just becuase hes Shayler.

Btw, so did Dean Warwick before he died mysteriously.

Warwick said a lot of things: like that he was about to reveal the identity of the anti-christ just before he keeled over dead on stage. Does this mean Damien did for him?

Essentially, the point is that bringing in the "cult of personality" into this is dredging the slurry in the bottom of the barrell: there are no "authority" figures in 9/11 truth, unless people are looking for others to do their thinking for them. Hardly a healthy place to be

[crowd control]

And? Icke definately does NOT support NPT. Does that make him right just becuase he's Icke? Neither is Shayler right just becuase hes Shayler.



Warwick said a lot of things: like that he was about to reveal the identity of the anti-christ just before he keeled over dead on stage. Does this mean Damien did for him?

Essentially, the point is that bringing in the "cult of personality" into this is dredging the slurry in the bottom of the barrell: there are no "authority" figures in 9/11 truth, unless people are looking for others to do their thinking for them. Hardly a healthy place to be

So Icke has publicly stated he doesn't believe in NPT? Or are you on about the phone call someone says they made to him on another forum? Got any links? I'd like to see what he says about it.

[sidlittle]

BTW Sid, are you going to say "sorry!" when you realise both that my picture is described perfectly correctly and that your comments has revealed the flawed nature of your own observational process?

Just wondering

Once again, John White's Exit Hole (on the EASTERN facade)

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/6640/630wtc2northfaceexitmarqh4.jpg



The 'Nose' exiting from the NORTHERN Facade

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/september2006/050906wflight175.jpg

http://uploads.abovetopsecret.com/ats45396_plume2.gif

John's response?

its an illusion of perception


Jesus H Christ, that's some illusion:rolleyes:


So, in answer to your original question, no I won't say sorry. Not just yet. Indeed, I find your observations quite baffling and I know I'm not alone.

[john white]

Sid, you've just pwned yourself and the credibility of your own perception

It says East SIDE of North FACE

I know what I'm talking about: you don't

Simply a statement of fact:

I stand by my assessment of NPT 100%

You need to emotionally detach and look at the issue again IMHO

[sidlittle]

Sid, you've just pwned yourself and the credibility of your own perception

It says East SIDE of North FACE

I know what I'm talking about: you don't

Simply a statement of fact:

I stand by my assessment of NPT 100%

You need to emotionally detach and look at the issue again IMHO

Oh come on! Do you deny the photo shows the North face and a small section of the East face?
Your exit hole is located on the NE corner, more specifically the eastern side. The object exits quite clearly from the Northern face.

John , anyone looking in can see your exit hole does not align. You are the only one promoting this at the moment and its quite baffling.

I'd have thought you would have at least moved on to the 'dildo shaped dirt and debris' argument by now.


cheers

[john white]

Oh come on! Do you deny the photo shows the North face and a small section of the East face?
Your exit hole is located on the NE corner, more specifically the eastern side. The object exits quite clearly from the Northern face.

John , anyone looking in can see your exit hole does not align. You are the only one promoting this at the moment and its quite baffling.

I'd have thought you would have at least moved on to the 'dildo shaped dirt and debris' argument by now.


cheers

Get a grip Sid: you're the one whose made numerous posts suggesting I don't know the relationships between the different images available for study, you've been 100% wrong and shown that your over reaching yourself trying to find flaw in my argument and making a fool of your own credibility. After all, if you make such elementary mistakes, how can you be said to be accurate enough in your observations to be able to convincingly call "TV fakery"? It's as if your not able to understand why the NPT case falls apart

[john white]

So Icke has publicly stated he doesn't believe in NPT? Or are you on about the phone call someone says they made to him on another forum? Got any links? I'd like to see what he says about it.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=3771&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=icke

This morning I had a long telephone conversation with David Icke and when I asked him for his view about the 'No Plane' theories concerning the Twin Towers he said 'Don't go there!. In his opinion this is being used to damage the 9/11 Truth movement at this extraordinarily important time for us and, whilst he accepts that the PTB/Illuminati/NeoCons are capable of almost anything, our campaign must stick to the basics. He said that the most important thing is for a new impartial inquiry into 9/11 to take place and that it is not up to us to come up with the detail as to how the PTB actually carried out the day's attacks. So please, those of you who champion the NPT, just stop and think what likely damage you are doing to the greater cause. I can totally understand your fascination in wanting to find out how they actually pulled the whole thing off, but please keep these theories 'entre nous'!

David also used a great one liner to me. He said:

9/11 is nothing but a tapestry of lies, inconsistencies and impossibilities.

David doesn't think that a plane flew into the Pentagon and likewise, concerning Flight 93, the crash site is missing any serious debris. As regards the Twin Towers, I'm sorry but both he and I believe they were planes that went into the buildings - in fact IMHO (and I studied plane crashes at Cranfield University as part of an International Disaster Management Course) the planes entered the Towers exactly as I would expect them to do - after all they were not made from reinforced concrete like the Pentagon. At the Pentagon you would expect the plane to crash against it leaving substantial wreckage on the outside of the building - and it seems realistic IMHO to expect the opposite when crashing into a skyscraper.

Using the term 'idiot' I don't think is very helpful or pleasant. I am also amazed you saw a FAKE plane from DAY 1 and I am yet to meet or hear of any one else who suspected that the planes were not planes on the day it actually happened. As regards the Naudet brothers, you hear the noise of the (remote controlled) aircraft passing over them (and I can tell you the noise certainly sounded like aircraft engines - not a missile that's for sure) and the burning fuel was certainly no illusion.

I'm sorry, but commonsense and personal experience of aircraft and their characteristics, do not make me a supporter of the NPT. However, as Ian quite rightly points out, you have a perfect right to debate it - I only ask you to consider the wisdom of doing so at this crucial time.

Sorry to sound heavy on this but a lot is now riding on what we are doing and we must present our case in the best possible light if we are going to win quickly. Just remember please, whilst you have the luxury of debating all this in a safe and peaceful environment, innocent people are dying in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere on a daily basis. Iran is likely to be next with possibly thousands of innocent lives being lost. The sooner the NeoCons/PTB are exposed for 9/11, the sooner these people can live in the sort of peace you take totally for granted. Please don't be so selfish.


Theres no doubt this is an accurate representation of Ickes views, if you doubt that, why not raise the question for the next podcast? Though i have a feeling you know about this information anyway. well thats fine, I present it for the benefit of the forum at large

but to repeat:

Essentially, the point is that bringing in the "cult of personality" into this is dredging the slurry in the bottom of the barrell: there are no "authority" figures in 9/11 truth, unless people are looking for others to do their thinking for them. Hardly a healthy place to be

[narcolepticwatchman]

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=3771&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=icke





Theres no doubt this is an accurate representation of Ickes views, if you doubt that, why not raise the question for the next podcast? Though i have a feeling you know about this information anyway. well thats fine, I present it for the benefit of the forum at large

but to repeat:

Essentially, the point is that bringing in the "cult of personality" into this is dredging the slurry in the bottom of the barrell: there are no "authority" figures in 9/11 truth, unless people are looking for others to do their thinking for them. Hardly a healthy place to be

So your definitestatement about Ickes views is just heresay just as CC suggested? Nice. I'll believe what Icke says about it when he states it publicly. I have never heard him speak about it and I'm sure if he saw the footage in high res, slow motion with all the inconsistencies highlighted he would question it too. He certainly isn't the type of person to blindly discount anything without looking at all of the evidence objectively.

Btw, I like the way you cherry pick the points to respond to John. There are a few things within this thread that I have asked your opinion on but you seem to have dodged. Do you have your own opinions or do you just regurgitate what you read on the other forums?

[narcolepticwatchman]

Oh, and I like Justins post. Very entertaining.

in fact IMHO (and I studied plane crashes at Cranfield University as part of an International Disaster Management Course) the planes entered the Towers exactly as I would expect them to do

Did they do a lot of analysis on building plane impacts at Cranfield University? I doubt it. This statement is misleading to say the least. He is using his claimed acedemic qualification to justify a plane strike on a building, the likes of which haven't been seen before. I doubt (in fact, I know, I checked it) the curriculum for this course covers structural design for either a building or a plane. How can this possibly justify the statement above that they entered 'exactly as he would expect them to'.

In a word, 'bull'.

[john white]

So your definitestatement about Ickes views is just heresay just as CC suggested? Nice. I'll believe what Icke says about it when he states it publicly. I have never heard him speak about it and I'm sure if he saw the footage in high res, slow motion with all the inconsistencies highlighted he would question it too. He certainly isn't the type of person to blindly discount anything without looking at all of the evidence objectively.

Btw, I like the way you cherry pick the points to respond to John. There are a few things within this thread that I have asked your opinion on but you seem to have dodged. Do you have your own opinions or do you just regurgitate what you read on the other forums?

If you want to call Justin a liar, go right ahead, those in the know can enjoy a laugh at your expense: and as I said, the honus is on YOU to ask Icke his views, which this site gives you a route to do so. What a coup for NPT it would be if Icke did back it! but if its not worth your effort to find out... perhaps you'd rather not get an answer and be disapointed.

Do I pick up everything you say? Probably not, I'm under no compulsion. But if you want to put up your top three "arguments" for me to knock down, be my guest. However, if your mind is closed theres not a great deal of point, is there?

Better simply to agree to disagree

[narcolepticwatchman]

If you want to call Justin a liar, go right ahead, those in the know can enjoy a laugh at your expense: and as I said, the honus is on YOU to ask Icke his views, which this site gives you a route to do so. What a coup for NPT it would be if Icke did back it! but if its not worth your effort to find out... perhaps you'd rather not get an answer and be disapointed.

Do I pick up everything you say? Probably not, I'm under no compulsion. But if you want to put up your top three "arguments" for me to knock down, be my guest. However, if your mind is closed theres not a great deal of point, is there?

Better simply to agree to disagree


The onus is not on me to do anything. You are the one who has came out with the 'definite' statement when you refer to a post on a forum which is heresay until proved otherwise mate. You make me laugh.

What makes you think my mind is closed? If anything, its you who has the closed mind, kinda tunnel vision it appears. I used to think exactly the way you think about the events of that day. i have snce been convinced otherwise. Does that seem like a closed mind to you? Keep these posts up, I was gonna watch some Bill Hicks later but this is funnier.

[narcolepticwatchman]

Charge sheet - John White

1. You tried to pass off a cnn logo disguised shot as live when it wasn’t
2. Your 2nd hand explanation for telephoto lens making the buildings rotate did not explain anything other than the fact that the lens can make objects appear closer than they are (nothing to do with rotating). This was a direct reference to another video clip showing the verrazano bridge which i was not talking about. Still hasn’t been explained yet. You claim it has.
3. I asked for another similar example showing a background rotating in the same manner. You didn't respond.
4. I asked for proof that telephoto lenses were used. You didn't respond.
5. You still havent explained why two almost identical angled shots show totally contradictory impacts. One shows no plane and a back ground, the other shows no background and a plane.
6. You passed off the aluminium melting into the structural steel with an analogy of water cutting steel at high pressure. What you didn’t mention, is that the water must be at exceedingly high pressures, concentrated to a very small, focussed jet and can only cut through thin pieces of metal when used without an added abrasive. This is selective use of analogy with extremely important information missing and in no way explains away the melting of aluminium into structural steel.
7. You stated that footage had been faked but would not elaborate on exactly what footage you claim this is.
8. You claim to have demolished my arguments. Maybe in your own head but anyone with any sense reading this will realise that your explanations are bollocks passed off as fact.
9. You have tried to incite me into a slanging match on numerous occaisions withot success, calling me narcoleptic, a shill, advising me to ingest caffeine, inferring I am delusional and questioning my comprehension levels. (Is this your tactic to get people banned from forums?)
10. Your claim that the hole ‘on the corner’ was where the engine exited has been proven to not tie in with the rest of your argument and photos yet you still stand by the claim. Your arrows point to the eastern facade....not the east side of the north face as you claim.
11. You never answered the question about your opinion on the FEA done recently by the independent (government) organisation.
12. Or wether you think a wescam system could pull something like this off
13. Or what makes a site credible in your book
14. Lastly, you tried to pass off a statement about Icke as definite when it was merely heresay until proven otherwise. (the 'those in the know' getting a laugh at my expense statement sounded very illuminist btw)

You are good at the spin, I will give you that.

Keep responding with the pod theory stuff as well.....note that no one else has mentioned this on this thread bar yourself. .......and always in an effort to ridicule. Nice tactics Senior Blanco.

[john white]

Charge sheet - John White

Yeah, guilty of truthseeking without apology

1. You tried to pass off a cnn logo disguised shot as live when it wasn’t

But it was: when it was shot: It may have been repeated but it certainly went out live

2. Your 2nd hand explanation for telephoto lens making the buildings rotate did not explain anything other than the fact that the lens can make objects appear closer than they are (nothing to do with rotating). This was a direct reference to another video clip showing the verrazano bridge which i was not talking about. Still hasn’t been explained yet. You claim it has.
3. I asked for another similar example showing a background rotating in the same manner. You didn't respond.
4. I asked for proof that telephoto lenses were used. You didn't respond.

Ridiculous: and wrong: clearly showed what telephoto lenses do to distance on page 2. But why are you bleating at me? Go and do some research: its not hard. The only reason for doing so is you dont want to find out that the rotating building/moving bridge claims are just plain wrong. You can blame me for that if you like, but its not my fault, or my responsibility

And as for me having to prove to you that a cameraman taking footage on a helicopter would use a telephoto lens: utterly farcical, the shot would never be in focus if he didnt. You can think, I assume?

5. You still havent explained why two almost identical angled shots show totally contradictory impacts. One shows no plane and a back ground, the other shows no background and a plane.

If you were at all interested, lenses and their settings.... Not proof of fakery, just proof that different settings alter the result from camera technology... although its not outside the realms of possibility that the images have been tampered with post 9/11, if they were, most likely by the cabal pushing "No Planes" theory, on account of the form...

6. You passed off the aluminium melting into the structural steel with an analogy of water cutting steel at high pressure. What you didn’t mention, is that the water must be at exceedingly high pressures, concentrated to a very small, focussed jet and can only cut through thin pieces of metal when used without an added abrasive. This is selective use of analogy with extremely important information missing and in no way explains away the melting of aluminium into structural steel.

There was no melting: the plane crashed into the building entirely in line with physics, as high res images clearly show. If you want to play around with Web Fairy's doctored "low res most of the frames stripped out" footage and call it proof of anything, thats your issue, not mine. Physics is Physics though and that entire body of knowledge says it that the planes did what they could be expected to do. Theres no physics to support the planes bouncing off the outside like your assertations need them to. Otherwise guess what? Theres no problem with the footage and no call to claim fakery

7. You stated that footage had been faked but would not elaborate on exactly what footage you claim this is.

Too many examples of doctoring from NPT pushers to bother listing. Go find out: again, its not hard

8. You claim to have demolished my arguments. Maybe in your own head but anyone with any sense reading this will realise that your explanations are bollocks passed off as fact.

Still do: becuase I have. Remember: a single genuine image of a Plane and the entire of NPT falls apart: just one image. Really, get some perspective on what you've allowed yourself to get into here. Just becuase its a psychologically easy answer doesnt mean you should settle for it. And I shouldnt imagine this is anything else but a conversation between you and me. If you hadnt noticed, its only a tiny minority that get suckered for more than a few minutes by NPT

9. You have tried to incite me into a slanging match on numerous occaisions withot success, calling me narcoleptic, a shill, advising me to ingest caffeine, inferring I am delusional and questioning my comprehension levels. (Is this your tactic to get people banned from forums?)

No, I didnt call you a shill LOL! You call yourself "narcoleptic" and if you can't take a gag about coffee... then your very sensitive. Banned from forums? Hardly mate, what do you imagine your a "threat" to, anything? LOL etc. I'm simply doing you a favour, if you had but the ability to recognise it

10. Your claim that the hole ‘on the corner’ was where the engine exited has been proven to not tie in with the rest of your argument and photos yet you still stand by the claim. Your arrows point to the eastern facade....not the east side of the north face as you claim.

WRONG! Your as willfully blinded as Sid. Try this slowly:

East SIDE of NORTH face. And the arrow points to the eastern edge, cos its the eastern edge of the north face the engine ripped its way out of... ergo, my interpetation completely fits the facts. You on the other hand are constantly dodging the question of why a CGI mistake nose cone should have a parabouic trajectory all the way to the ground captured on mulitple angles. There was NO CGI nose cone, its a con job. But you dont want to hear it

The same I said to Sid applies to you: I am demonstrating I know what I'm talking about: you are demonstrating that you do NOT

11. You never answered the question about your opinion on the FEA done recently by the independent (government) organisation.

I'll look into that more before commenting

12. Or wether you think a wescam system could pull something like this off

Theres no evidence to support that it did. Captions on a sports prgoraming are one thing, instant fully interlaced CGI added in 17 seconds max is something else, especially on footage wobbling around from a helicopter: and there is no evidence of CGI planes that stands up when one goes to the source footage. But if you dont want to look at the source footage and prefer the messed around with NPT you-tube spam form of truth, what can I do about it?

13. Or what makes a site credible in your book

Its not "my book" but the consensus view of the 9/11 truth movement as a whole, where the NPT posse have been kicked off for moronic behaviour time and time again to the resounding cheers of the vast majority of members who actually want to make a difference, not forment infighting and discord around a bunch of fantasist ramblings. But then, real campaigning is a bit challenging and its more fun to have it as a hobby from home. At least NPT'ers are guarenteed to be considered harmless by the PTB

14. Lastly, you tried to pass off a statement about Icke as definite when it was merely heresay until proven otherwise. (the 'those in the know' getting a laugh at my expense statement sounded very illuminist btw)

You want to be in denial, thats fine, you know how to do something about it, but dont want to, do you? And its SID's issue to make something about "what Shayler says" or "what Icke says", not mine. I do my own thinking, thanks: you should try it. And if Icke did support NPT it wouldnt change my view on the matter unless and untill credible evidence comes along that can stand more than 5 minutes of scrutiny. Shockingly, Ickes not right about everything. and I dont have a problem with that

But its all moot, becuase Icke is certainly perceptive enough to recognise NPT for the crock it is and its pushers highly suspect personages

You are good at the spin, I will give you that.

I disagree. My honest views arn't spin on anything, other than in the eyes of those who want to dodge the argument

Keep responding with the pod theory stuff as well.....note that no one else has mentioned this on this thread bar yourself. .......and always in an effort to ridicule. Nice tactics Senior Blanco.

I know its hard for you to hear, but every "leader" of NPT claiming to have known all along there were no Planes also pushed Pod Theory as THE truth for two and a half years until it was finally unable to avoid it being seen for the turd it was... and then low and behold out came "NPT", swiftly followed by beam weapons. So if you want to be suckered by connmen with prior form and avoid looking at the real evidence, its your business, yet I doubt the world will stop turning as a result. I've done you a favour by giving you a heads up warning, if you want to ignore it, thats up to you: but everyday your arguing garbage about 9/11, who are you really helping? Exactly. Thanks.

[narcolepticwatchman]

But it was: when it was shot: It may have been repeated but it certainly went out live

The live shot showed it in all its glory mate. the repeat had the logo.



Ridiculous: and wrong: clearly showed what telephoto lenses do to distance on page 2. But why are you bleating at me? Go and do some research: its not hard. The only reason for doing so is you dont want to find out that the rotating building/moving bridge claims are just plain wrong. You can blame me for that if you like, but its not my fault, or my responsibility

I researched telephoto lenses bud. I'm talking about rotating backgrounds....you are talking about perspective and buildings looking closer than the maps suggest. Totally different argument and non justified. Why don't you admit it. You don't know how they work do you? :D

And as for me having to prove to you that a cameraman taking footage on a helicopter would use a telephoto lens: utterly farcical, the shot would never be in focus if he didnt. You can think, I assume?

So there are no other lens types out there other than telephoto lenses that would be able to focus a shot? What about wide angle, or perspective control lenses? Surely you can think?


If you were at all interested, lenses and their settings.... Not proof of fakery, just proof that different settings alter the result from camera technology... although its not outside the realms of possibility that the images have been tampered with post 9/11, if they were, most likely by the cabal pushing "No Planes" theory, on account of the form...

OBJECTION!! This is all conjecture, he is leading the witness your honour.

There was no melting: the plane crashed into the building entirely in line with physics, as high res images clearly show. If you want to play around with Web Fairy's doctored "low res most of the frames stripped out" footage and call it proof of anything, thats your issue, not mine. Physics is Physics though and that entire body of knowledge says it that the planes did what they could be expected to do. Theres no physics to support the planes bouncing off the outside like your assertations need them to. Otherwise guess what? Theres no problem with the footage and no call to claim fakery
I said melting to describe the appearance of the impact, not the physical property of the metals.

Are you a physicist? You havent looked into (or seen other opinions on) the FEA analysis (which is analysis on properties of materials and their physics under simulated imposed stresses) but you have claimed that the plane crashed into the building entirely in line with physics Spin, spin, spin.......Its like being on the waltzers with you.


Too many examples of doctoring from NPT pushers to bother listing. Go find out: again, its not hard

Too many and you can't show me 1? C'mon, play the game mate. You are starting to look like you are on the ropes here......

Still do: becuase I have. Remember: a single genuine image of a Plane and the entire of NPT falls apart: just one image. Really, get some perspective on what you've allowed yourself to get into here. Just becuase its a psychologically easy answer doesnt mean you should settle for it. And I shouldnt imagine this is anything else but a conversation between you and me. If you hadnt noticed, its only a tiny minority that get suckered for more than a few minutes by NPT

So you have previously said. Whats new?

No, I didnt call you a shill LOL! You call yourself "narcoleptic" and if you can't take a gag about coffee... then your very sensitive. Banned from forums? Hardly mate, what do you imagine your a "threat" to, anything? LOL etc. I'm simply doing you a favour, if you had but the ability to recognise it

My name has nowt to do with me being half asleep or slow as you inferred. (go on, tell me you didn't) No justification for that. and yes you did call me a shill. You said, and I quote,

You are keen to shill for Killtown, aren’t you?

WRONG! Your as willfully blinded as Sid. Try this slowly:

East SIDE of NORTH face. And the arrow points to the eastern edge, cos its the eastern edge of the north face the engine ripped its way out of... ergo, my interpetation completely fits the facts. You on the other hand are constantly dodging the question of why a CGI mistake nose cone should have a parabouic trajectory all the way to the ground captured on mulitple angles. There was NO CGI nose cone, its a con job. But you dont want to hear it

The same I said to Sid applies to you: I am demonstrating I know what I'm talking about: you are demonstrating that you do NOT

You shall say this slowly? Again with the insults. Blatant. Anyways, to recap....

YOUR ARROWS ON YOUR DIAGRAM POINT TO THE EAST FACE, NOT THE NORTH, AND ITS DOUBTFUL IF THE ONE STRAY ONE IS INTENDED FOR THE CORNER!! :D NONE POINT TO THE NORTH FACE



I'll look into that more before commenting

Do that.



Theres no evidence to support that it did. Captions on a sports prgoraming are one thing, instant fully interlaced CGI added in 17 seconds max is something else, especially on footage wobbling around from a helicopter: and there is no evidence of CGI planes that stands up when one goes to the source footage. But if you dont want to look at the source footage and prefer the messed around with NPT you-tube spam form of truth, what can I do about it?

I have been looking at source footage. what makes you think I havent? The archives were downloaded by my friend. Where did I state I soelly used youtube footage for analysis? Again, another spun comment with no substance. :D You should be on stage....

Its not "my book" but the consensus view of the 9/11 truth movement as a whole, where the NPT posse have been kicked off for moronic behaviour time and time again to the resounding cheers of the vast majority of members who actually want to make a difference, not forment infighting and discord around a bunch of fantasist ramblings. But then, real campaigning is a bit challenging and its more fun to have it as a hobby from home. At least NPT'ers are guarenteed to be considered harmless by the PTB

You want to be in denial, thats fine, you know how to do something about it, but dont want to, do you? And its SID's issue to make something about "what Shayler says" or "what Icke says", not mine. I do my own thinking, thanks: you should try it. And if Icke did support NPT it wouldnt change my view on the matter unless and untill credible evidence comes along that can stand more than 5 minutes of scrutiny. Shockingly, Ickes not right about everything. and I dont have a problem with that

But its all moot, becuase Icke is certainly perceptive enough to recognise NPT for the crock it is and its pushers highly suspect personages

So you are admitting that something you passed off as a 'definite' fact is no more than heresay? And don't be in any doubt friend, I do my own thinking. How utterly insulting of you to insinuate otherwise.

I disagree. My honest views arn't spin on anything, other than in the eyes of those who want to dodge the argument

Who is dodging here (apart from you?)


I know its hard for you to hear, but every "leader" of NPT claiming to have known all along there were no Planes also pushed Pod Theory as THE truth for two and a half years until it was finally unable to avoid it being seen for the turd it was... and then low and behold out came "NPT", swiftly followed by beam weapons. So if you want to be suckered by connmen with prior form and avoid looking at the real evidence, its your business, yet I doubt the world will stop turning as a result. I've done you a favour by giving you a heads up warning, if you want to ignore it, thats up to you: but everyday your arguing garbage about 9/11, who are you really helping? Exactly. Thanks.


Who am I really helping? You have no idea what I do outwith this forum mate. However, I know that you post on this and a few more forums, obviously taking up a lot of your time, arguing nonsense with people with valid points. Arrogant and self righteous are understatements.

I still don't know what you really think yourself mate. For someone that thinks for himself (and posts other peoples information) you haven't really elaborated. Tell me, who do you think highjacked / flew the planes then? Atta and the 18? No-one? Elaborate please.

[john white]

LOL! Heres the problem: investigating 9/11 isnt about certainities, but probabilities. Its the need for certainty that leads to the adoption of absurdity. Believe what you want, its really not an issue for me. I've helped you enough, you can do without my energy from here on in: I'm not your food source to loop around fruits with

[narcolepticwatchman]

LOL! Heres the problem: investigating 9/11 isnt about certainities, but probabilities. Its the need for certainty that leads to the adoption of absurdity. Believe what you want, its really not an issue for me. I've helped you enough, you can do without my energy from here on in: I'm not your food source to loop around fruits with

You haven't helped me one jot mate. Again you are on a high horse. You seem to think I am some daft wee laddie who cannot think for himself and needs guidance. You have stated this quite categorically in your previous posts so that much is clear. Without substance I may add.

What a kop out.

[john white]

You haven't helped me one jot mate. Again you are on a high horse. You seem to think I am some daft wee laddie who cannot think for himself and needs guidance. You have stated this quite categorically in your previous posts so that much is clear. Without substance I may add.

What a kop out.

uh-huh

So are you going to actually acknowledge the truth of this then, or just keep editing it out of your reality becuase you don't want to deal?


I know its hard for you to hear, but every "leader" of NPT claiming to have known all along there were no Planes also pushed Pod Theory as THE truth for two and a half years until it was finally unable to avoid it being seen for the turd it was... and then low and behold out came "NPT", swiftly followed by beam weapons. So if you want to be suckered by connmen with prior form and avoid looking at the real evidence, its your business, yet I doubt the world will stop turning as a result. I've done you a favour by giving you a heads up warning, if you want to ignore it, thats up to you: but everyday your arguing garbage about 9/11, who are you really helping? Exactly. Thanks.

So whats your choice then? Denounce Web fairy, Holmgren, Reynolds, Wood, Fetzer, Killtown, Fred and so on as liars and fantasists, possibly sent in to undermine No Plane Theory Truth by "them" (as they are busily accusing each other of doing) whilst still drawing on their "research", or accept the current "evidence" of TV Fakery as the bad lot it is and try again from scratch?

Wot a kop-out, reflected right back at YOU

[crowd control]

It is my opinion that John White has been totally destroyed in this thread by The Narcoleptic Watchman by logical argument. It seems that John would like us to believe that investigating 9-11 is all about uncertainty because his agenda would appear to be, from his attitude, and past form, to at least muddy the waters, if he can't bulldoze the enemy (an enmity which he intentionally creates from his tone from the offset) with scorn and derision in a blatant attempt to raise the heckles of the person he is engaged in a debate with, in order to provoke a response of an insultory manner in order to have the opponent banned. Getting people banned from forums for speaking their mind and investigating certain topics would appear to be his speciality to the casual observer. I commend The Narcoleptic watchman for having the patience, intelligence and temperance to treat this kind of debate stifler with the contempt they deserve. John your words, attitude, modus operandi make you look like a very shady character. If it's b/s let it come out in the wash. I think you are disinfo mate. I'll tell you that straight out. Who you working for, which books do you recommend burning? Is this enough of an insult? Why don't you get me banned, there will be millions of me and Narcoleptic watchmen and Fred's and Killtown's. It's all there in the archives and NPT where it starts to get interesting, what about the optical Telsa weapons, and the supersonic birds, technology has moved on, and people can see how fake it looks, it's going viral buddy, people like you are trying to hold back the ocean. Good luck.

[john white]

I'm hardly suprised that you back up your mate

Truth endures: bullshit composts: and some viruses are harmful, so you should be mindful what your spreading around

(Again! Another one who won't confront the credibility crisis of the gang behind NPT!)

[crowd control]

I'm hardly suprised that you back up your mate

Truth endures: bullshit composts: and some viruses are harmful, so you should be mindful what your spreading around

(Again! Another one who won't confront the credibility crisis of the gang behind NPT!)


There's been many a time me and Narco have disagreed, there would be absolutely no respect between us whatsoever if we blindly backed each other up, without doing our own research FYI. Your comment about... I should be mindful about what I'm spreading about... Is that some sort of shaded threat? I have no fear of you or your ilk, you're wasting your time if you want to go down that avenue, believe me, and it’s laughable that you've become so desperate that you're trying that sort of nonsense. What truth specifically am I refusing to accept about the gang behind NPT, I'm relatively new to all this, and I can only go on what I see, and what my gut is saying to me. Do you accept the reality that to the casual observer you seem to be like some sort of pys-op agent who is trying to stifle debate? Would you accept that your approach is not conducive to collective truth seeking? 1000 apologies of course if I am wrong, but you ARE emitting quite a stench.

[john white]

No I dont accept that I appear to be a psy-op operative simply for holding an opposing view to you and narcoleptic watchmen: you'd like me to be a psyop operative perhaps, becuase then you dont have to take on board what I am saying, and how fundamentely it weakens the whole NPT case. Truthseeking is not so easy

You'd like to cast yourself in the role of "oppressed truthseeking hero" perhaps, and thats why you interpret my comment as a "threat" when it is clearly an appeal to take some reponsibility for the truthfullness of what you are spreading as 9/11 Truth. Thats the key word: responsibility. And as long as you won't address the background of the people putting NPT out on to the net, you are demonstrating your irresponsibility

If your looking for psy-op operatives you'd do well to look at who is spreading lies and distortions, smearing opponents, re-writing their own history and disseminating weak, nonsensical, easily disproved theories that distract from exposing the provable truth and therefore protect the 9/11 coverup: becuase thats the kind of thing it would be "psy-op operatives" job to do

So stop whining at me and get on with it

[crowd control]

No I dont accept that I appear to be a psy-op operative simply for holding an opposing view to you and narcoleptic watchmen: you'd like me to be a psyop operative perhaps, becuase then you dont have to take on board what I am saying, and how fundamentely it weakens the whole NPT case. Truthseeking is not so easy

You'd like to cast yourself in the role of "oppressed truthseeking hero" perhaps, and thats why you interpret my comment as a "threat" when it is clearly an appeal to take some reponsibility for the truthfullness of what you are spreading as 9/11 Truth. Thats the key word: responsibility. And as long as you won't address the background of the people putting NPT out on to the net, you are demonstrating your irresponsibility

If your looking for psy-op operatives you'd do well to look at who is spreading lies and distortions, smearing opponents, re-writing their own history and disseminating weak, nonsensical, easily disproved theories that distract from exposing the provable truth and therefore protect the 9/11 coverup: becuase thats the kind of thing it would be "psy-op operatives" job to do

So stop whining at me and get on with it


I’m not saying that you give off the appearance of being psy-ops because you simply disagree, to hark back to your compost post and the nature of truth; we have heard Dave saying” All truth goes through three stages” Yeah? Have you not firstly ridiculed, and secondly, it could be argued, that you have violently opposed the seeking of truth by your lame banning tactics, not because you simply disagree do I say that you give off the odour but because you pour scorn upon and take measures to stifle debate, so perhaps your defence that you do not believe yourself to resemble this type simply because you disagree betrays you as trying to pass yourself off as the "oppressed truthseeking hero" And pl-ease do not attempt to claim there was no underlying malice in that “careful” line. I might be relatively new to all this but it seems I’m not alone in being able to read you like a book. Your handlers will be ready to slap you down for your shoddy work on this thread for sure. Almost as sloppy as the nose out. Specifically what about the NPTheorists do you have a problem with? Can you help sum it for me in a few concise lines, so that I, in my irresponsible ignorance, can investigate?

[john white]

I'm not oppressed by anything, in anyway: and neither are you: thats simply illusion: and your post is a reflection of your own thoughts

"read you like a book" "stiffle debate" "your handlers will slap you down"

Its meaningless: pointless argument. And in addition, totally evidence free

The facts are, I am an empassioned and experianced truthseeker, posting with the aim of helping you out by pointing out that its bloody important to check where stuff is coming from, especially when its extraordinary theories with questionable evidence pushed by dodgy characters muddying the waters of what is an incredibly clear case: 9/11 was an inside job

I agree I might be somewhat stubborn in that, more so than just about any topic on this forum, but I also make no apology for it

[narcolepticwatchman]

Just another thought that popped into my head john.

You have said clearly enough before that you do not know what flew into the pentagon and you are not willing to give us your opinion on what you think it was even thought you must have a thought on the matter. It can be narrowed down quite easily. It was either a plane or some ballistic device or some exotic weaponry would you agree?

Now, based on your arguments of physics which I don't agree with, we know it is not a plane. Why? because, your plane wings shear structural steel without any part of the wing breaking off at impact. not one bit from where they attach to the body of the plane right to the tip. your argument there is based on speed of travel and weight of the wing complete with fuel, yet it is obvious that this distribution of weight is not linear.....but still you stand by the argument.

Now, onto the pentagon. As i said before, based on your argument for the towers, we know for sure that it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon in the fashion described by the official reports. Why? because, your plane, admittedly slightly smaller than the 767 that crashed into the towers, did not damage the pentagon wall apart from an 18 foot hole nor did it shear the lampposts (most likely 4" hollow carbon steel galvanised pipe with a wall thickness of no more than 4mm) on its way to the pentagon nor did it loose any of the wing on its way there. Admittedly, the lamposts poppoed out of the ground and did bend according to the photos, and no doubt you will tell me that this is because the failure will occurr at the weakest point, ie the baseplate and anchor points into the concrete, but similarly, this 'weakest' point failure characteristic would be exactly what would happen at the towers. This is a scientific fact. Now, what the holes in the towers show is something completely different. instead of the columns breaking at the weakest points ie the bolted joints of the lattice sections, we see, 14" wide x 14" deep square section columns sheared, in the majority of cases, nowhere near the bolted joints. Your point about the impacts being entirely in line with physics is shockingly flawed. Did i mention that I am a mechanical engineer btw?

Next, your engine and the height of one WTC floor comment earlier in this thread was again wrong. The height of the floors has no relevance here. in fact, it is the width of the gaps between the columns that is important. Now, according to wikipedia, the columns were spaced at 39" centres. To explain this to the layman, this means that from the centre of the column, which is 14" wide, there is 39" (3 feet 3 inches) to the next centre of the column. this means that the space from the edge of each column to the next is 39" minus half a column width, minus another half of a colum width (or one column width in total). so, the gap, is 39" - 14" = 25".......just over 2 feet. Are you telling me that any part of a 767 engine cross section is less than 2 feet? Look at this engine.......does it look like it could squeeze through a 2 foot gap?? :p Give us all a break.

http://www.airleague.co.uk/images/b767.JPG
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p280/telecasterisation/relate.jpg


I have attached another photo showing dining chairs next to the windows to give an idea of the scale we are talking about here.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cf/Windows_on_the_world_window_seats.jpg

[narcolepticwatchman]

Even more fake witnesses......

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=66857#post66857

Media were involved big time. No doubt.

[fccool]

Why debate worthless issues. 9-11 is to apear to look like an inside job so that you can blame your government and help them bringing the economy down. This is the whole purpose of 9-11 and the war in Iraq. It is NOT to sustain American domination in the world. It is to delay the economic bubble so the impact of the collapse will be more severe. Even severe enough to bring the world economy down and reestablish a world "stable" currency which in term will lead to the world government. The truth movement is being manipulated into rebellion and subversion, and looking at the people like Alex Jones... it is not hard to conclude that their methods of fighting are like methods of 5 year old - " I'm gonna tell on you to everybody... using bullhorn..." or " I'm going to be a pest to you on the street ... that will show you". These people are never willing to dig deeper to the root of the problem. They don't know shit about history, and they jump to conclusion that all is done for Oil and Israel. It never occurs to them that the ultimate goal is not Oil and Israel, but the whole world. How the hell do you control the whole world? Wake up! IT'S MONEY! If you believe that nothing can buy something... you are delusional. This one is the biggest illusions pulled of them all that make all the other possible. So there's no sence in bickering about "WHO DID IT". It does not matter who did it. Who did it will never be revealed until these people will have total control. Until then they will continue to confuse you with stupid "documentaries" like these. It does not matter what really happened on 9-11 if you don't understand what happened for the entire century prior to 9-11. 9-11 as an isolated event will not provide you any answers and this is how those who pulled it off want you to look at it... as an isolated event. So my advice is - dig deeper....

[ryans53]

While I have not found the No Plane hypotheses to be convincing at this point, I have found them to be more compelling than anticipated, which, given the nature of the claims, is saying a lot. Having read this entire thread with some interest I have come to side with the No Plane researchers--not because I believe a particular No Plane Theory is true, but because I see value in the sort of deductions, inferences and creative explorations taking place in the research.

Now, I understand that many view the 9/11 movement as a decisive entity with direct, well-defined goals. Those goals include exposing the fraud (in the simplest form necessary) and prosecuting the guilty, which include government agents. However, if one views 9/11 in a larger context (like I believe many Icke students would) the significance of 9/11 takes on a markedly different form. This new form qualifies 9/11 as a piece within an already existent, complex puzzle. The size and scale of this puzzle alters the singular significance of 9/11, as well as any other singular event within the puzzle. The presence of these other intricate historical events constrains one's interpretation of 9/11 by forcing a demand of compatibility between 9/11 and these other considerations. In other words, since 9/11 did not take place in a vacuum, the complexity of its account must be proportionate to the complexity of its context. It is my contention that the context surrounding 9/11 is sufficiently complex to validate "unconventional" or "far-fetched" theories. No Plane Theory is one such validated claim.

Assuming most in this forum already understand and agree with Icke on many fronts, I will take it for granted that we are in agreement about the plight humanity presently finds itself in. This plight includes a massive web of conspiracy, corruption and manipulation permeating all layers of Earth culture. In short, we have a juxtaposition of two forces: the creative human spirit seeking free expression; and an intelligent oppressive force seeking to sterilize this expression. We, who share Icke's views, tend to view 9/11 in this broader context and find ourselves more interested in the question of human liberation in general than 9/11 justice in particular. It is this drive toward full human-realization that prevents us from settling for the "safest" (in terms of mass approval) explanations for events. We see this struggle more like a chess game than a tug-of-war--each move is appreciated on multiple levels of possibility and only understood when the appropriate context is applied. A chess game is more often played against a hypothetical opponent than an actual opponent--i.e. a multitude of possible moves versus one actual move--and the Grand Chessboard is no different. We must appreciate all the layers of possibility here if we hope to outfox the opposition. Sometimes, a sacrifice of the Queen, while far from obvious, and even farther from "safety," is strategic and must be considered.

Thus far, we know that to realize our goal of human liberation we have to penetrate the dense web of deceit relentlessly cast upon us. This web (or Matrix) includes many more instruments of deceit than those found in the story of 9/11. However, many of these instruments of deceit are represented by the story of 9/11. In other words, the kinds, or genres, of deceptive tactics available for use against us are revealed (or suggested) to us by the 9/11 puzzle piece. By extension, if we learn what was used or might have been used as a means of deception in 9/11, we gain insight into what has been or might be used against us in other areas. Essentially, even if TV fakery was not used on 9/11, the concept of TV fakery in general is not to be dismissed. It is wise to be cognizant of all the avenues available for exploitation by those who seek to oppress.

Further, and I think this is most important; the strongest defense we have against any form of oppression is a fully functioning, integrated and harmoniously creative and rational mind. It is this capacity that, no matter what is thrown at us, will always shatter the most intricate of deceptive instruments. The key to maintaining such a mind is, like most other body parts, practice and/or exercise. No Plane theories (as well as Judy Wood's exotic weapons theories, Icke's reptilian theory, etc) have intrinsic value to the broader goal of human liberation in that they promote critical analysis and a stretching of the mind and its belief systems. These exercises keep the mind flexible, clear, and resistant to deception. These capacities are far more instrumental toward humanity's ends than any form of justice in the reciprocal sense. I propose that theories of this nature are judged in this more abstract sense than in the literal "true or false" sense. Such an approach will better equip humanity for liberation than any mini-victory over isolated events.

[travisbickle]

Good post there, now that NPT is FACT we can move on to exposing all the stinking shills who have infiltrated the movement and tried to ridicule this information, all the NPT info has been out there for years but now September Clues has pulled it all together it's clear that 'leaders' like Alex Jones and William Rodriguez have been shilling for the perps in hiding this information or attacking anyone trying to get it out. Rodriguez destroyed Jimmy Walters who'd spent millions getting the truth out but backed the no planes theory, fat willie went around everyone to rally them against what Walters, nice cointelpro move there willie but the emperor wears no clothes now my friend. 911blogger and nineeleven.co.uk have shot themselves in the face big style over this, nobody among the real 911 truth community bothers with those sites anymore after exposing themselves as disinfo programs run by agents and morons.

[informationx]

Kevin Ryan former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories (UL), makes a good analysis of the weak steel theory.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1881839648593493167&q=kevin+ryan&total=1132&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[informationx]

Are you aware of the decoded Black box data from flight 77, as recoverd by the NTSB. The data in the box refutes the official arguments put forward, for the reasons of the pentagon impact.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=558348710883993755&q=flight+77&total=539&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-44862351366604505&q=flight+77

The final box reading gives the plane at 273ft, and 2 seconds from impact. The more you look into this event, the stranger it gets!

[zircon]

You may have seen this but it shows how Wallywood was setting up covert messages for 911 in films.
http://vaticanassassins.org/H911.pdf

[sidlittle]

September clues Part 6:


http://www.livevideo.com/video/embedLink/C69E733A247346FE94FCA7A0EC01945F/268916/september-clues-part6.aspx

[myeika]

Thanks for this info......

Very interesting stuff..................

[myeika]

Hi there……………….

First I would like to thank the op for bringing this thread to us and giving us the opportunity to become more aware and share information of things that have puzzled many of us for years!

This is just my humble opinion on things ok……

I can remember thinking when I watched the ‘live’ footage on the tv that the pictures seemed strange…..something didn’t quite seem right……. But at that time, the mass response (myself included) from people who were watching it was the shock and horror of what was happening…… not the details of the footage……or the sound….

Then when the explosion happened at the pentagon well…….. and ‘they’ said it was a plane!!!!!!!

I thought that the Black Box Data Analysis (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=558348710883993755&q=flight+77&total=539&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4)was very good…..but yet again brought up more questions!

Like why have they said this is the orig data…. When if it is, contradicts what they said in the first place, this data points to the plane being a lot higher and going in a different direction to what the ‘media’ and gov stories would have us believe…. Wouldn’t you have thought if they were going to release something it would make their so called story credible?.....

Then I watched Pandora’s Black Box (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-44862351366604505&q=flight+77)…..Are all these pilots ganging up to spread disinformation? Or the truth?..........

And then September clues (http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice)……..

This brought more awareness to me than the movie…( tv footage )…..the one ‘they’ want us to believe….
I knew when I was watching the tv footage that something wasn’t quite right… but just couldn’t put my finger on it (http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/spinning-wtc.html)….

I have thought about this for some time now……….

Could they (would they) set up the news footage and fake the pictures to whip the world into a frenzy….Is it possible……?

I personally believe that when you have done your research and find out what they are/have been capable of, this faking it is a good possibility….

Like someone said tho, it is done, many innocent people lost their lives…. To greater the good of the overlords/controllers or who ever ‘they’ are…

If there were no planes what about the people?......... Does anyone think that a few hundred people would be a problem to them? Hell no, they would all of a sudden have a supply of humans to do their sick testing on.

The folks I have spoken to about this all tend to agree……

When information like this, information that has been “fed to” and believed to be “true” by the masses comes out, and it is shown that the tv footage has a possibility of being fake, they can not/will not be readily accepted because this would mean that the media and gov are lying to them (us), but more than they (we) ever thought……. big time…….. and for some reason people have this idea that if they have seen it on telly, when they are told it is live or recorded live..…. That it is the truth about what’s happening/happened…… bull****e

Many of the people on this planet still have much fear…..and I have heard it said many times before, well if the government are lying to us then we have no chance…….and these people just cant accept that what they are being shown on the news is not really what is happening…… as the fear of the unknown for them is too great…..

I hope for the sake of the people affected by the 911 crime, that the truth will out…..but I am not holding my breath……I do believe though that major mistakes were made by the ones near the top, and it will be their downfall…….

Again thanks to the op for bringing this to our attention…….

[masonfree party]

Good post there, now that NPT is FACT we can move on to exposing all the stinking shills who have infiltrated the movement and tried to ridicule this information, all the NPT info has been out there for years but now September Clues has pulled it all together it's clear that 'leaders' like Alex Jones and William Rodriguez have been shilling for the perps in hiding this information or attacking anyone trying to get it out. Rodriguez destroyed Jimmy Walters who'd spent millions getting the truth out but backed the no planes theory, fat willie went around everyone to rally them against what Walters, nice cointelpro move there willie but the emperor wears no clothes now my friend. 911blogger and nineeleven.co.uk have shot themselves in the face big style over this, nobody among the real 911 truth community bothers with those sites anymore after exposing themselves as disinfo programs run by agents and morons.


I think you are right with what you say...Keymaster Willie has connections to James Randi and isn't the simpleton he makes out to be...very clever actor indeed

[travisbickle]

I think you are right with what you say...Keymaster Willie has connections to James Randi and isn't the simpleton he makes out to be...very clever actor indeed


May as well just sit back and larf as the fake infiltrated half truth movement get waltzed over a cliff with their blindfolds on. LOL


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/Pied_Piper_with_Children.jpg/250px-Pied_Piper_with_Children.jpg

[john white]

Prole, if thats you you've lowered yourself so very very badly

I curse the day you got sucked into this No Planes delusion mind fuck: its ruined you as a person

You too MFP, I do believe both you and Andrew are victims of this disinfo campaign, led into these straights by the quirks in your nature, exactly as this trap was designed to do

Realise who you're trolling for and wake up!

Ah whats the point you're both way too far gone...

Casualties of the info war, I salute your courage and mourn your loss

[narcolepticwatchman]

Prole, if thats you you've lowered yourself so very very badly

I curse the day you got sucked into this No Planes delusion mind fuck: its ruined you as a person

You too MFP, I do believe both you and Andrew are victims of this disinfo campaign, led into these straights by the quirks in your nature, exactly as this trap was designed to do

Realise who you're trolling for and wake up!

Ah whats the point you're both way too far gone...

Casualties of the info war, I salute your courage and mourn your loss


What kind of post is this John? Further assaults on peoples character? You need to take a long hard look at yourself.

By all means, bring your views to the table to debate, which to be fair, you have been doing albeit tremendously selectively. However, give it a rest with the personal insults mate.

Still not heard anything back from you on my last post btw, nor have I heard any of your views on the FEA that was carried out that you said you'd get back once you reviewed.

[travisbickle]

What kind of post is this John? Further assaults on peoples character? You need to take a long hard look at yourself.

By all means, bring your views to the table to debate, which to be fair, you have been doing albeit tremendously selectively. However, give it a rest with the personal insults mate.

Still not heard anything back from you on my last post btw, nor have I heard any of your views on the FEA that was carried out that you said you'd get back once you reviewed.

It's all John's got to maintain his planehugging idiocy, insult people who can tell the difference between a real and fake plane crash. John's spent the last year hugging planes with utter fury and knows he'll be eating some major humble pie were he to face the facts about NPT. However the man's ego is so warped he can't bare to admit his utter stupidity. He got the other thred locked because he knew he was being exposed.

[john white]

What kind of post is this John?

A futile attempt to reach people who used to be amongst friends, that I made anyway becuase I love them and felt I owed it to them

Yes, I had the Galloway Rodriguez thread locked becuase I will not co-operate with having it derailed with scurrilous unsubstaniated fantasy filth from 9/11 researchers and clearly there was no way to end that "game" with rational debate as "Travis Bickle" is no longer a rational person

Do not lecture me about assaults on peoples character whilst standing in the glass house of defending Travis unless you have also descended into the pit of total hypocrasy

Truly pathetic John
If you're not completely full of shit you will soon be a wealthy man.
So now we've established Roddy is lying out his asshole about the planes, I wonder what else he's bullshitting about?
Cheers for yet another brain fart john
I understand why your brain is fuked

As a few choice selections

You either stand on ethical standards of behaviour or you are poor Truth Seeker of little objective use to the movement as a whole. My comments regret his state of mind but do not insult his core integrity as a feeling human being

[travisbickle]

It's all you got left innit john - http://www.aiceonline.it/images/EmoCard1.jpg

[narcolepticwatchman]

A futile attempt to reach people who used to be amongst friends, that I made anyway becuase I love them and felt I owed it to them

Yes, I had the Galloway Rodriguez thread locked becuase I will not co-operate with having it derailed with scurrilous unsubstaniated fantasy filth from 9/11 researchers and clearly there was no way to end that "game" with rational debate as "Travis Bickle" is no longer a rational person

Do not lecture me about assaults on peoples character whilst standing in the glass house of defending Travis unless you have also descended into the pit of total hypocrasy



As a few choice selections

You either stand on ethical standards of behaviour or you are poor Truth Seeker of little objective use to the movement as a whole. My comments regret his state of mind but do not insult his core integrity as a feeling human being

Do not give me any of your pretentious, self righteous twaddle John. I'm not trying to defend anyone. I'm not standing in a glass house. I was merely pointing out that your post was out of order in the same vain as previous posts on this very thread which were an assault on my character.

You seem to be prone to wandering down this route when your arguments have been backed into a corner........either that or you just don't respond. Is it the reptillian brain? Fight or flight? lol. Quick to beat down on people but not so quick to accept it then you come over all arrgant and pretentious as I mentioned before.

That last comment just does not make sense either........unless you are commenting on your own hypocracy.......you poor truth seeker indeed.

You are a joke.

[john white]

LOL! Well its not too suprising that after 6 weeks of this thread the pair of you havnt made any siginifcant progress whatsoever, and are still running away from the highly pertinant questions I put back on page 1

Like the Planet Niburu, your "lost in space" orbit takes you a long way from the Sun

[narcolepticwatchman]

LOL! Well its not too suprising that after 6 weeks of this thread the pair of you havnt made any siginifcant progress whatsoever, and are still running away from the highly pertinant questions I put back on page 1

Like the Planet Niburu, your "lost in space" orbit takes you a long way from the Sun


I have came to the conclusion that you are clearly delusional. Show me the pertinent questions on page one that I am running away from. I am looking forward to this.

Then explain how your engine goes through a hole which isn't there (thouroughly debunked by me.......despite your previous claim that your research was described perfectly)....

Apart from the fact that its YES: it does

Whats the dimension of a 767 engine sid?

Whats the dimension of the hole? (Clue: whats the height of one WTC tower floor?)

Can't really make it any simpler to understand than that: there is no "protuding nosecone": its an illusion of perception

BTW Sid, are you going to say "sorry!" when you realise both that my picture is described perfectly correctly and that your comments has revealed the flawed nature of your own observational process?)

Surely you remember that??

Then explain why steel is sheared not at the weakest points but, in most cases at the centre of the section.

You are the only one dodging here bud. That much is clear.

[mr_pixie]

May as well just sit back and larf as the fake infiltrated half truth movement get waltzed over a cliff with their blindfolds on. LOL


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/Pied_Piper_with_Children.jpg/250px-Pied_Piper_with_Children.jpg


Yeah,all the way to a New World Order lead by David Ray Griffin.

[mr_pixie]

Prole, if thats you you've lowered yourself so very very badly

I curse the day you got sucked into this No Planes delusion mind fuck: its ruined you as a person

You too MFP, I do believe both you and Andrew are victims of this disinfo campaign, led into these straights by the quirks in your nature, exactly as this trap was designed to do

Realise who you're trolling for and wake up!

Ah whats the point you're both way too far gone...

Casualties of the info war, I salute your courage and mourn your loss


There there, John White. We bow to your higher knowlegde, maybe it's YOU Who has been mind fucked! You should wake up!

[hirschfelder]

Icke was asked abut this on Sunday. He'd not heard of September Clues and didn't seem down with NPT, although he didn't slate it, he just said nowt!

He seemed a bit uncomfortable with it, especially as he was acquaintances with the geezer who asked his opinion

[dark86]

i look at the NPT seriously, it is not a mind fuck at all.

how about Dean Wawick?

Dean Warwick was an alternative energy engineer pioneer and researcher turned whistleblower. David was an insider in his time and recently talked with growing audiences with an air of authority, one of his talks was titled ‘Mankind, monkey’s in a cage,’ nice.
Dean was also in the military and claimed to have been taught infrasound weapon technology known by the US and the eastern block militaries in the 1950’s and 60’s. When Dave first saw the footage of the second plane hit the north tower he immediately saw all the characteristics of an infrasound attack from a satellite, he also claimed that a nearby building that had three of its floors at its corner torn apart in a curve supported all the hallmarks too.

Dean Warwick collapsed and died whilst beginning to address a packed auditorium in Blackpool in 2006. Significantly however, he said he felt a ‘beam’ or ‘burning’ at the side of his head shortly before beginning his talk. At this talk, Dean had promised to make some momentous announcements at the conference such as who killed JFK, underground bases researching technology we could only imagine and missing children.
According to those who last spoke to him before he began his talk, Dean said he thought he was going to be “bumped off.”