No-Planes is disinfo? Then PROVE it

[killtown]

There is that saying: "Put up, or shut up!"

So with that, put up your best evidence that no-planes is disinfo, or...

[comawhite015]

YOU prove that it ISN'T.

See, stalemate. Fun, huh.

[killtown]

YOU prove that it ISN'T.

See, stalemate. Fun, huh.
comawhite, if you scrolled your little eyes down in this section, you would have seen some people accusing that no-planes is disinfo. If you've been to this board for a while, you would know that the claims that no-planes is disinfo is made here a lot. So you would agree that if someone makes a claim, especially a harsh accusatory claim such as something is disinfo, they should be able to prove hard evidence to prove such a claim, right?

[psych641]

Are you saying that it isnt disinfo or being non-commital and saying you dont know or have a fixed opinion either way?

[secondsun]

So you would agree that if someone makes a claim, especially a harsh accusatory claim such as something is disinfo, they should be able to prove hard evidence to prove such a claim, right?

...no!, obviously wrong!... you have no hard evidence for the claims you make!... just because there is a few suspect video`s or images does not prove in any way that all footage of the events of the morning of 9-11 is fake!

[gutcassidy]

...no!, obviously wrong!... you have no hard evidence for the claims you make!... just because there is a few suspect video`s or images does not prove in any way that all footage of the events of the morning of 9-11 is fake!

But it does prove that there is something of interest that requires further investigation and study.

[killtown]

...no!, obviously wrong!... you have no hard evidence for the claims you make!
I'm not making the claim NPT is disinfo. ;)

Stay on topic.

If you disagree with NPT, but don't think it's disinfo, then this thread is not for you.

[dreamweaver]

I'll settle this one for you.

It wasn't PLANES and it wasn't MISSILES...

It was... TRAINS!

http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/

http://aycu37.webshots.com/image/756/1019304066855966718_rs.jpg

[killtown]

I'll settle this one for you.

It wasn't PLANES and it wasn't MISSILES...

It was... TRAINS!

http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/

http://aycu37.webshots.com/image/756/1019304066855966718_rs.jpg
Lots of people died in those towers. I think the family and friends of those who died there wouldn't think it's very funny that you post a picture of a train running down one of the towers saying that's what hit them.

[astro zombie]

I don't know why i'm even bothering with this but...

I mean no offense man, but let's put our focus and energy on helping people see through the lies of 9/11 that we CAN definitavely prove, first! It doesn't matter if the images of the planes were from laser beams from the moon, what matters is that people realize that it was an inside job first, and that it is the only thing that has been proven. You shouldn't be pointlessly squabling over stuff like this on a forum, okay? It's a wasted effort! Don't you get that? It's a useless distraction at the moment.

[dreamweaver]

I don't know why i'm even bothering with this but...

I mean no offense man, but let's put our focus and energy on helping people see through the lies of 9/11 that we CAN definitavely prove, first! It doesn't matter if the images of the planes were from laser beams from the moon, what matters is that people realize that it was an inside job first, and that it is the only thing that has been proven. You shouldn't be pointlessly squabling over stuff like this on a forum, okay? It's a wasted effort! Don't you get that? It's a useless distraction at the moment.

+1

Cheney and the rest of the gang must be laughing their arses off at squabbles like this.

[grachtengordel]

It wasn't PLANES and it wasn't MISSILES...

It was... TRAINS!

Hilarious. real genius, you should tell that joke on TV before all the schoolkids steal it and start repeating it all over the internet.

Are you trying to 'DE-RAIL' this thread?

[grachtengordel]

I don't know why i'm even bothering with this but...

then don't , if your supreme wisdom is so precious , don't share it if you have not the inclination

It doesn't matter if the images of the planes were from laser beams from the moon, what matters is that people realize that it was an inside job first, and that it is the only thing that has been proven.

So it is only relevent to know that is was an inside job?


Who, why , and what else this implies are irrelevant?

i disagree and so do many others, why try to silence them and limit thier focus of investigation to ONE objective?

[astro zombie]

It's obvious your arguing for arguing's sake, i won't take part in it. You completely missed the point i'm trying to make. If you think the planes were a holographic image that's fine, i just think it's a blatantly obvious distraction in the 9/11 truth movement.

Have a nice day.:)

[dreamweaver]

then don't , if your supreme wisdom is so precious , don't share it if you have not the inclination



So it is only relevent to know that is was an inside job?


Who, why , and what else this implies are irrelevant?

i disagree and so do many others, why try to silence them and limit thier focus of investigation to ONE objective?

Ummmm, maybe it's because you're no nearer the truth today than you were seven years ago? I'm pretty certain that TPTB actually want people to be wasting all their energy on these interminable squabbles rather than focus on what's needed to fight them today. In that sense, Chomsky is right when he says the minutiae of what happened on 11/9/01 doesn't actually matter - what does matter is how to organise against the present and future crimes of the NWO.

[bryan]

Chomsky is right when he says the minutiae of what happened on 11/9/01 doesn't actually matter - what does matter is how to organise against the present and future crimes of the NWO.

Chomsky says he's looked at the evidence for controlled demolition and there's nothing there. Better to attend anti-war demonstrations.

[narcolepticwatchman]

Chomsky says he's looked at the evidence for controlled demolition and there's nothing there. Better to attend anti-war demonstrations.


Yeah I saw a conference where he totally discounted an inside job on 911 in the same breath as discounting a conspiracy with the JFK assassination. The man is controlled opposition.

[john white]

I'm not making the claim NPT is disinfo. ;)

Stay on topic.

If you disagree with NPT, but don't think it's disinfo, then this thread is not for you.

Therefore your making the claim that it is INFO: for which you have no hard evidence

Nicely pwned by yourself there killtown

Lots of people died in those towers. I think the family and friends of those who died there wouldn't think it's very funny that you post a picture of a train running down one of the towers saying that's what hit them.

The brassneck cheek of that! You know the contempt with which you are held for precisely that reason, that your NPT pimping insults the families, now you seek to steal clothes of righteousness to cloak yourself in

In your dreams Killtown

[bryan]

The brassneck cheek of that! You know the contempt with which you are held for precisely that reason, that your NPT pimping insults the families, now you seek to steal clothes of righteousness to cloak yourself in

I wonder if Killtown was taking the piss out of one of John White's favourite counter arguments to no planes theory.

[john white]

I wonder if Killtown was taking the piss out of one of John White's favourite counter arguments to no planes theory.

Really?

Strange I don't use it

Why?

Because its a barrel scraper

shows how low Killtown will go IMHO

[white horse]

...no!, obviously wrong!... you have no hard evidence for the claims you make!... just because there is a few suspect video`s or images does not prove in any way that all footage of the events of the morning of 9-11 is fake!

Exactly! A few suspect videos - THAT needs investigating!! Nobody has ever given me a reason not to!

If a few suspect videos were shown live and repeated ad infinitum at the time and that led us into two wars - does that need investigating?

Who has fiddled with these videos - if it was a couple of kids messing around and causing disinfo - that needs exposing...

If it was the ptb and the media, that REALLY needs exposing!

Alright , fine it was an inside job we all know that.

I don't know why everyone bleats about the Truth Movement, I've been investigating 911 for years and I don't think there ever has been an actual movement.

For the sake of curiosity, I smell a rat, it's like a loose tooth, I can't stop fiddling with it.

[white horse]

Hilarious. real genius, you should tell that joke on TV before all the schoolkids steal it and start repeating it all over the internet.

Are you trying to 'DE-RAIL' this thread?

:eek::D:):eek::D:p

[grachtengordel]

It's obvious your arguing for arguing's sake, i won't take part in it. You completely missed the point i'm trying to make. If you think the planes were a holographic image that's fine, i just think it's a blatantly obvious distraction in the 9/11 truth movement.

You are right, i did miss your point, and perhaps i was arguing for arguing sake, i apologise for that,

i do not think they are holograms, i did not realise that was what you were getting at

[comawhite015]

comawhite, if you scrolled your little eyes down in this section, you would have seen some people accusing that no-planes is disinfo. If you've been to this board for a while, you would know that the claims that no-planes is disinfo is made here a lot. So you would agree that if someone makes a claim, especially a harsh accusatory claim such as something is disinfo, they should be able to prove hard evidence to prove such a claim, right?

yuh sure. Cuz many voices make a thing true, eh.

I'm saying who the fuck knows or cares.

Bottom line, 9/11 was probably an inside job. What does it matter if it was a plane or a missile or a yak or whatever.

Stop your bitching and look at the bigger issue. Something flew into the tower that they knew about already. Doesn't matter what it was.

[bryan]

Bottom line, 9/11 was probably an inside job.


You certainly don't mince your words, do you?

[dave52]

Stop your bitching and look at the bigger issue. Something flew into the tower that they knew about already. Doesn't matter what it was.

Of course it does...

If we were shown CGI inserts then... NOTHING you see on TV can be trusted. Nothing. They could show you any damn thing they want.

If you want to gloss over this and look at the bigger picture - go for it - good luck to you.

[comawhite015]

Of course it does...

If we were shown CGI inserts then... NOTHING you see on TV can be trusted. Nothing. They could show you any damn thing they want.

If you want to gloss over this and look at the bigger picture - go for it - good luck to you.

Yeah but if it wasn't, then you're worrying about nothing and just getting your knickers in a twist and wasting your energy about bollocks.

How bout you wait for something else to get worried about so you have another thing to add to the equation instead of putting 2 and (x) together and then going 'WELL WE *MIGHT* HAVE FOUR!'.

You certainly don't mince your words, do you?

And no, no I bloody don't. :P

[nutfinger]

Of course it does...

If we were shown CGI inserts then... NOTHING you see on TV can be trusted. Nothing. They could show you any damn thing they want.

If you want to gloss over this and look at the bigger picture - go for it - good luck to you.

Where is the proof that the planes were CGI?I just cannot imagine how that would be possible on live tv and from multiple angles and from multiple networks.

[dave52]

Where is the proof that the planes were CGI?I just cannot imagine how that would be possible on live tv and from multiple angles and from multiple networks.

Go and watch Semptember Clues. It doesn't have all the answers and may not be spot on with everything - but I think it's pretty darn close. 9/11 Octopus is better, but is nowhere near as easy to access....

[dave52]

Yeah but if it wasn't, then you're worrying about nothing and just getting your knickers in a twist and wasting your energy about bollocks.


Oh right - well you just take a wooly overview from Alex Jones then... Sleep well....

[nutfinger]

Go and watch Semptember Clues. It doesn't have all the answers and may not be spot on with everything - but I think it's pretty darn close. 9/11 Octopus is better, but is nowhere near as easy to access....

Thank you,I will give it a try.

[dave52]

I just realised - I can't spell, it's September Clues... Here is the link for the Definitive Version...


http://www.thesocialservice.it/spt/download.asp

[comawhite015]

Oh right - well you just take a wooly overview from Alex Jones then... Sleep well....

It is better for your brain to sleep every now and then than be awake all the time and lose your mind to deprivation.

[dave52]

It is better for your brain to sleep every now and then than be awake all the time and lose your mind to deprivation.

If you say so - just be sure you're not asleep when they fuck you up the arse...

[comawhite015]

If you say so - just be sure you're not asleep when they fuck you up the arse...

I hope not, cuz then I'd miss a good thing. I'll make sure to sleep on my chest and leave the lube next to my bed.

[dave52]

I hope not, cuz then I'd miss a good thing. I'll make sure to sleep on my chest and leave the lube next to my bed.

That's just the way they like it... ;)

[beldazar]

Heres a short clip of 011 Octopus, Thanks Dave52 ;)

911 octopus part 1 - Vidéo Dailymotion

[comawhite015]

That's just the way they like it... ;)

That's the way I like it, too.

[whiteshadow]

There were no planes
yes there were
no there were not
yes there were, you are a *insult*
no there were not, you are a *insult*
where's your evidence? you clearly have no brain
where's yours? *insult*
you mean that fake video?
well it's better than that crap you tried to pass off as fact
you don't know physics
yes I do, it's you that doesn't know physics
you are just pathetic *insult*
no I am stating fact, it's you that's pathetic.
etc
etc
etc
etc

Why do you do it to yourselves?

[beldazar]

That's the way I like it, too.

Im so glad you said that cos I was busting to say something! PMSL! :D

[dave52]

Heres a short clip of 011 Octopus, Thanks Dave52 ;)

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2y1b9_911-octopus-part-1_politics

Yeah - the TV Fakery thing is irrifutable as far as I'm concerned, which is why there were no planes. Why fake something like that if it actually happened? Nothing could be as effective as the actual footage of the actual event - ergo, there were no planes...

[beldazar]

Im with you Dave :)

[nutfinger]

Yeah - the TV Fakery thing is irrifutable as far as I'm concerned, which is why there were no planes. Why fake something like that if it actually happened? Nothing could be as effective as the actual footage of the actual event - ergo, there were no planes...

That was an interesting video Dave,gives me plenty to think about.

[killtown]

Funny how so many people on DI forum say NPT is "disinfo," but when pressed to prove NPT is disinfo, all we hear is crickets.

[john white]

Yeah - the TV Fakery thing is irrifutable as far as I'm concerned, which is why there were no planes. Why fake something like that if it actually happened? Nothing could be as effective as the actual footage of the actual event - ergo, there were no planes...

Your right, why fake something that actually happened?

Ergo there were planes, it was not faked, it was a real event

There is no TV fakery as far as planes hitting the WTC is concerned

Unfortunately, because you choose not to question the evidence of NPT and believe it as an article of faith, you are stuck here going no-where. It's a safe little niche perhaps but isnt going to amount to anything

I'm sorry your never going to see that.

[john white]

Funny how so many people on DI forum say NPT is "disinfo," but when pressed to prove NPT is disinfo, all we hear is crickets.

No perversion of truth too far for you Killtown

You know the arguments are damning which is why you devote yourself to trying to drown them in your smarmy pap: and credit where its due, you've managed to find a niche to worm yourself into where there are enough sleepwalkers thinking they are free that you can sell them your line: as much as we both know how much you don't care a damn about David Icke or any of the values his work stands for. Why would you care? If you cared about anyone but yourself you'd have packed in your life of deception a long time ago

But hooray for you, great, you've managed to drown out the David Icke site's 9/11 section with enough followers you dare to pop out and act like a "leader" of something

How far the "mighty" have fallen, I say! Wouldn't you rather be on Loose Change forum, or somewhere else entirely dedicated to 9/11 Truth, not an inconsequential forum section named after a man you consider a loon at best?

Oh hang on

They told you where to go, didn't they?

Well there is some comfort in seeing you pop your head up here then:)

It means you've already failed everywhere it matters

[killtown]

Come on "NPT is disinfo!"-finger-pointers, PROVE NPT is "disinfo"!

[kooskoets]

Your right, why fake something that actually happened?

Ergo there were planes, it was not faked, it was a real event

There is no TV fakery as far as planes hitting the WTC is concerned

"Well..and i know that for sure because..."
( just i.c. you don't know how to start : copy and paste the above sentence ans start writing away. )


Y
Unfortunately, because you choose not to question the evidence of NPT and believe it as an article of faith, you are stuck here going no-where. It's a safe little niche perhaps but isnt going to amount to anything

I'm sorry your never going to see that.

Yessss...you've got it !
You question the evidence....write down your doubt's.

[abrilliantone]

Where is the proof that the planes were CGI?I just cannot imagine how that would be possible on live tv and from multiple angles and from multiple networks.


It would, if they've planned it beforehand.

And seeing how they were "running exercises" so conviently on that day. Shows us that they did make some arrangments to take place on 9/11/01.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/North_American_Aerospace_Defense_Command_logo.jpg/641px-North_American_Aerospace_Defense_Command_logo.jpg


:)

[john white]

Come on "NPT is disinfo!"-finger-pointers, PROVE NPT is "disinfo"!

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/2707/wtccrashlro3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

All your words are lies to hide this truth

It is YOU who can prove nothing

It is YOU who denies proof

You can go round and round your merry-go-round for years and years Killtown (or until it no longer suits you too anyway, perhaps when the new thing to latch onto comes along and you find another area to feed off as you used to JFK before 9/11), and you know that because playing games with truth to create uncertainty and capture attention is what you do

But you cannot hide from being seen for what you are by those with sight

Are you paid to do what you do? Are you a guy on a massive ego trip? Perhaps we will never know for sure... you are certainly keen to hide every scrap of truth about yourself you can... no name... no identity.. but an enormous volume of output, a single minded commitment to keep on keeping on, regardless of facts, regardless of proof, regardless of truth and shameless in your actions. You have neither the desire or the courage to stand in the light as a real truth seeker does

But it does not matter which you are:

Either way the very essence of what you are cannot be hidden

I ask myself why I bother to type this... it really is not my concern what people fool themselves into thinking

And then I remind myself

The one trait of character I will ALWAYS stand against is a manipulative abuser of the vulnerable for their own jollies

Whatever you are Killtown, you are that

So when you poke your nose around this site to get your kicks, I'm very justified to tell it exactly like it is

I may not be able to help those caught in spiders webs of deception: but I do what I can

[secondsun]

Come on "NPT is disinfo!"-finger-pointers, PROVE NPT is "disinfo"!

...`disinfo` simply means false!... NPT`ers are of false character and integrity!... or just thick!... that is my opinion and i dont have to prove it!

[astro zombie]

Look, just approach this with common sense.

CGI wizardry could've been used to show the planes going into the buildings, is that what you guys are advocating? Well then my question is: WHY?
So you mean to tell me that every single person that was in New York City on the morning of September 11, 2001 only saw explosions go off in World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2 and they used 'special effects' on live TV, to trick people into thinking that planes flew into the buildings when there were no planes at all but only explosions going off? Has anybody that was actually there on the morning of 9/11 spoken out and said "you know there were bombs going off in the towers that day but we never saw any bloody planes." Think of how many people the government would have to silence if that were the truth and think how complicated of a situation that would be for them. Doesn't that sound completely ludicrous? I would give the the powers that be at leat a little more credit than that.

Well hold on minute.

Wouldn't it just have been easier to use, i don't know, REAL PLANES, real planes that were perhaps remtoely controlled? That seems like a much more viable option.

[bryan]

Your right, why fake something that actually happened?

Ergo there were planes, it was not faked, it was a real event


It was faked, ergo it didn't happen.

Did you really not understand what he was saying, or were you just pretending?

[bryan]

No perversion of truth too far for you Killtown

You know the arguments are damning which is why you devote yourself to trying to drown them in your smarmy pap: and credit where its due, you've managed to find a niche to worm yourself into where there are enough sleepwalkers thinking they are free that you can sell them your line: as much as we both know how much you don't care a damn about David Icke or any of the values his work stands for. Why would you care? If you cared about anyone but yourself you'd have packed in your life of deception a long time ago

But hooray for you, great, you've managed to drown out the David Icke site's 9/11 section with enough followers you dare to pop out and act like a "leader" of something

How far the "mighty" have fallen, I say! Wouldn't you rather be on Loose Change forum, or somewhere else entirely dedicated to 9/11 Truth, not an inconsequential forum section named after a man you consider a loon at best?

Oh hang on

They told you where to go, didn't they?

Well there is some comfort in seeing you pop your head up here then:)

It means you've already failed everywhere it matters

John, instead of spending time typing a post with no meaningful content, you could have worked on your point-by-point rebuttal of Ace Baker's Composites paper, unless you still "can't be arsed" that is.

If it's a re-hash of stuff that's already been "thoroughly debunked", you should be able to paste and copy something in a couple of minutes.

[grachtengordel]

So you mean to tell me that every single person that was in New York City on the morning of September 11, 2001 only saw explosions go off in World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2 and they used 'special effects' on live TV, to trick people into thinking that planes flew into the buildings when there were no planes at all but only explosions going off?

yes. The 'effects' used on TV were not really that 'special', basic, normal effects for TV.

[john white]

John, instead of spending time typing a post with no meaningful content, you could have worked on your point-by-point rebuttal of Ace Baker's Composites paper, unless you still "can't be arsed" that is.

If it's a re-hash of stuff that's already been "thoroughly debunked", you should be able to paste and copy something in a couple of minutes.

Done

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/2707/wtccrashlro3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

(we will let the fact that you don't recognise Killtown's behaviours and qualities as "meaningful" slide)

[bryan]

Done


How come a few amateurs and independent media people managed to film the impact, while over a dozen TV cameras, belonging to the major US TV companies, all missed it? Coincidence, cock-up or both?

[john white]

How come a few amateurs and independent media people managed to film the impact, while over a dozen TV cameras, belonging to the major US TV companies, all missed it? Coincidence, cock-up or both?

There were a lot of "amateurs" in New York with cameras, probably only a tiny proportion of those who could of caught an image did, any independent photographer not comatose or dead would have grabbed a camera, some of them caught an image, and major TV companies DID get images, such as the chopper footage of the 2nd impact, so even if a dozen cameras were not placed to get a shot (and how could they be without knowing a second impact was coming or where from?) its not true that none did. You ask: "Coincidence, cock-up or both?" I answer "a whole load of reading into things what you want to without thinking them around and through"

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/2707/wtccrashlro3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

It's not fake Bryan: regardless of your beliefs

[bryan]

and major TV companies DID get images, such as the chopper footage of the 2nd impact, so even if a dozen cameras were not placed to get a shot (and how could they be without knowing a second impact was coming or where from?)

If you watch Lawson's Orange video, you'll hear him point out that the plane disappears behind the towers on the ABC live shot, and the same happens with the FOX live shot. No TV camera caught the impact against the building, even for replay. That means all the cameras were positioned inside one half of a semi-circle on the north side. In fact, you can see from the different shots they were inside a much smaller angle. Should that not be considered incompetence on the part of the major news teams covering a massive event like that?

[mynameis]

. Should that not be considered incompetence on the part of the major news teams covering a massive event like that?

Yes if the year were 2405 and they had the ability to teleport cameras to the other side of the building instantaneously. All jokes aside, is this what you really believe. :)

[matrix911]

Ergo there were planes, it was not faked, it was a real event

There is no TV fakery as far as planes hitting the WTC is concerned

Unfortunately, because you choose not to question the evidence of NPTI'm sorry your never going to see that.




If there was no fakery and what you say is true, then why is that you can't show how and where the EVIDENCE, FACTS, and arguments presented in such docs like SEPT CLUES, is wrong?

Oh let me guess, because you've probably never bothered to look at such "evidence" or too lazy.

Its easier and safer for you to sit behind a key board cut and pasting debunked material while ignoring all the arguments that have proven there's overwhelming evidence the live footage and such pics like the one below not only have been altered and faked, but do not show flight 11 or 175.

The NO PLANERS who have researched ALL the facts and have seen all the evidence are not saying there were NO PLANES that hit the WTC... they're saying it wasn't the PLANES that are claimed in the OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY.

Do you see proof of flight 175 in your comical pic below? I DON'T... it doesn't exist.

And as to the PLANES shown in the Live FAKE footage, YES,,, to those on the ground, a DRONE/Missle would definitely have been confused for a PLANE.

thats the REAL NO PLANE claim being presented.

and I see NO evidence supporting your claims or disproving the EVIDENCE, VIDEO EVIDENCE AND FACTS such docs like SEPT CLUES presents.

whatsmore, I've seen and posted tons of threads debating what you claim has no evidence or argument to support and it must be coincidence that I see NO posts or responses from you whatsoever. You're conveniently ABSENT from these threads and discussions.

so go away until you have more to offer or contribute to the REAL discussions here than just your OPINION or baseless claims and rhetoric.

If anyones not questioning or DISPROVING the EVIDENCE, its you.

[john white]

If there was no fakery and what you say is true, then why is that you can't show how and where the EVIDENCE, FACTS, and arguments presented in such docs like SEPT CLUES, is wrong?

LOL!

The entire of "September Clues" is wrong, and yes I have personally been involved in thorough dissection of it, and no end of hours have been wasted making complex posts showing exactly how Simon Shack has been dissembling, deceiving and downright deluding its viewers, and presumably himself, in many different places across the internet...

How come YOU don't know this? Is it...

because you've probably never bothered to look at such "evidence" or too lazy.


Physician, heal thyself

There is no case for "No Planes" worth answering, and the only reason some people don't accept that is that they simply don't want to know

What responsibility do you think I have to change that? Because I assure you, I am under NONE.

Any posts I do make pointing out the truth of the matter are simply charity on my behalf, as I do like to be generally helpful. I'm sure you appreciate it (LOL). Fortunately, the point of generosity is to give, not to receive gratitude for it

[john white]

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/2707/wtccrashlro3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

^^^ Still Real

[bryan]

Yes if the year were 2405 and they had the ability to teleport cameras to the other side of the building instantaneously. All jokes aside, is this what you really believe. :)

I'm saying that, after the North Tower had exploded and the whole world was watching the live feeds, you'd think the TV cameras would have spread out a bit to cover more angles, considering they had choppers in the air. That's what I'd expect professional TV news crews to do if they DIDN'T know another hit was coming. On the other hand, if they'd been told to keep within an angle of around 100 degrees on the north side, that would explain why they totally missed the impact. Otherwise you're talking big coincidence and big cock-up.

[onourwayto2012]

jw and mni serve a purpose....just as there is yin/yang, dark/light, salt/pepper, truth/lies, right /wrong.... there's them and there's us...... it takes them to realize there may be validity to our assertions/theories?

[white horse]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2A9VtRWJXj0&feature=rec-HM-rn


CNN - not shown live.

37s - Where's the left wing?

39s - Where's the plane? It's in the building.

40s - There is ejecta that is causins a shadow.

Two important things there.

1 - What is the ejecta?
2 - The shadow tells us the direction and angle of hte sun.

It is about 45 degrees from the ground and coming from the top left of the frame. Follow a line from the shadow to about the "u" of "courtesy".

Why are images of the second plane videos showing an entirly black plane?

These are different models to the 767 of flight 175 (second plane) but th epoint here is about imagary and photography. This is the generic livery of United Airlines. Here are various vies of UA planes to give you an idea what they look like in different lights and angles.

This white plane was in full beautiful clear sunlight. Yet you can not make out any colour or markings.

http://www.photovault.com/show.php?cat=Technology/Aviation/FlightCommercial?tg=TAFVolume32/TAFV32P10_13

http://www.photovault.com/show.php?cat=Technology/Aviation/FlightCommercial?tg=TAFVolume27/TAFV27P04_10

http://www.photovault.com/show.php?cat=Technology/Aviation/FlightCommercial?tg=TAFVolume17/TAFV17P08_02

http://www.photovault.com/show.php?cat=Technology/Aviation/FlightCommercial?tg=TAFVolume17/TAFV17P08_09

http://www.photovault.com/show.php?cat=Technology/Aviation/FlightCommercial?tg=TAFVolume35/TAFV35P02_06

Just random pics of random UA planes. All show colour and can be identified by their livery, no matter the angle or the light. (please, feel free to show me counter evidence of another white plane that looks black in bright direct sunlight. Please do. A photo, a clip, anything.)

[white horse]

LOL!

The entire of "September Clues" is wrong, and yes I have personally been involved in thorough dissection of it, and no end of hours have been wasted making complex posts showing exactly how Simon Shack has been dissembling, deceiving and downright deluding its viewers, and presumably himself, in many different places across the internet...



Could you post me some links for me to these debunks so that I can evaluate them along with all the other evidence presented around here, cos I spent long periods away from the board and might have missed them? :)

[dave52]

KT Has it all covered as usual...

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

[john white]

KT Has it all covered as usual...

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

LOL yes as usual

"nothing to worry about stay hypnotised children"

[john white]

Could you post me some links for me to these debunks so that I can evaluate them along with all the other evidence presented around here, cos I spent long periods away from the board and might have missed them? :)

Knock yourself out

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewforum.php?f=27&sid=ef65ff03b56c987e32e0e03266a5b400

22 pages of forum threads there

[john white]

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11608

^^ and that one is a classic

[john white]

jw and mni serve a purpose....just as there is yin/yang, dark/light, salt/pepper, truth/lies, right /wrong.... there's them and there's us...... it takes them to realize there may be validity to our assertions/theories?

How interesting that you polarise truth and then cast yourself in the roll of "the light"

Feeling illuminated? Usually a sure indication of when one is not

The whole point about the TRUTH about 9/11 is that there is much we will never be certain of and never know. An honest truthseeker has to admit that

We don't know, for example, if the passenger manifest presented for the planes is correct. We don't know if the alleged hijackers were ever definitely on there, or definitely hijackers. We don't know if the military industrial cabal that runs Al-Queda and the US Military recruited genuine patsies who actually were prepared to kill themselves for a cause they believed was true, or if they thought they were in the US for completely other reasons and just got on the planes to take a flight. We dont know if the planes were crashed remotely, although we do know the technology to do so DEFINITELY exists, as we also know its a simple matter to render everyone on a plane unconscious in a pressurised atmosphere

However just as an honest truthseeker admits the unknown, so the honest truthseeker also has to admit the weight of evidence even when it contains uncertainties

It is the programmed desire for certainty that. of course, disinformation relies upon. When people can be persuaded (how easily!) to see things in black and white, us and them, they can easily be lead into false certainties that it challenges their core mental stability to question, and which therefore the psyche will resist to defend that sense of certainty, no matter how ill founded against the body of evidence. I'd say you (NPT fans) would all agree with this, even as, to an objective observer, you also show that you don't KNOW it: an important difference

The simple fact is that NPT works, and only works, by appealing to the creative imagination (with a wild theory based on the weakest evidence, but an exciting amount of daring imagination), using NLP meme type language to embed and re-enforce again and again, and then denouncing and decrying ALL OTHER evidence as Lies, even though what is denounced is far far stronger evidence, multiply sourced and utterly consistant, and the best evidence for NPT is not only essentially non-existent, being nothing more than a series of claims of what something shows, not proof of what it is, but also fatally flawed in any rational analysis

Now if it makes you feel better (and of course: it does) by all means consider me some kind of useful idiot who is simply too thick to see the "Truth" that the weak evidence is True and the strong evidence is False (Orwell had a word for that of course: DoubleThink)

However, perhaps there is wisdom in pursuing what is in your best interests, not what makes you feel good: and that means Truth as it is, not truth as one might like it to be

Truthseeking is not for those who need such emotional crutches

And it is the objective perception of the emotional crutch nature of NPT that also leads people to associate it with words like "Cult" and "religion"

It is, after all, based on that age old knowledge manipulating the same areas of the brain which those who falsely believe they are awake whilst being told what to think and who the "enemy" is are always so vulnerable to

[croquetplayer12]

I'll settle this one for you.

It wasn't PLANES and it wasn't MISSILES...

It was... TRAINS!

http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/

http://aycu37.webshots.com/image/756/1019304066855966718_rs.jpg

well thats enough proof for me

[john white]

By the way:

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/2707/wtccrashlro3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

^^^ Still Real

[helloperator]

No perversion of truth too far for you Killtown

You know the arguments are damning which is why you devote yourself to trying to drown them in your smarmy pap: and credit where its due, you've managed to find a niche to worm yourself into where there are enough sleepwalkers thinking they are free that you can sell them your line: as much as we both know how much you don't care a damn about David Icke or any of the values his work stands for. Why would you care? If you cared about anyone but yourself you'd have packed in your life of deception a long time ago

But hooray for you, great, you've managed to drown out the David Icke site's 9/11 section with enough followers you dare to pop out and act like a "leader" of something

How far the "mighty" have fallen, I say! Wouldn't you rather be on Loose Change forum, or somewhere else entirely dedicated to 9/11 Truth, not an inconsequential forum section named after a man you consider a loon at best?

Oh hang on

They told you where to go, didn't they?

Well there is some comfort in seeing you pop your head up here then:)

It means you've already failed everywhere it matters

That's the truth isn't it killtown?

[comawhite015]

What about the eyewitnesses in the street who ACTUALLY SAW A SECOND FUCKING PLANE FLY IN? DID WE FORGET ABOUT THEM?

[bryan]

We don't know, for example, if the passenger manifest presented for the planes is correct. We don't know if the alleged hijackers were ever definitely on there, or definitely hijackers. We don't know if the military industrial cabal that runs Al-Queda and the US Military recruited genuine patsies who actually were prepared to kill themselves for a cause they believed was true, or if they thought they were in the US for completely other reasons and just got on the planes to take a flight. We dont know if the planes were crashed remotely, although we do know the technology to do so DEFINITELY exists, as we also know its a simple matter to render everyone on a plane unconscious in a pressurised atmosphere

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation.

http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.


It is the programmed desire for certainty that. of course, disinformation relies upon.

Do "conspiracy theories" themselves not also rely on this desire for certainty, according to experts consulted by the BBC's Conspiracy Files and other assorted psychologists?

[alzee]

there is NO definitive proof, one way or the other. there is simply a collection of evidence on both sides. its each and every persons job to study that info and make their own decision as to whats right or wrong.

for those who do believe, theres not much the other side can say to dissuade them, and vice versa.

personally, im on the fence :p

i do find it straneg however, that there are quite a few people here who choose to spend so much time shouting the no-planers down. i mean, whats the big deal if someone believes it? why should the non-believers have such a problem with what other people believe?

[john white]

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation.

http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

Nice try there Bryan, but I didn't say it was "too complex to solve": simply that there is much we will never be certain of. Perhaps the difference between the two concepts is a bit subtle for you, but if you want to categorically state that "one day we will know absolutely everything about everything regarding 9/11", then be my guest to make that statement. It would be bullshit, as you know. Therefore, as an adult, you need to recognise that uncertainty is part of truth



Do "conspiracy theories" themselves not also rely on this desire for certainty, according to experts consulted by the BBC's Conspiracy Files and other assorted psychologists?

Oh they do assert these things Bryan, and they always find evidence to back that up

Who do you think is there case study?

It isn't me, I can assure you of that

As long as there is some loons corner full of fraudsters, then the "experts" will always be able to make that claim and tar genuine truthseekers with the same brush. "This Loon claims this, so all who doubt what they are told are loons"

Perhaps your further development might be assisted if you noted the common purpose between those who wish to discredit "conspiracy theory" and those who put out discreditable conspiracy theories: both are allies in their fear, hatred and derision of Truth

And then, if you can find the personal courage, you can stop helping that and start doing something positive and useful

[john white]

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/2707/wtccrashlro3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Still no denial from NPT fans that this sequence of images is a genuine set of photographs of an actual event

It couldn't be the truth is starting to sink in, could it?

LOL!

Don't worry, I'm not about to fool myself on that one

[bryan]

Who do you think is there case study?

It isn't me, I can assure you of that


That's no surprise, considering you spend most of your time defending the official story.


And then, if you can find the personal courage, you can stop helping that and start doing something positive and useful

Something useful like encouraging people to watch BBC documentaries in order to understand the origins of Islamic terrorism?

[white horse]

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/2707/wtccrashlro3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Still no denial from NPT fans that this sequence of images is a genuine set of photographs of an actual event

It couldn't be the truth is starting to sink in, could it?

LOL!

Don't worry, I'm not about to fool myself on that one

How is this proof that UA Flight 175 hit the second tower?

[john white]

How is this proof that UA Flight 175 hit the second tower?

You do see the airplane? Just checking

I would say it is proof of an Airplane hitting the towers: whether it is "UA Flight 175" or another plane is a separate question

[white horse]

You do see the airplane? Just checking

I would say it is proof of an Airplane hitting the towers: whether it is "UA Flight 175" or another plane is a separate question

OK - so we're getting somewhere, good starting point.

We question whether this is UA175. That is the whole point isn't it? If that is not UA175 WHAT HIT THE TOWERS????

It still doesn't even proove that it is a photograph of a plane in flight. It shows a plane in the air yes, but that could be added. Now before you jump down my throat JW - I am saying it is 'possible' to doctor images very easily.

Therefore, these picture 'proove' nothing.

Just part of the body of evidence to go into the bucket for evaluation.

AS a standalone set of images prooves diddly squat.

Do you have any background - who took them, what the person's story is and what is the history of the photots?

[john white]

That's no surprise, considering you spend most of your time defending the official story.

LOL!

Thanks for the laugh Bryan, you need to live in a fantasy land to believe it of course. Or stupid enough to believe that EVERYTHING about the official story is wrong. Did they get the date right? Do you agree with that?

Something useful like encouraging people to watch BBC documentaries in order to understand the origins of Islamic terrorism?

Anyone taking ALL their information from one source is being rather foolish: that's not to say some of the BBC's output hasn't been very good. The "power of nightmares" series, for example. And whether any documentary, from any source, goes as deep as one might like or draws the conclusions on prefers, doesn't mean there isn't a reasonable value of truth in them

The conspiracy files series is a travesty of misrepresentation of 9/11 Truth though... and who do they feature? Flakes like Fetzer and Reynolds.

I wonder why, given that you would appear to be mildly sarcastic about the BBC, you haven't questioned THEIR involvement in them?

Oh I know why! Killtown says they are good guys, so they must be

What a joke!

[john white]

OK - so we're getting somewhere, good starting point.

We question whether this is UA175. That is the whole point isn't it? If that is not UA175 WHAT HIT THE TOWERS????

Another Plane, IF it wasnt UA175. Thats what the strongest evidence leads to

It still doesn't even proove that it is a photograph of a plane in flight. It shows a plane in the air yes, but that could be added. Now before you jump down my throat JW - I am saying it is 'possible' to doctor images very easily.

It is possible: yes it is possible. For example, the photoshopped smoke in pictures Israel claimed showed the effect of Hamas rocket strikes, or adding a multitude into stills of the toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue in Baghdad. "Very easily" is not such a simple statement to make. Altering one image might be possible, altering MANY, from many different sources, both stills and video, different angles, locations, using a wide variety of equipment and making them ALL entirely consistent with each other, stretches the credulity a very great deal, especially considering the absolute necessity of making sure that not a single image exposing that ever comes to light: IE complete control of every camera shutter in New York. Now you could say that is "possible": but if you wish to assert that is 100% what happened, you have a very great mountain to climb compared to the possibility that they are simply genuine images of a genuine event. I'd therefore ascribe a 0.0001% chance that the possibility of NPT is correct

Therefore, these picture 'proove' nothing.

Therefore goodbye NPT. If you really wish to assert that an image can never be proof, NPT has no proof, and never will: given the only proof NPT ever has is claims about images OF PLANES

Can you deny that? I don't think you realistically can

Just part of the body of evidence to go into the bucket for evaluation.

I would agree with that: the quality of evaluation remains, however, a question

AS a standalone set of images prooves diddly squat

We've dealt with that above ^^

Do you have any background - who took them, what the person's story is and what is the history of the photots?

As an exercise in "photo's prove nuthin" what would be the point?

Who took them and their life history, where they were standing, what clothes they were wearing and when they brought the photo's forward is irrelevant unless you can show reasonable grounds for doubting the images straightforward authenticity: such as errors in lighting, perspective, consistancy etc that stand scrutiny and arnt shown to merely be false claims. With the catch all "photo's prove nuthin" you may feel you dont need to do that, but the reality is: YOU DO

And you also need to do that for every single image showing a Plane in new York that day: no exceptions!

Even if NPT did manage to prove one image fake, or several, that in itself would NOT be proof no planes hit the twin towers. It would only be proof that fake images have been made available, presumably by intelligence agencies, possibly to SUPPORT no planes theory for its tactical usefulness in diverting the public from calling the authorities to account for their actual complicity in bringing the 9/11 attacks about

(^^^ And yes Bryan look there's me defending the official story again. Still laughing about that!)

[white horse]

whether it is "UA Flight 175" or another plane is a separate question

This is exactly the question many posters are here trying to fugure out.

It is perfectly legitimate, as I see 0% evidence of flight UA175 hitting the towers.

Why is it not legitimate to discuss all possibilities?

Was this a remotely flown 727? Was it another model of plane? Was it a missile smaller drone? Was it CGI?

JFC - on a forum like this where we talk about fucking lizards from outer space are we not allowed to discuss THE POSSIBILITY that TV images were either faked or doctored?

They had the technology to do it. Easy.

MMO.

Means - The technology already exists.
Motive - To push the 'Total Spectrum Domination' Agenda.
Opportunity - The 'military/industrial/zionist' complex has control of the US government, secret services, AND the meeja.

[3stepsahead]

yeah it seems some issues are hunted by a select few.
better to just avoid them in my opinion so the thoughts and info can be available without having to read through millions of unimportant discussions about whose the smartes one but alas seems most threads here are hijacked ( i edited out profanity:D).

this does happen on both side of the argument thus allowing for a hijack.

and be careful to keep in mind that if someone proves something doesnt mean it is really true. the world may be flat and it may be round.
it is worth discussing even if evreyone KNOWS it is round.
but according to some there should be gag on those that want to discuss an idea.
i!

[bryan]

You do see the airplane? Just checking

I would say it is proof of an Airplane hitting the towers: whether it is "UA Flight 175" or another plane is a separate question

Nice to see you don't feel the need to post the same image a 20th time.


Altering one image might be possible, altering MANY, from many different sources, both stills and video, different angles, locations, using a wide variety of equipment and making them ALL entirely consistent with each other, stretches the credulity a very great deal, especially considering the absolute necessity of making sure that not a single image exposing that ever comes to light: IE complete control of every camera shutter in New York. Now you could say that is "possible": but if you wish to assert that is 100% what happened, you have a very great mountain to climb compared to the possibility that they are simply genuine images of a genuine event. I'd therefore ascribe a 0.0001% chance that the possibility of NPT is correct

In other words, they couldn't do it. Exactly the same argument used by George Monbiot to debunk controlled demolition. Well, they must have been able to do it, because we saw three buildings demolished. In the same way, they must have been able to fake all the photos because we can see that the plane which impacts the building is a fake.


If you really wish to assert that an image can never be proof, NPT has no proof, and never will: given the only proof NPT ever has is claims about images OF PLANES


If an image can be proved to be fake, it's proof of fakery and in some cases strongly implies that what was faked didn't actually take place.


Anyone taking ALL their information from one source is being rather foolish: that's not to say some of the BBC's output hasn't been very good. The "power of nightmares" series, for example. And whether any documentary, from any source, goes as deep as one might like or draws the conclusions on prefers, doesn't mean there isn't a reasonable value of truth in them


In The Power of Nightmares series, Adam Curtis argues that Islamic terrorism is the direct result of "blowback" from the CIA's funding of the Mujahideen during the occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. Not so long ago, I read the transcript of an interview with Adam Curtis. He was asked if he thought it was possible that 9/11 could have been an inside job. He answered in one word: "No". You think this documentary maker would include a reasonable value of truth?

[drhemp]

I don't know why i'm even bothering with this but...

I mean no offense man, but let's put our focus and energy on helping people see through the lies of 9/11 that we CAN definitavely prove, first! It doesn't matter if the images of the planes were from laser beams from the moon, what matters is that people realize that it was an inside job first, and that it is the only thing that has been proven. You shouldn't be pointlessly squabling over stuff like this on a forum, okay? It's a wasted effort! Don't you get that? It's a useless distraction at the moment.

agreed, no planes, laser beams serves no purpose other than to keep what really happened on 9/11 away from the mainstream

[john white]

Nice to see you don't feel the need to post the same image a 20th time

You seem to have difficulty accurately counting. Does the image make you uncomfortable? Is it the fact that it is a real image, showing the approach of a plane, and therefore demonstrating NPT is null and void? would it upset you if I posted it again and you were forced to view it once more?

Altering one image might be possible, altering MANY, from many different sources, both stills and video, different angles, locations, using a wide variety of equipment and making them ALL entirely consistent with each other, stretches the credulity a very great deal, especially considering the absolute necessity of making sure that not a single image exposing that ever comes to light: IE complete control of every camera shutter in New York. Now you could say that is "possible": but if you wish to assert that is 100% what happened, you have a very great mountain to climb compared to the possibility that they are simply genuine images of a genuine event. I'd therefore ascribe a 0.0001% chance that the possibility of NPT is correct
In other words, they couldn't do it. Exactly the same argument used by George Monbiot to debunk controlled demolition. Well, they must have been able to do it, because we saw three buildings demolished. In the same way, they must have been able to fake all the photos because we can see that the plane which impacts the building is a fake.

No, not in other words: in MY words I said it IS possible. I assigned a value of possibility to it BEING possible. But to show it is not only possible, but actually is what happened, requires a massive burden of proof that your would apparently rather ignore than confront. So your assertion I use the same argument as Monbiot fails, rather badly. Apparently like your comprehension skills

In The Power of Nightmares series, Adam Curtis argues that Islamic terrorism is the direct result of "blowback" from the CIA's funding of the Mujahideen during the occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. Not so long ago, I read the transcript of an interview with Adam Curtis. He was asked if he thought it was possible that 9/11 could have been an inside job. He answered in one word: "No". You think this documentary maker would include a reasonable value of truth?

You dispute that the CIA's funding of the Mujahideen was a factor in the rise of Islamic Militarism?

If not there is a reasonable value of truth right there, certainly one the general public needs to know about.

But you seem to be saying "Fuck making a documentary to show that if the filmmaker wont shout at the top of his voice "9/11 is an inside job""

It's those kind of simplistic and polarised opinions that characterises the NPT circus going round in circles

I also took great pains to state that only a fool takes information from only one source. That must have passed you by in your eagerness to infer Adam Curtis a "shill gatekeeper"

Of course, it hardly matters if Curtis did say "I think 9/11 was an inside job" if he then goes on to say "but NPT is a bunch of shit" because he'd still be a "shill gatekeeper" then, wouldn't he?

Or can one be a 9/11 Truther and consider NPT false Bryan?

Here you either box yourself further into a corner and say "No you can't", further demonstrating your divisive and rigid mindset, or you apologise to me for suggesting I am not a legitimate truther

[white horse]

Another Plane, IF it wasnt UA175. Thats what the strongest evidence leads to


Just like that? Aftere the abuse and vitriole you have meted out to other posters and you just come out with that?

'Another plane'??

I mean this is central to the whole thing!?!?

The ptb can easily allow the hijakced planes to get through, that has been shown by the exercises that were going on that morning to delay and confuse the quick response action. OK... we allow the hijackers through by diverting the military and confusing teh civilian aviation authorities. Easily done with a tiny number of people 'in the know'... way less than 10

It is a big escalation for then arrange for sustitute planes to be flown in their place, presumabley by remote control? I mean that is huge!! Cheney and Runmsfeld practically alone would be capable of arranging the diversion exercises. But also to arrange for substitute planes to be flown in instead??

The scope of involvement is massively extended if we substitute the scheduled flight planes for other planes. That is a massive conspiracy. Does that not warrant investigation and question??

If that was not UA175 what was it?? You are so certain that these photos are proof what are they proof of?? Just 'a plane'? What plane?

Cos they can't be proof of UA175 agreed? There are no visible markings.

You do not know what hit the building, but you are certain that it prooves it... whatever it is....

What other plane? Another 767? Where from? Was it remote control? How was the swap arranged etc? Not that I am asking YOU for proof - if that was not UA175 then these are all legitimate questions to throw out to an open forum... no?


It is possible: yes it is possible. For example, the photoshopped smoke in pictures Israel claimed showed the effect of Hamas rocket strikes, or adding a multitude into stills of the toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue in Baghdad. "Very easily" is not such a simple statement to make. Altering one image might be possible, altering MANY, from many different sources, both stills and video, different angles, locations, using a wide variety of equipment and making them ALL entirely consistent with each other, stretches the credulity a very great deal, especially considering the absolute necessity of making sure that not a single image exposing that ever comes to light: IE complete control of every camera shutter in New York. Now you could say that is "possible": but if you wish to assert that is 100% what happened, you have a very great mountain to climb compared to the possibility that they are simply genuine images of a genuine event.


There aren't that many photos and videos of the planes? There were less than half a dozen live shots. Very easy for a media control room to handle.

The ptb have vast resources, well ahead in technology-years of us civvies.

Those planes were in the scope for only a few seconds, therfore there can't be an inexhaustible number of phote of the actual planes.

There are lots of accounts of people who were taking photos and videos were whisked away by the FBI and had their cameras taken from them to be checked for evidence - very reasonable for people to aquiesce - after all this was a crime scene. This opens the possibility that the ptb had their hands on many witness's prime evidence. Easy to doctor even with basic technology.


I'd therefore ascribe a 0.0001% chance that the possibility of NPT is correct


Is that a scientifically derived number? i.e have you counted the number of photos available (it must be a very small finite number) and used some form of mathematical equation to come up with that number?

I only ask as you seem to demand an extremely precise margin of exactness in others.


Therefore goodbye NPT. If you really wish to assert that an image can never be proof, NPT has no proof, and never will: given the only proof NPT ever has is claims about images OF PLANES

Can you deny that? I don't think you realistically can


An image in itself is not proof.

And why goodbye npt? Surely if we agree that a photo is not proof then errr hewwooooooo npt?!?!


I have been a historian for more htan 20 years and I have still never used the word 'proof' or 'proven';

I would agree with that: the quality of evaluation remains, however, a question



We've dealt with that above ^^



As an exercise in "photo's prove nuthin" what would be the point?


At the moment to allow the door to remain open for npt it is enough to show that 'much' of the photo and video evidence is either highly suspect, or not 100% verifiable. That is enough to warrant an investigation.

How have you disproven npt?

You cannot prove plane theory. You concede that the weight of the evidence says that is not UA175. Then what are we prooving? You don't know, you concede that with your own words. How can you prove something you don't know?

If that was not UA175 then there are a numbr of other possiblilites, all of them scary.

1 - A fake Boeing 767 in United Airlines livery flown by remote control.
2 - A military plane that looked similar to a 767.
3 - A military plane, dron eor missile that looked nothing like a 767, therefore requiring live tv fakery to mask this
4 - nothing hit the towers, it was all tv fakery.

I am looking at all of these as plausable and possible theories. What has not been proved impossible is therefore possible.

Until someone can prove to me that option 4 is impossible, I will count it in the possible list.


Who took them and their life history, where they were standing, what clothes they were wearing and when they brought the photo's forward is irrelevant unless you can show reasonable grounds for doubting the images straightforward authenticity: such as errors in lighting, perspective, consistancy etc that stand scrutiny and arnt shown to merely be false claims. With the catch all "photo's prove nuthin" you may feel you dont need to do that, but the reality is: YOU DO


If this were actually treated like a crime scene by the authorities, then the burden of proof is on the accuser. A photograph is not proof. A photo can be presented in court to back up other admissable evidence, such as physical evidence (apparantly non - no wreckage recovered) and eyewitness evidence. (The eyewitness evidence needs presenting; if you would stop derailing our threads looking at the video and photo evidence, I could complete this process of investigation QUICKER, and then move on to the eyewitness statements next to evaluate them.)

You have not only the right, but the duty to examine the evidence and its varacity. I don't doubt the image. THE IMAGE IS IN DOUBT APRIORI before it is even entered as evidence. Every single photo has to be proven to be 100% a genuine representation of what the view finder saw.

Have you ever seen a photo be treated to forensic tests when involved in a legal issue? They want to see the original negative/mem disc, they want to know the history of the person taking it, who they have had financial dealings with, who they work for, who they know, they give the pics to multiple photographic experts to examine for any evidence of taqmporing, and they use highly sophisticated equipment to do so.

I mean, nothing was done at all. This should be treated as evidence to a crime. No one has done an official or main stream media evaluation of the photo/video evidence.

You are so certain that that is a real live physical plane in the sky where is the proof. I can't proove ntp, I don't want to proove ntp. The only thing I am 'sure' of is that was not UA175. I have no proof - it is a gut feeling. What it was that hit that tower I don't know, that is why I am not discounting npt. I am also not discounting a military plane or a missile, or a combination.

That is why I am sifting through the only evidence we have, video and photo evidence. I have never never ever seen any evidence of UA175 hitting the WTC, THAT is my starting point... and I see no counter PROOF to say that npt cannot come to the party to be evaluated.

I sit here with arms folded waiting for someone to proove to me that UA175 hit the second tower. I don't have to proove that it didn't, you have to prove that it did... that is the assertion, I challenge the assertion. If my challenge is bogus then one good quick slap should put me down.

ok we have ascertained that you are not sure that it was UA175. Was it another 767 or somehting else entirely? This is a crucial question.




And you also need to do that for every single image showing a Plane in new York that day: no exceptions!



Absofuckinglutley.


Even if NPT did manage to prove one image fake, or several, that in itself would NOT be proof no planes hit the twin towers. It would only be proof that fake images have been made available, presumably by intelligence agencies, possibly to SUPPORT no planes theory for its tactical usefulness in diverting the public from calling the authorities to account for their actual complicity in bringing the 9/11 attacks about

(^^^ And yes Bryan look there's me defending the official story again. Still laughing about that!)

Yep - some good points;

[qasrose]

2 - A military plane

Is my pick.

As I've explained in the past It would have been hard
to add cgi planes into a live broadcasting feed...

Think about it, during that morning in New York
how many news crews were out their doing reports on WTC? Before Attacks?. 0

The moment the first plane struck the MEDIA
were alerted their for the camera crews broadcasted live.

And then they captured the 2nd plane strike the towers..

Nuff said.

[white horse]

Is my pick.

As I've explained in the past It would have been hard
to add cgi planes into a live broadcasting feed...

Think about it, during that morning in New York
how many news crews were out their doing reports on WTC? Before Attacks?. 0

The moment the first plane struck the MEDIA
were alerted their for the camera crews broadcasted live.

And then they captured the 2nd plane strike the towers..

Nuff said.

Have you actually watched any of the live footage?

Non of it was from mobile units.

I totally agree, you would have thought that they would have had loads of angels covered for the live second plnae shot. But no.

What's your point?

[qasrose]

Have you actually watched any of the live footage?

Non of it was from mobile units.

I totally agree, you would have thought that they would have had loads of angels covered for the live second plnae shot. But no.

What's your point?

Yes I've seen all of the live footage, which all show planes.

Ha ha Mobile Units ha ha...

Your not going to get a good angle using a mobile unit lmao..

That is why half of the live footage you see is broadcasted.
from helicopter.. I want you too tell me what made you get into the no plane theory???

Forget the pentagon or shanks, tell me what made you choose this theory? over real planes

[white horse]

Yes I've seen all of the live footage, which all show planes.

Ha ha Mobile Units ha ha...

Your not going to get a good angle using a mobile unit lmao..

That is why half of the live footage you see is broadcasted.
from helicopter.. I want you too tell me what made you get into the no plane theory???

Forget the pentagon or shanks, tell me what made you choose this theory? over real planes

Hi gasrose -

OK what got me 'into' npt?

I at first bought the whole shaboodle like everyone else.

I demonstrated against the Iraq war.

As that war deteriorated (I am a historian and 'journalist') I decided to write an article on the psychological impact of 911 on the American people, after all it was he USA's war, and that was backed by the poeple, dasically on the strength of 911.

The focus of my article was to do a day in th elife of the USA... I wanted to write from the perspective of ordinary Americans watching their tv screens at breakfast...

As I searched, I came across problems finding footage of the day and eyewitness accounts.

I looked further and further, what I wanted to see was the records of the continous footage of the live major networks on the day. What I found was thme being very cagey. In many ways it was like it never happened, noone wanted to talke about the live footage.

So the only place to go was public postings and forums.

What did I find? Talk about controlled demolition. This was about 2004. I was astounded and shocked, and I found it absurd. (yeah, now it is established thoought huh?).

So my curiosity was piqued... where is the footage??

That is when I started to find 'live' footage at other places on the internet other than the major networks, by now about 2006... and boy it was extremely dodgy.

And like a bulldog with a bone, I cannae let it go!

[white horse]

Yes I've seen all of the live footage, which all show planes.



Do they??

[bryan]

Yes I've seen all of the live footage, which all show planes.

You were watching without paying attention then, otherwise you wouldn't have made the following incorrect statement:


And then they captured the 2nd plane strike the towers..


Two live feeds captured the approach of the second plane, which then disappeared behind the towers before an explosion occured. The impact was only filmed by private individuals.



The moment the first plane struck the MEDIA were alerted their for the camera crews broadcasted live.



half of the live footage you see is broadcasted from helicopter.

Which raises the question of how the camera crews managed to miss the impact when they were all over the scene.

[ashur]

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/2707/wtccrashlro3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

^^^ Still Real

You can see the smoke and the plane flying in to hit it. You can't get anymore obvious than that. There was planes.

[white horse]

You can see the smoke and the plane flying in to hit it. You can't get anymore obvious than that. There was planes.

^^^ still not proof

What do you see here ashur?

Flight UA175?

[ashur]

What do you see here ashur?


I see someone who has lost sense of reality and wants to believe that no planes is a sensible option.

[matrix911]

LOL!

The entire of "September Clues" is wrong,


Once again you'e making a baseless assertions based on nothing more than your OPINION... IOW, what you're "claim" is totally WORTHLESS because you have no proof, evidence or counter-argument whatsoever to back it up showing EXACTLY how and where what the NPT and SC type docs are false.


and yes I have personally been involved in thorough dissection of it,


PROVE IT!

WHERES YOUR EVIDENCE? WHERES YOUR "DISSECTION"?

WHERES YOUR ARGUMENT OTHER THAN YOUR OPINION OR SOME PHOTOS
THAT CAN BE EASILY MANIPULATED WITH BASIC COMPUTER SKILLS?

Feel free anytime to present a LINE BY LINE counter-argument or DISSECTION of what you CLAIM is false in a similar manner to what SC put forth cos I have yet to see ANYONE do it. And the "SC BUSTED" video didn't even REMOTELY address SC evidence let alone disprove it.



and no end of hours have been wasted making complex posts showing exactly how Simon Shack has been dissembling, deceiving and downright deluding its viewers, and presumably himself, in many different places across the internet...


(let me repeat it again for since you still don't seem to GET IT...)
-------------------

PROVE IT!

WHERES YOUR EVIDENCE? WHERES YOUR "DISSECTION"?

WHERES YOUR ARGUMENT OTHER THAN YOUR OPINION OR SOME PHOTOS
THAT CAN BE EASILY MANIPULATED WITH BASIC COMPUTER SKILLS?

Feel free anytime to present a LINE BY LINE counter-argument or DISSECTION of what you CLAIM is false in a similar manner to what SC put forth cos I have yet to see ANYONE do it. And the "SC BUSTED" video didn't even REMOTELY address SC evidence let alone disprove it.

GO RIGHT AHEAD... SHOW ME EXACTLY "HOW" AND "WHERE" LINE BY LINE, SIMON IS WRONG.


How come YOU don't know this? Is it...


Know WHAT?


Physician, heal thyself
There is no case for "No Planes" worth answering, and the only reason some people don't accept that is that they simply don't want to know



Is cutting and pasting all it takes to debunk you? Are you really in such incredible denial that its this easy to expose your absurd assertions?

(let me repeat it again for since you still don't seem to GET IT...)
-------------------

PROVE IT!

WHERES YOUR EVIDENCE? WHERES YOUR "DISSECTION"?

WHERES YOUR ARGUMENT OTHER THAN YOUR OPINION OR SOME PHOTOS
THAT CAN BE EASILY MANIPULATED WITH BASIC COMPUTER SKILLS?

Feel free anytime to present a LINE BY LINE counter-argument or DISSECTION of what you CLAIM is false in a similar manner to what SC put forth cos I have yet to see ANYONE do it. And the "SC BUSTED" video didn't even REMOTELY address SC evidence let alone disprove it.

GO RIGHT AHEAD... SHOW ME EXACTLY "HOW" AND "WHERE" LINE BY LINE, SIMON IS WRONG.


What responsibility do you think I have to change that? Because I assure you, I am under NONE.
Any posts I do make pointing out the truth of the matter are simply charity on my behalf, as I do like to be generally helpful. I'm sure you appreciate it (LOL). Fortunately, the point of generosity is to give, not to receive gratitude for it

thats it?? thats the extent of your "proof" and "dissection"??

ROTFLMFAO

You're make this way too easy.

[arten]

As for the no planes theory I think that is disinfo to discredit what really did happen that day. I mean yesterday I was watching people who with their hand held cam corders post the film they shot and planes hit the towers on you tube, including a Chezk tourist, who had no idea he had even filmed a plane on that fateful day. Whether or not those planes were the ones that the Authorites claimed were hijacked that day I have no idea. I am convinced that this was an CIA MOssad operation designed to take America into war in the ME.
Planes hit the towers then they blew them up in a controlled demolition to cover their tracks.

[matrix911]

I see someone who has lost sense of reality and wants to believe that no planes is a sensible option.

As opposed to what? Your sensible
logic and options? which are what?

Its not the NPT's problem if you refuse to do an indepth investigation or fail to present the same type of scholarly irrefutable argument and evidence NPT's have.

Feel free anytime to offer an intelligent line by line counter-argument to whats been "claimed", proven or presented. You can NIT PICK and play semantics with bits and pieces of the puzzle, but you'll never be able to mask or hide enough pieces to make the PICTURE it shows not what it says and shows on the BOX.

the only thing i keep seeing from the ANTI NPT'S like yourself are ad hominem attacks/remarks, OPINIONS, claims and rhetoric, which PROVES NOTHING.

If you and the rest like you here want to play this charade, fine by me. But it only serves to validate your obvious inability to use common sense or disprove the FACTS and video evidence.

The facts are either right or wrong. The evidence shows over and over what any moron can see is MANIPULATION. The ANOMALIES aren't open for debate...

WHEN THE NY BRIDGE IS WALKING BEHIND THE TWIN TOWERS IN THE BACKGROUND OF LIVE FOOTAGE there's only a limited set of possibilities.

WHEN WINGS DISAPPEAR THERES ONLY A LIMITED NUMBER OF POSSIBLE CONCLUSIONS

WHEN THERE'S DIFFERENT COLORED SETS AND PLANES, there's a limited set of possible theories.

WHEN ALL THE "PHOTOGRAPHERS" AND IMAGES CAPTURED FROM WITNESSES WERE CONNECTED TO THE MEDIA OR WERE CONFISCATED BY THE FEDS ETC, its reasonable to assert foul play and things may not be as "random" as you and most want to believe.

WHEN THERES NOT A SINGLE SHOT OR PHOTO (ON A TOTALLY CLEAR DAY) SHOWING FLIGHT 11 OR 175, the fundamentals of the NPT are more than REASONABLE to consider.

and when all those basic factors (and there's TONS MORE and i can go on and on with) are put in CONTEXT, theres only ONE CONCLUSION that makes the most sense.

MANIPULATION, FAKERY etc etc etc

Just because that conclusion makes you and most cringe and reveals an inconvenient TRUTH, doesn't make it false.

do you know what the word COLLUSION means? or OCCAMS RAZOR? Educate yourself and look it up.

[time2wakeup]

This whats gets me if people say well if planes didnt hit, what did?
I can go on about that, but I wont for the time being. Let me paint this scenario, If you get charged for murder, do you have to find somebody else responsible for that murder for you to get off ? The answer is no. You only have to find some good evidence to prove that it wasnt you. Unfortunately, us earthlings are bound by whats called the laws of physics. This means a boeing 767 is not designed to travel through steel/concrete buildings at the same speed as fresh air. Why does it say on airplane wings, no step or do no stand? A plane is made out of lightweight aluminium - and guess what happens it meets a steel/concrete buildiing ? It crashes against it, twisting, and breaking up - not going through like a hot knife through butter?
Arten you bring up the czech guy Pavel (together with naudet) filming their snuff film. Have you even bothered to watch his footage. What the heck is the red in the bottom of the screen? quite possibly a fire engine.
http://www.webfairy.org/slideshow/pavel-dk/index.shtml
I am stunned that serious 911 researches are still believing this plane myth, i am glad i shanked that tag 3 years ago.

[matrix911]

As for the no planes theory I think that is disinfo to discredit what really did happen that day. I mean yesterday I was watching people who with their hand held cam corders post the film they shot and planes hit the towers on you tube, including a Chezk tourist, who had no idea he had even filmed a plane on that fateful day. Whether or not those planes were the ones that the Authorites claimed were hijacked that day I have no idea. I am convinced that this was an CIA MOssad operation designed to take America into war in the ME.
Planes hit the towers then they blew them up in a controlled demolition to cover their tracks.



LOL!! YOU HAVEN'T DONE ENOUGH RESEARCH AND ARE QUITE NAIVE IF YOU BELIEVE THE FOOTAGE FROM THE SO CALLED "AMATEURS" AND RANDOM PEOPLE WITH CAMCORDERS ETC WERE AS RANDOM AS IT SEEMS, UNMANIPULATED OR THAT THERE'S ANY FOOTAGE SHOWING FLIGHT 11 AND 175.

THERES QUITE A BIT OF EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS THE FOOTAGE WHICH IS SO CALLED "LIVE" "RAW OR "UPLOADED", IS NOT REALLY AS RANDOM AS IT APPEARS.

ITS AMAZING HOW MANY SEEM TO BE HAVING TROUBLE COMPREHENDING
THE SIMPLE FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT OF WHAT THE NPT REALLY MEANS...

ITS DOESN'T MEAN NO PLANES, IT MEANS NO FLIGHT 11 AND 175 BOEINGS PLANES.

IT MEANS THERE'S EVERY REASON TO CONSIDER FAKERY ASIDE FROM ALL THE VIDEO EVIDENCE PRESENTED WHICH I HAVE YET TO SEE YOU OR ANYONE OFFER COUNTER-EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENTS AGAINST IT.

PLAYING SEMANTICS WON'T CHANGE THE OBVIOUS FAKERY.

SURE, A TYPE OF PLANE/S MAY HAVE BEEN USED... BUT ONLY SOMEONE APART OF THE CONSPIRACY OR SOMEONE THATS NOT DONE ENOUGH RESEARCH AND IN DENIAL WOULD DENY OR DISMISS THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE SUPPORTING FAKERY.

SO OKAY, I'M NOW GOING TO AGREE WITH THE ANTI NPT's...

THERE WERE DEFINITELY DRONE/UAV/MILITARY PLANES USED! U PEOPLE CRACK ME UP.

(PS. AND YES MY CAPLOCK IS STUCK 2DAY!!) LOL

[sceptic]

Have people not seen the footage of plane hitting the building?

[drael]

Premises...

1) The main issue with 911 is the cover-up, and its aims.

2) The means with which they acheive that may be even important, but it is still secondary to the fact that events were engineered by a secret cabal.

3) Most people still dont know that 911 was an inside job.

= Therefor,

Talking all the time about no planes is a distraction from bigger issues, and thus disinfo.....

Happy?

I dont even care about 911! lol.

[bryan]

(let me repeat it again since you still don't seem to GET IT...)


John White does get it. He just pretends.


Have people not seen the footage of plane hitting the building?

Of course we have. That's how we know it was faked.



Talking all the time about no planes is a distraction from bigger issues


Yeah, bigger issues like whether thermite was used.

[arten]

[QUOTE=matrix911;741377]LOL!! YOU HAVEN'T DONE ENOUGH RESEARCH AND ARE QUITE NAIVE IF YOU BELIEVE THE FOOTAGE FROM THE SO CALLED "AMATEURS" AND RANDOM PEOPLE WITH CAMCORDERS ETC WERE AS RANDOM AS IT SEEMS, UNMANIPULATED OR THAT THERE'S ANY FOOTAGE SHOWING FLIGHT 11 AND 175.

Well that is always a possibility that what we see and are told is independent footage is in fact contrived. However, and this is the problem with this conspiracy it would mean that more and more people are complicit in this crime.
Don't get me wrong it was definately an inside job but there is plenty of disinfo going around. On balance I would have to say that Planes of some sort did hit the towers, the no planers are using disinformation to side track people from what really happened. And if you watch people's independent film on you tube or elsewhere even those of people who lived within sight of the towers, who are filming the aftermath of the attacks. You can hear people saying they saw Planes or a Plane hitting the tower.

[abaddon]

I demand Larry Silverstein builds a new skyscraper with the same WTC 1 and 2 blueprints, rig it with thermite, and crash a plane into the top.. then trigger some demo/thermite charges. And bomb blasts from the basement. And 'pull it'.

Then compare it to the 40+ 'real' video footages that exist of the event, real planes, remoted planes, no planes etc.

And pay some people to stand in the plane when it strikes this building. And ask how they survive to see their own 'criminal persona' on tv when they aren't in the same country. Nor dead.

And that plane that hit the pentagon... (y'know, the cruise missle looking one)

Am I making sense?

Maybe I haven't researched enough of that day.:o


1) The main issue with 911 is the cover-up, and its aims.

2) The means with which they acheive that may be even important, but it is still secondary to the fact that events were engineered by a secret cabal.

3) Most people still dont know that 911 was an inside job.

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





edit: post #92 = good post. I see similarities between both sides, i.e 'what' hit the Towers? A ufo. Can we agree a UFO hit the towers? Just for some common ground....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[papiere bitte]

For the past few years I've been well aware of 9/11 being an inside job with three buildings being brought down by controlled demolition, and 2 missing airliners - Flight 77 and Flight 93.

I had never really paid much attention to people suggesting that no planes were used, as like many of you I assumed this was disinfo being used to discredit the 9/11 truth movement.

This is because I assumed that by 'no planes', you meant 'nothing' hit the twin towers and they just used the media combined with a fireworks display in the buildings to trick people into believe planes hit.

However, after looking into some of the evidence you have presented here I am now undecided as to what actually happened, but I'm starting to doubt that Flight and 11 and Flight 175 were anywhere near the trade centres on that day.

Obviously since the day of the attacks the media has been massively involved in a cover up, it doesn't matter whether it's FOX News or BBC - they all played out the same lie again and again.

The witness interviews, particularly the one outside the pentagon where a man claimed to be able to see the faces of the passengers and what not - obviously faked. Having seen the film "September Clues" I find it hard to believe that the plane impact videos we now have were not faked.

Obviously there's no need to go into the details here as you're more than likely already aware of them. But only a handful of impact videos from a city the size of New York? How can that be?

Why didn't the helicopter footage show the plane heading in from a distance? The camera man admitted he had seen the plane coming in from a long way off, yet bizarrely he zooms in to keep it out of view until it's within metres of the actual tower. Then the whole "nose out" and blacking out of multiple frames again speaks for itself.

Whilst I'm not sure of all that is presented in his film, I must say that overall I find it quite conclusive.

I imagine for those that pulled it off, it would have been a hell of a lot easier to use guided missiles (which at such a speed and altitude many would think is a plane anyway) to strike the towers. It would certainly raise less suspicions that kitting out a United Airlines Boeing with similar laser guided technology. Though I know such technology does exists, I think it would still be much easier to use a missile, and would probably have a much higher success rate as guided missiles are used a lot more regularly than guided boeings etc.

The footage we have of the 2nd and indeed, first planes impacting could have easily been faked, and some do look very dodgy with a closer analysis.

We know for a fact that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon and likewise we know that Flight 93 did not make that crater in Shanksville.

Is it really that hard to believe that there is a trend here, a trend of replacing Airliners with cruise missiles?

I've not come to any conclusions, you can't be 100% certain of anything but if pushed I would probably say that it is more likely cruise missiles were used on all 4 targets to simulate plane impacts.


It was a crazy day, people did report seeing a missile, others reported seeing a plane without any windows others didn't see anything at all.
I think it's safe to say that very few people would have been able to identify what it was from ground level in a dense city like New York, so as they are unsure themselves, when they go home and see repeated images of a plane impacting the towers they will allow it to convince them that, that is exactly what they saw.

If it was united airlines, then there should be 100's of videos showing the second impact from multiple angles and distances.

I have only seen one long range view of the 2nd impact and you certainly do not see a Boeing 767. Unfortunately it would seem that such videos keep getting removed from YouTube, but if you keep looking they do crop up every now and then.


Still, I don't think such discussion is "disinfo", however it really isn't as significant as some people are making it out.

If you are presenting evidence that discredits the official 9/11 story and are actively spreading that information getting a response from people then that's all I really care about.

It's daft to argue amongst each other on the subject when we're all on the same page really. Don't get me wrong, discussion is good and should be encouraged but you have to remember that you don't really know what happened on 9/11. You can only speculate, we're all clear that it was not an attack by Muslim terrorists and that it was the new pearl harbour of an American based Agenda for dominance of their own populace and other nations of it's own choosing. We're watching the Orwellian state unfold all because of these attacks, the Reichstag has been burned down and we need to expose it before it is too late.

Whilst to me the evidence would suggest a lot of faked TV on the day (possible prepared in advance) and lead me to believing that missiles could have replaced the United Airlines flights.
That's not going to make me tell you you're wrong about the planes hitting the towers because I really don't know, it's speculation.

What really does matter is that we acknowledge that we've both got the same objective in mind of exposing this fraud and stopping our leaders from using it to expand the ever stronger police state that is emerging from this false flag attack.

The fine details are irrelevant, who did the attacks and why did they do the attacks is what we must focus on. It matters not whether they used this kind of plane or that kind of plane or this kind of explosive or that etc.

Anyone that is getting this topic out there and getting it discussed is doing good in my opinion. 3 years ago when I started talking to people about this they'd almost always reject it.

Now, most of my friends, family and colleagues agree that the attacks were most likely an inside job. Keep talking about it, keep making people aware.

It's the media's job to attack and mock people, we should be working together to ensure that the criminals responsible are eventually brought to some justice.


Oh, and 'Hello!'
I've been browsing these forums for a while, I figured it was about time I made an account and joined in on the discussions here. Be gentle! :p

[matrix911]

Yes I've seen all of the live footage, which all show planes.

Ha ha Mobile Units ha ha...

Your not going to get a good angle using a mobile unit lmao..

That is why half of the live footage you see is broadcasted.
from helicopter..


NPT = NO CIVILIAN PLANES

geezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzus

so lets revise and CLARIFY NPT.

it should be NCPT

NO CIVILIAN PLANES THEORY.

which also means that based on and factoring in the video evidence, most of the LIVE FOOTAGE if not all appears to be clearly tampered with, manipulated and altered in some capacity of which CGI /fakery of some sort was apart of it since there are too many anomalies, flaws and clear problems with the "planes" shown in the footage from the media. Whatsmore there is evidence and reason to suspect even the footage "uploaded" or taken by so called amateur photographers since most if not all not only show EDITS right at the points of impacts or where there should be a CLEAR VIEW of what it was that hit the towers, but the footage claimed to be amateur in each case has some link to MEDIA personal or being confiscated or turned into to the FBI before it was UPLOADED!!

If there was so much LIVE FOOTAGE from amateurs, WHERE THE FUK IS IT? There should be THOUSANDS of hours and DIFFERENT amateur video being UPLOADED over the past 8 years! SO WHERE IS all this alleged footage? There's only a FEW (which would be very easy for the government to keep contained).

So when someone mentions NO PLANES, they aren't really saying PLANES DIDN'T HIT THE TOWERS... they're saying (and I am) that there were NO CIVILIAN BOEINGS that the OS claims.... IOW it wasn't flight 11 or 175... cuz there is NO PROOF whatsoever that shows them. On the contrary, there is more evidence showing MILITARY PLANES or Drones.

Oh and as to the "live footage" broadcast from helicopters...HA HA! Yeah right... go pull up the footage claimed to be from a helicopter. Talk about bad CGI!! The helicopter under belly is beyond fake. Thats not live footage from any helicopter. In fact "this" footage alone is enough evidence proving FAKERY.

GOT IT NOW?

[beldazar]

Excellent first post and Welcome aboard! :)

Oops! that was for Papiere Bitte

[matrix911]

EXCELLENT POST.

one of the best I've seen yet.

Too bad there aren't more people here who can objectively assess the evidence and offer this kind of thoughtful common sense analysis.

well done.



For the past few years I've been well aware of 9/11 being an inside job with three buildings being brought down by controlled demolition, and 2 missing airliners - Flight 77 and Flight 93.

I had never really paid much attention to people suggesting that no planes were used, as like many of you I assumed this was disinfo being used to discredit the 9/11 truth movement.

This is because I assumed that by 'no planes', you meant 'nothing' hit the twin towers and they just used the media combined with a fireworks display in the buildings to trick people into believe planes hit.

However, after looking into some of the evidence you have presented here I am now undecided as to what actually happened, but I'm starting to doubt that Flight and 11 and Flight 175 were anywhere near the trade centres on that day.

Obviously since the day of the attacks the media has been massively involved in a cover up, it doesn't matter whether it's FOX News or BBC - they all played out the same lie again and again.

The witness interviews, particularly the one outside the pentagon where a man claimed to be able to see the faces of the passengers and what not - obviously faked. Having seen the film "September Clues" I find it hard to believe that the plane impact videos we now have were not faked.

Obviously there's no need to go into the details here as you're more than likely already aware of them. But only a handful of impact videos from a city the size of New York? How can that be?

Why didn't the helicopter footage show the plane heading in from a distance? The camera man admitted he had seen the plane coming in from a long way off, yet bizarrely he zooms in to keep it out of view until it's within metres of the actual tower. Then the whole "nose out" and blacking out of multiple frames again speaks for itself.

Whilst I'm not sure of all that is presented in his film, I must say that overall I find it quite conclusive.

I imagine for those that pulled it off, it would have been a hell of a lot easier to use guided missiles (which at such a speed and altitude many would think is a plane anyway) to strike the towers. It would certainly raise less suspicions that kitting out a United Airlines Boeing with similar laser guided technology. Though I know such technology does exists, I think it would still be much easier to use a missile, and would probably have a much higher success rate as guided missiles are used a lot more regularly than guided boeings etc.

The footage we have of the 2nd and indeed, first planes impacting could have easily been faked, and some do look very dodgy with a closer analysis.

We know for a fact that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon and likewise we know that Flight 93 did not make that crater in Shanksville.

Is it really that hard to believe that there is a trend here, a trend of replacing Airliners with cruise missiles?

I've not come to any conclusions, you can't be 100% certain of anything but if pushed I would probably say that it is more likely cruise missiles were used on all 4 targets to simulate plane impacts.


It was a crazy day, people did report seeing a missile, others reported seeing a plane without any windows others didn't see anything at all.
I think it's safe to say that very few people would have been able to identify what it was from ground level in a dense city like New York, so as they are unsure themselves, when they go home and see repeated images of a plane impacting the towers they will allow it to convince them that, that is exactly what they saw.

If it was united airlines, then there should be 100's of videos showing the second impact from multiple angles and distances.

I have only seen one long range view of the 2nd impact and you certainly do not see a Boeing 767. Unfortunately it would seem that such videos keep getting removed from YouTube, but if you keep looking they do crop up every now and then.


Still, I don't think such discussion is "disinfo", however it really isn't as significant as some people are making it out.

If you are presenting evidence that discredits the official 9/11 story and are actively spreading that information getting a response from people then that's all I really care about.

It's daft to argue amongst each other on the subject when we're all on the same page really. Don't get me wrong, discussion is good and should be encouraged but you have to remember that you don't really know what happened on 9/11. You can only speculate, we're all clear that it was not an attack by Muslim terrorists and that it was the new pearl harbour of an American based Agenda for dominance of their own populace and other nations of it's own choosing. We're watching the Orwellian state unfold all because of these attacks, the Reichstag has been burned down and we need to expose it before it is too late.

Whilst to me the evidence would suggest a lot of faked TV on the day (possible prepared in advance) and lead me to believing that missiles could have replaced the United Airlines flights.
That's not going to make me tell you you're wrong about the planes hitting the towers because I really don't know, it's speculation.

What really does matter is that we acknowledge that we've both got the same objective in mind of exposing this fraud and stopping our leaders from using it to expand the ever stronger police state that is emerging from this false flag attack.

The fine details are irrelevant, who did the attacks and why did they do the attacks is what we must focus on. It matters not whether they used this kind of plane or that kind of plane or this kind of explosive or that etc.

Anyone that is getting this topic out there and getting it discussed is doing good in my opinion. 3 years ago when I started talking to people about this they'd almost always reject it.

Now, most of my friends, family and colleagues agree that the attacks were most likely an inside job. Keep talking about it, keep making people aware.

It's the media's job to attack and mock people, we should be working together to ensure that the criminals responsible are eventually brought to some justice.


Oh, and 'Hello!'
I've been browsing these forums for a while, I figured it was about time I made an account and joined in on the discussions here. Be gentle! :p

[papiere bitte]

Thanks both, it was a bit rushed but I think I made my point clearly enough.

We should encourage open discussions on theories with some evidence behind them. There is evidence of a media cover up, from the day of the attacks - and there is good reason to question whether or not Flight 11 and 175 did hit the twin towers.

As we all know the planes were merely a distraction, Tower 7 fell in the exact same way (more or less) as the other trade centres without being hit by anything. (other than a little debris)

I don't want to go into another dragged out post here, but I thought I'd give an example of what I currently believe to be "disinfo" and blatant propaganda.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-buNnQ1uZsM

This is what we should be against^


The theory that Civilian Airliners did not impact the trade towers is credible, and has evidence to support it. I'm not saying "THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS - YOU ARE WRONG!". That's a ridiculous attitude to have in any discussion, but all I'm saying is you have to be open minded and at least have some respect for people who believe in this theory even if you do not.

I am aware of the possibilities of both theories, even if I am now inclined to agree that military aircraft/missiles were used it doesn't mean I've made up my mind or come to any solid conclusions.

I wasn't there, I am not an expert - I can merely investigate the evidence presented and then speculate. Hopefully resulting in a fair unbiased understanding of the events.


When people say "There were no planes - it was all a big hologram using state of the art CGI" without providing evidence then you know it's disinfo made to discredit the truth movement.

However, those lines are mainly taken by the mainstream media as evident in that YouTube clip above. Real people like you and I who are aware of the actual conspiracy are the biggest threat to those responsible, and so they will try to divide us up into different groups. Divide and conquer.

Threads like this (well some posts within this thread) are therefore, in my opinion, serving their agenda - by breaking up the truth movement.

We don't want 10 small groups of protesters, just because they disagree on the irrelevant details.
They're all protesting the same atrocities, the same systems. They're against the same enemy and so they should be one massive group posing a united and more deadly threat against the agenda that wishes to use fear to control them.

[matrix911]

Have people not seen the footage of plane hitting the building?

and your point is?

[matrix911]

Premises...
Talking all the time about no planes is a distraction from bigger issues, and thus disinfo.....
Happy?


Those who are claiming NO PLANES are not TRUE NPT's... or you're just misunderstanding what NPT is about.

So you should be able to distinguish PSEUDO-NPT's from those who do real research and are genuine.

the movement has been infiltrated and disinfo implanted to CONFUSE and create the exact perception most like you seem to have.



I dont even care about 911! lol.

So why are you here?

911 was the main catalyst for the war on terror

the coverup is important but it happened as a result of or due to 911.

so your logic makes no sense.

[killtown]

Has anyone who keeps claiming NPT is disinfo proven NPT is disinfo yet?

[mynameis]

NPT = NO CIVILIAN PLANES

If the FAA would have been allowed to recover most of the parts and etc in an investigation, perhaps this would have been settled long ago. How would military hi-jack the transponder signals of two existing aircraft without the corporation in question realizing two of their planes aren't in fact missing? Wouldn't United Airlines and American Airlines have blown that whistle a while ago? Passenger planes don't come cheap ya know.

[bryan]

However, after looking into some of the evidence you have presented here I am now undecided as to what actually happened, but I'm starting to doubt that Flight and 11 and Flight 175 were anywhere near the trade centres on that day.

Still, I don't think such discussion is "disinfo", however it really isn't as significant as some people are making it out.

It's daft to argue amongst each other on the subject when we're all on the same page really.


What you're saying is good in theory, but I think you're describing an ideal world where ideas can be freely exchanged. If you and a lot of others can see there are reasons to doubt whether planes flew into the towers, why is it that the people who are high up in the 9/11 truth movement are opposed to even disussing the subject, and why is it that any prominent members who do begin to have doubts - like David Shayler - soon find themselves sidelined?

What bothers me is that these people are so keen to stop the discussion that they'll make the obviously false claim that there's no evidence whatsoever, they're happy to ban discussion of the subject on forums, and they have no qualms about bending the laws of physics. This is what prevents us from talking about it like grown-ups. We're forced to think of ways of circumventing the barrage of insults which is guaranteed whenever the topic is brought up. In my own case, it encourages me to be more sarcastic than I normally would be.

It's this desperation by the leaders of the truth movement to avoid the issue that convinces me it must be important. Why would they put so much effort into discrediting a theory that has so much evidence to support it, and why would they risk throwing their reputation down the drain by claiming they can't see the obvious? Are people ok with being in a truth movement which is blatantly suppressing the truth? Most people here are quick to denounce deception when comes from the government, but the same people seem not to care about being led astray by the "truth movement".

[white horse]

Video shown on CBS on 911 later in the day...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvUrJd4LpUA

You shitting me right?

I showed this to a friend who has not seen any footage of 911 since that day - she laughed her head off!!

Plane? - don't make me fucking laugh!!

(Did you also notice the white plane in the air as it struck?)

say what you like... that is NOT a real passenger airliner flying in the air! This is the dogiest thing I ever saw!

Is it just me -or is this plane showing it's top to us (oh yeah, jet black silhouette in blazing sunshine)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YBH2s4J_Scc

Compareto CNN where it is clearly showing its belly.

Can we make up our minds whether we are seeing it's back or belly on these vids huh?

If this was faked by 'truthers'/disinfo then why was it shown on the day.

(Yeah I know - I can't let go of this!! Peace and love and solidarity andall that, but had to postthis for newbies so they can see what we are debating here)

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

OK, I get i tnow, npt is disinfo because it is divisive to any humanity movement and just causes angst and arguments... I'm posting these for newbies... I'll try to drop the topic now,unless anyone asks for my opinion or advice on 911 tv footage and videos.

Peace and love y'all - yes. evento the plane huggers. From now on there is no npt or plane hugging, we are all members of humanity - you're either with us or against us!! :cool: :) :D

[secondsun]

It's the media's job to attack and mock people, we should be working together to ensure that the criminals responsible are eventually brought to some justice.


...agree with you on the first part as for the second part!.... get real!... that aint ever going to happen!

...oh!... and welcome too!

[white horse]

...agree with you on the first part as for the second part!.... get real!... that aint ever going to happen!

...oh!... and welcome too!

I know! I can hope!

I'm trying to live my life in positivity, I try everyday - then I go outside nearly get mown down on the road and have a shouting slanging match with some asshole driver!!

All that positivity gone down the drain!

btw - do you kow anything about the guy in your avatar??

[arten]

I know! I can hope!

I'm trying to live my life in positivity, I try everyday - then I go outside nearly get mown down on the road and have a shouting slanging match with some asshole driver!!

All that positivity gone down the drain!

btw - do you kow anything about the guy in your avatar??

That is Brian Hoare think I spelt the surname right, he is the guy who since the start of gulf war two parked up in a tent on Parliment Green and who won a legal battle in the high court to stay there.

[onourwayto2012]

john white: Thanks for the laugh Bryan, you need to live in a fantasy land to believe it of course. Or stupid enough to believe that EVERYTHING about the official story is wrong. Did they get the date right? Do you agree with that?

Ok, so they got the date right....but several of the times were messed up..... and I think they got the city right too....ok, so not EVERYTHING is wrong about the OS.....just 99.99937%

[matrix911]

couldn't have said it better myself!

another great post.

true objectivity, logic, reason and no ego.

if only more people possessed this type of intelligence.





When people say "There were no planes - it was all a big hologram using state of the art CGI" without providing evidence then you know it's disinfo made to discredit the truth movement.

However, those lines are mainly taken by the mainstream media as evident in that YouTube clip above. Real people like you and I who are aware of the actual conspiracy are the biggest threat to those responsible, and so they will try to divide us up into different groups. Divide and conquer.


.

[matrix911]

How would military hi-jack the transponder signals of two existing aircraft without the corporation in question realizing two of their planes aren't in fact missing? Wouldn't United Airlines and American Airlines have blown that whistle a while ago? .

A minor detail when you consider how powerful the perpetrators are and all the ACCESS they've been shown to have had. AA and UA owners or workers could have easily been infiltrated or threated. We'll probably never know exactly how it was accomplished.

but then that question is irrelevant when you look at all the EVIDENCE and contradictions, flaws etc in the OS.

thats what you should be focused on. People get distracted by petty unanswerable questions that you've posed. There's far more Important and bigger questions to ask or that HAVE been answered/proven which can only suggest inside job.

[timeisnow]

There is that saying: "Put up, or shut up!"

So with that, put up your best evidence that no-planes is disinfo, or...

- We don't even need to have info about the pentagon with the http://www.ae911truth.org/ alone. - And then we have tirds saying that the planes were holograms. - Given that this is ridiculous, it takes credibility away from the 911 truth movement, which really should not have to be... It's like having a 'movement to have the people see the obvious, like if it's raining or not.

[kooskoets]

And then we have tirds saying that the planes were holograms. -

Nobody 's talking about holograms, just 'no planes'.
OK ?

In fact you're the 'tird ' here .

[bryan]

- We don't even need to have info about the pentagon with the http://www.ae911truth.org/ alone.


Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!

563 architectural and engineering professionals

dedicated to covering up the nuking of the WTC


That's what it SHOULD say.

[matrix911]

well said.


Nobody 's talking about holograms, just 'no planes'.
OK ?

In fact you're the 'tird ' here .

[matrix911]

What you're saying is good in theory, but I think you're describing an ideal world where ideas can be freely exchanged. If you and a lot of others can see there are reasons to doubt whether planes flew into the towers, why is it that the people who are high up in the 9/11 truth movement are opposed to even disussing the subject,


who and what are you talking about specifically. give some examples.


If there's people "high up" that don't want to discuss it, its because they're haven't done enough research and aren't serious truth seekers or truthers as they claim. To me those are what I call pseudo-truthers.



What bothers me is that these people are so keen to stop the discussion that they'll make the obviously false claim that there's no evidence whatsoever, they're happy to ban discussion of the subject on forums, and they have no qualms about bending the laws of physics. This is what prevents us from talking about it like grown-ups. We're forced to think of ways of circumventing the barrage of insults which is guaranteed whenever the topic is brought up. In my own case, it encourages me to be more sarcastic than I normally would be.

It's this desperation by the leaders of the truth movement to avoid the issue that convinces me it must be important. Why would they put so much effort into discrediting a theory that has so much evidence to support it, and why would they risk throwing their reputation down the drain by claiming they can't see the obvious? Are people ok with being in a truth movement which is blatantly suppressing the truth? Most people here are quick to denounce deception when comes from the government, but the same people seem not to care about being led astray by the "truth movement".

see above

[white horse]

I see someone who has lost sense of reality and wants to believe that no planes is a sensible option.

That's pretty spot on! :D

[mr_pixie]

I see someone who has lost sense of reality and wants to believe that no planes is a sensible option.

Thats right we should loose are sense of reality because and create a new sense of reality because we live in the MATRIX!

[arten]

Originally Posted by ashur View Post
I see someone who has lost sense of reality and wants to believe that no planes is a sensible option.

Reality What is That?

Reality 90% Illusion 10% Confusion.
Albert Einstein :cool:

[dave52]

no planes is a sensible option.

I find no planes ticks a lot of boxes when viewing 9/11 sensibly.

[dusthead]

Pretty simple to sort this argument out. Just follow these simple instructions -



1) Look at the CGI technology used in big budget commercial films around the time of 9/11. Films from 2001 that used CGI include Jurassic Park III, Pearl Harbour and Lord of the Rings:The Fellowship of the Ring. Remember this was THE most cutting edge CGI available at the time.

2) Look at the news footage of 9/11.

3) Compare the two.



I don't even need to state an opinion. The answer will be obvious.

[bryan]

Pretty simple to sort this argument out. Just follow these simple instructions -


There's an even simpler way. Just watch the first 20 seconds or so of this video

September 11, 2001 - As It Happened - The South Tower Attack - YouTube

and ask yourself what your reaction would be if it was a scene in the middle of a film.

Would you say:

"That was no special effect. They must have really flown a plane into the WTC to film that".

or would you say:

"What was that supposed to be? Were they on a low budget or something?"

[dusthead]

There's an even simpler way. Just watch the first 20 seconds or so of this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lKZqqSI9-s

and ask yourself what your reaction would be if it was a scene in the middle of a film.

Would you say:

"That was no special effect. They must have really flown a plane into the WTC to film that".

or would you say:

"What was that supposed to be? Were they on a low budget or something?"

With all due respect though, it's not a scene from a film.

Film director George A Romero once spoke on the topic of 'depicting reality'. He chose to speak about images of death. He commented that when someone dies it is very often odd and alien to witness.

In fictional movies, actors 'gradually fade away' and close their eyes in a serene moment of sadness and loss. Not so in real life - they make odd jerks and twists. Sometimes the face contorts and the eyes remain open.

The point George was making is when we witness something for real, it is very different to what we hold in our imaginations. Fictional images very often colour these notions.

Now in the case of the video above, it does indeed look a bit odd and flickery, but then again, how many times have we seen a plane that big fly into the side of a building? What exactly can we compare it to?

Additionally, you make the point that it may have been filmed on an 'Ed Wood' style budget. I see your point, but that rather negates the premise that the government did it (if there's one thing the government have it's lots of money!) - It also supports the view that a small independent news-team may have filmed it.

I should add that my own interests in 9/11 have been minimal up until the last few weeks. I am on the outside looking in. With all the in-fighting, it's not a pretty sight, believe me!

I'm not too concerned with TV and haven't owned one in 15 years, so no-one can say I'm a victim of media manipulation. I didn't even see the 9/11 footage until the day afterwards. I don't even read newspapers - In fact I'm pretty cut off from everything.

However, from what I have seen in this debate there are people making some very outlandish statements and I don't think they are aware of how their comments appear to others.

The whole 9/11 thing is becoming too obsessive and people are starting to lose their grip on reality. If what is written on this forum is going on elsewhere, this whole movement of 'truthers' and 'debunkers' is on it's last legs.

In-fighting and obsessive behaviour are giving those who believe the 'official version of events' something very real to laugh about and the truth movement is currently in a state of ridicule.

But don't blame me! I am just an observer.

[arten]

I find no planes ticks a lot of boxes when viewing 9/11 sensibly.

Originally Posted by arten View Post
no planes is a sensible option.

I never wrote that I quoted the person that did. I have already stated that I think Planes were involved.

[secondsun]

...there are other people on here that twist what you post!.. be careful!

[dave52]

I wasn't trying to twist anything - I missunderstood what he said. I stand by my comments though - NPT makes a lot of sense to me.

[white horse]

With all due respect though, it's not a scene from a film.

Film director George A Romero once spoke on the topic of 'depicting reality'. He chose to speak about images of death. He commented that when someone dies it is very often odd and alien to witness.

In fictional movies, actors 'gradually fade away' and close their eyes in a serene moment of sadness and loss. Not so in real life - they make odd jerks and twists. Sometimes the face contorts and the eyes remain open.

The point George was making is when we witness something for real, it is very different to what we hold in our imaginations. Fictional images very often colour these notions.

Now in the case of the video above, it does indeed look a bit odd and flickery, but then again, how many times have we seen a plane that big fly into the side of a building? What exactly can we compare it to?

Additionally, you make the point that it may have been filmed on an 'Ed Wood' style budget. I see your point, but that rather negates the premise that the government did it (if there's one thing the government have it's lots of money!) - It also supports the view that a small independent news-team may have filmed it.

I should add that my own interests in 9/11 have been minimal up until the last few weeks. I am on the outside looking in. With all the in-fighting, it's not a pretty sight, believe me!

I'm not too concerned with TV and haven't owned one in 15 years, so no-one can say I'm a victim of media manipulation. I didn't even see the 9/11 footage until the day afterwards. I don't even read newspapers - In fact I'm pretty cut off from everything.

However, from what I have seen in this debate there are people making some very outlandish statements and I don't think they are aware of how their comments appear to others.

The whole 9/11 thing is becoming too obsessive and people are starting to lose their grip on reality. If what is written on this forum is going on elsewhere, this whole movement of 'truthers' and 'debunkers' is on it's last legs.

In-fighting and obsessive behaviour are giving those who believe the 'official version of events' something very real to laugh about and the truth movement is currently in a state of ridicule.

But don't blame me! I am just an observer.

Here are some videos of realplanes; see how evenin bad light you can still see the colours of the planes.

Not brilliant videos; but thepoint is take a few minutes to look around and you can find plenty of footage of real planes in all kinds of light and camera quality. In all of them you can always make out some of the colours of the planes, even in really bad light; they are never 'black sillhouettes!;

Boeing 747 Steep Bank Hong Kong Kai Tak Airport - Malaysia Airlines - YouTube

747 Crosswind Landing Hong Kong Kai Tak Airport (1998) - YouTube

Crosswind Landing Testing - YouTube

Crosswind Landing 2 - YouTube

And we are supposed to believe that on a gloriously sunny day these black shadow planes were rela Boeings? And with all that emergency response and tens of thousands of people, and the home to the best the World's media has to offer and no one got a shot of Boeing 767 Flight UA 175 that even looks like a real plane?

The worlds best broadcat media could not show any ident for that plane? No marks that could identify it as an United Airlines livery plane?

Where is just one shot of the plane on approach that shows anyhint of the livery of United Airlines?

This does not prove NPT - but hey, us nutjobs and insanity mongers are still waiting for someone to show us any evidence that UA175 hit WTC....

-------------
In a way it did become a bit of an obsession; I realised something was very very wrong. I have a young family that I am trying to do the best for.

This isn't just a minor conspiracy - o did they land on the moon, who cares?

My country went to war based on this lie. My own government has put my country, my life, my family's lives, on the front line based on this outrages lie.

I want to know who and what I am up against.

I want to know what they were capable of in 2001.

Were they capable of 'disappearing' a handful of commercial airliners, setting some foreigners up to take the blame, and making it appear to millions live on TV that jet liners full of passengers were flown inot buildings and as a result brought those buildings down?

If they carried this out, then I need ot know; because that measn my own government ios capable of killing me without a moments thought. If they coudl do this, then they do indeed have control of the US and UK governemtns to the extent that they can manipulate the governemnt, media, commercial business and people to going ot war or doing whatever they want.

I nned to know this;
What arethey putting into my food?

What are they putting into my water?

What are they putting into our childrens' heads?

What are they putting into our school textbooks?

If it was a bunch of hijackers, then we are off the hook.

If they carried it out as I suspect they did, it was a put-on job from beginning to end, then we are all in danger from our own governments.

In answering these questions you end up going back through the 20 Century and beyond, and you knwo what, I cannot trust anything anymore; it's all been a big fucking tissue of whoppers;

Vietnam, a lie.

Pearl Harbour; a lie.

2nd World War; a lie

The Great Depression; a lie

And I'd go further;

Physics; a lie.
History; a lie
Even mathematics is based on fucking lies...

All of it lies...

It's all been a fucking lie to manipulate us and get us to CONSUME CONSUME CONSUME...

.. and to prevent us asking the right questions and to keep us in a spending coma...

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

Just a note on the infightin; I have been around these forums for a while and much of the infighting seems to be provoked deliberateyl to create a fog around the issue, and put of new comers from joining the debate.

Secondly, it is such a massive and far reaching issue that there are bound to be debates on the exact nature of this beast.

We do need so form of centrally agreed approach that present the best of the evidence to nail this as an inside job; but the thing is how far do you go with presenting reality? While researching 911 I have come to realise that the Perps for this have got their fingers on the button of every aspect of our lives, so I find it pretty incredible that people who believe 911 was an inside job can so easily dismiss the possibility that they were able to manipulate the media as well, it would be so easy to do!!

You have to remeber that the Perps are not the governemnt; if you believe that the perps who planned and carrie dout 911 is Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld then you aren;t ever gong ot get there - because they are just puppets who are dacning to a tune and reading lines from a script that they have been handed, just as Bliar and his croneys are also.

I have repeatedly posted questions about those planes - where are they? Where is the evidence? Why is the TV/video footage so appalingly dodgey?

Which I thought were reasonable questions to ask at DI forums; in response certain members would jump down your throat hurling insults and ccalling you a crazy person for spouting nonsense about flying LCD screens and holograms projected form space and all kinds of nonsense! These are tactics used to discredit the 911 movement.

I never tried to claim it was holograms; I am open to that possibility;

My claim is based o the fact that there is no eveidence that Flight UA175 hit the World Trade Centre; that is it. If someopne wants to come up with another theory I will listen and evaluate the possibilities.

Unitl then I hold firm byu my convictions that no one has ever in the history of all that has happened since that awful September day presented one single shred of evidence for UA175.

And if htese people are so sure that there were no planes at Shanksville and hte Pentagon, why attack NY no-planers so much!!

Watch the 'live' footage, are you in your heart of hearts sure that is a real bona fide 767 flying through the air?

[liltroofer]

Yes, whitehorse; I like your new thread 'general plane theory' about NPT and I like the message of your post. Your seeing through the fog is commendable. Bravo!

More people need to understand how much BS we are fed and how transparent the tactics are to disguise that $hit with sweet-smelling chemicals.

[bryan]

Physics; a lie.


If anybody thinks this is an exaggeration, check out the wikipedia article called 'Progressive collapse' and see how easy it is for physics to be undermined by politics.

Progressive collapse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Progressive collapse is just the posh term for pancake collapse, and the two examples they give are the North Tower and the South Tower of the WTC. They don't tell you these are the ONLY examples of a steel-framed building completely collapsing because of fire, and they don't tell you the theory is disputed and even ridiculed by some engineers and physicists.


A building undergoes progressive collapse when a primary structural element fails, resulting in the failure of adjoining structural elements, which in turn causes further structural failure. The resulting damage is disproportionate to the original cause. The most notable examples are the two World Trade Center towers in New York City which collapsed as the result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

In response to the WTC tragedy, the National Institute of Standards and Technology conducted a 3-year building and fire safety investigation to study the factors contributing to the probable cause (or causes) of post-impact collapse of the WTC Towers (WTC 1 and 2) and WTC 7. NIST subsequently expanded its research in areas of high-priority need such as prevention of progressive collapse, fire resistance design and retrofit of structures, and fire resistive coatings for structural steel.[1][2]


The whole article seems to have been written to bolster the official 9/11 story. It makes you wonder how much of this stuff makes it into the text books and the lecture halls. I''ll bet there's a few more examples, especially on subjects like man-made global warming and space exploration.

[dusthead]

Physics; a lie.
History; a lie
Even mathematics is based on fucking lies...

I assume that as people are capable of being liars, then language too would be a lie, as is any sort of visual, auditory or tactile stimulus.

Fuck it, let's go the whole hog -

Everything that has ever existed anywhere in the entire universe and everything we know as reality, unreality, or converse reality and beyond is a lie.

That seems to be the general consensous.

A foolish person could be forgiven for thinking you enjoy being miserable.

What do people on this forum do for fun?

Do I really want to know?

Oh go on then...

[white horse]

I assume that as people are capable of being liars, then language too would be a lie, as is any sort of visual, auditory or tactile stimulus.

Fuck it, let's go the whole hog -

Everything that has ever existed anywhere in the entire universe and everything we know as reality, unreality, or converse reality and beyond is a lie.

That seems to be the general consensous.


I aint being flippant here but you aren't far wrong?!?!

Pearl Harbour, one of the biggest events of the 20th Century, turns out to have been a lie, the Americans goaded the Japs into attacking and did all they could to make sure they did; they knew the Jap fleet was on its way, the British had warned them before hand, buit there was no need the Yanks knew already; they sent the best of their ships out on a suprise wargame and left the older battleships and the auxillary ships, while the cream of the Pacific fleet was safely out to seae...

Vietnam was started on a lie; the US attacked their own ships in the Gulf of Tonkin and blamed the Vietcon - that gave them an dexcuse to start a firing war which they escalted up to the horror that becaem Vietnam; the US armament firsm were supplying the VC with weapons through secret routes in Laos and Cambodia.

WW2 - Bush's fucking grandfather bankrolled The Nazis up till he was pulled up by Congress in 1943. He gave them massive loans and his company sold/loaned them the steel and the aviation fuel that they used to bomb London.

IBM supplied the counting machines that processed the prisoners of the Nazis in the death camp and work camps (don't get me started on teh Holocaust because that also would appear to not have been reported accurately; but that upsets far too many people to go into here). Can you find that in IBM's official corporate history? Can you balls.

VW - Volkswagon "Peoples Car" - [Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer]; The Volkswagon was created by the NAZIs as the state sponsored car in 1933; this was the equivalent of British Leyland - a NAtionalised industry - created by Hitler, personally. They used slave labour to build these cars. Do you find that in VW's corporate history? Do you balls.* Also Porshe, Siemens, Daimler-Benz, BMW and Mercedes, all had links the Hitler and the Nazis, all did very well during those years thankyou very much it's profit that counts.

(*Tho to their credit they have in recent years paid out around £2m compensation to NAZI victims, as a voluntary humanitarian gift, NOT as an admission of guilt; they claim that pre-1946 it was an entirely different company.)

1ST WW - 1915 - The sinking of the Lusitania; nearly 2000 souls. The US was warned to keep out of European waters, any vessel would be declared a valid target to U-Boat patrol. They even posted an advert in the NY Times NEXT to teh Cunard schedule, they apparantly also telegraphed some of the passenger list; - but they sent the ship out anyway, with just short of 2000 people an dcrammed full of illegally smuggled armaments for the British war effort (US was 'officially' declared as neutral). 114 Americans died and it caused immediate outrage and overnight changed AMerican opinion on the war.

Ooh, see the patter here?? PEarl HArbour, 911 anyone????

The Great Depression - Was caused by the very few bankers at the top of the pile, JP Morgan, Rothschils; They sat pretty while they watched the rest of the wolrd sink. This meant that when the dust settled they had aquired vast fortunes in reclaimed property, wages were brough to an altime low, people were crying out for jobs. These few bankers made an absolute killing on thei manufactured depression.

The same is happening today. This isn't a real depression! They have been talkign it up for 2 years. They kept feeding it out ot the media, bit at a time 'The coming recession' 'the predicted credit crunch' till now we believe it is happening and we are now creating it; they got the ball rolling, now we roll it along unaided; Lesson one of any economics course = All financial institutions are based onconfidence - not gold or oil or corn but confidence.

Jesus - The Roman Catholic Church - violently suppressed all of the gnostic gospels (Thomas, Philip etc) who said the resurrection was not meant to be taken literally; Jesus was resurrected BEFORE he died; by accepting hmself, his death and his God, he 'saw' the truth and was resurrected - then he died. The Roman Catholic Church is built on theat one principle that Jesus was Resurrected - it is the one thing you cannot question in the Christian faith.

I mean - I could go on...

Physics: - Einstein said that the Theory of Relativity was his greatest mistake, he hated it, thought it was rubbish. But it has served a purpsose. ANY theory that is propses WILL NOT MAKE IT to any scientific or academic stage if it runs contrary to relativity. Realtivity is not the theory of everything, it is just the theory of one thing; quantum physics has such a problem because they have all been told since day one that it must be married with relativity - more bullshit. Einstein would be the first person to throw it out. Get rid of relativity and you have an open playing field where scientists can play; 'impose' relativity and you are constricted in what you can do. Add to that the scientific principles of the lab (totally artifical conditions for creating real word apps??) and multiple repeatable results and you ahve suffocating straight jackets that keeps science in a nice neet little pigeon hole where it can't intereact with other disciplines and see the 'bigger picture'.

The Law of the Conservation of energy a totally immutable unbreakable law of science is more bullshit - IT DOES NOT EXIST!!! lol!! It's so funny when you've seen it! This law states as a fact that you cannot creat energy or destroy energy; correct; however it also state sthis in a close dsystem; so it says here is a system, with 100 units of energy; you cannot take out more than 100 units of energy; theoretically the maths is sound; but there is no such thing anywhere in the universe where a closed system exists!!! It is impossible. Every system is receiving energy from the rest of the universe; vaccuums do not exists, they are full of quantum particels in a thick soup of matter/energy, and that does not even take into consideration so caled dark matter/energy. The Earth is being constantly bombarded by energetic particles that will penetrate any known lab or equipment constructed by man, or woman.

Maths - more fucking lies to keep us in a straight jacket!! Ever remember at school wondering what relevance any of that shit had to daily life... still wondering? If you did not take maths vocationaly then beyond basic arithmatic what use did maths have? To prove you have teh skill to pass an exam is all?

Our number system keeps us in another straight jacket; try dividing 10 by 3, then multiply the answer by 3 again; o it doesn't work! No matter how you do it, what powerful computer you use it does not work! The Babylonians did not have that problem. They used base 12! 12 and 60, contain the denominators to all the useful numbers.

10 was of no use to them because you could not divide by 3! So they uses 12/60.

Look at your right hand;

1 | 4 | 7 | 10
2 | 5 | 8 | 11
3 | 6 | 9 | 12

Ignore the thumb for now; your four fingers have 3 sections each. Now use your thumb as a pointer, from the tip of your little finger, down, then to the next finger, and so on, there are 12 segments in all. Your thumb is the pointer/marker and this is how the Babylonians counted to 12.

Now look at your left hand;

144 | 108 | 72 | 36
132 | 96 | 60 | 24
120 | 84 | 48 | 12

After you have counted to 12 on your right hand, you can now move your thumb to the first segment of your left hand; this is 12. Then keeping your thumb on the first segment of your left hand, move your thumb again to the first segment of your right hand, to "1" again; this is now 13 (12, on the left hand + 1, on the right hand) and so on.

There are multiple methods of this so a clever learned Babylonina could instantly count to anywhere between 1 and 360 on his fingers. They learnt this from childhood, so they could do this as easy as we count to ten.

A merchant would count his goods in or out using his fingers in this way.

Go to an Egyptian Souz market; they have a barter tradition where the stand clasping hands togetehr under a cloth; westerners stand and gape and wonder what the fuck they are doing - are they thumb wrestling?? Well in a way yes - they are bartering, not by vocals, but by using finger segmetns counted by their thumbs. It's an acnient system and it works far far better than base ten.

Language - Read Big Brother or 1984...

"He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future"

Language is used on a daily basis to confuse, obfuscate, bully, cajole, trick and subjugate us by our 'betters'.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman" - define sexual relations.

"Iraq is capable of attacking British soil with WMDs WITHIN 45 minutes" Tony Bliar; (he meant at a push they might be able to lob a scud at Cyprus.)

You ever been to court as a defendant? They do not enter into the spirit of language; they nail you with specific jargon and definitions it makes your head spin. I've been there, not nice.

Language = thought; if a word or phrase does not exist, then the tought cannot exist except in your own mind.

Historians get bogged down (a deliberate ploy) by having to define every single word, every single phrase, till there essays become thick inpenetrable fogs. (except the clever ones who have 'woken up' and have the courage to write freely; their books are thrown from the history shelves inot 'psuedo-science' and 'new age' and are not considered canonical to the official history'.

So yeah - It's all fucking lies, all of it. I can't convinve you you have ot see it for yourself; but when you do it will make your head spin.

Do you think I enjoy this? I wish it were not true;

30+ years of schooling and it is a big shock to dismantle it all!

It was 911 that did it! - Once I saw that lie, slowly the whole house of cards came down. I reevaluated everything and found Everything I thought I knew to be extremely suspect at best and an out right lie at most.



A foolish person could be forgiven for thinking you enjoy being miserable.


Then they must be a foolish person!

I have stepped through a door, and discovered that black is white and truth is lies. I have been a historian for more than 20 years now...

I have always prided myself on my highly accademic approach to history; analysis, evidence, conclusion, analysis, evidence, conclusion.

I now go back and look at the same things, and everything I held dear, all the sacred cows, all the things I thought were absolute truths and facts I could use as a foundation to build my life on have turned out to be highly fucking suspect! So yeah, I'm a little in shock and a little in anger.

Isn't that the stages? I've been through denial; about 2 years ago I was still clinging on to veerything I have learnt.

Now I look at it all; everything I was taught in school was bulshit. Everything I learnt from academic textbooks at collge and university is bullshit.

It is all a lie to keep us from asking the right questions.



What do people on this forum do for fun?

Do I really want to know?

Oh go on then...

Take a look at the Have a Laugh section dude!

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49741

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50902

I might be really in shock and awe but I still have a sense of humour; I would poke more fun if this wasn't dealy serious.

You think I don't think my own Governemtn wouldn't kill me at a stroke? My life and the lives of my falimy are nothign to them... that aint funny!

[dusthead]

A lot of that stuff I am familiar with (I remember the Volkswagon one from way back), but there are good things in life as well.

Not everyone in a high place is a manipulative source of corruption. Not everyone in the general public is stupid or retarded.

It's a tired old cliche but your cup is either half empty or half full.

One of the things I find sad on this forum, is that a lot of the posters see almost everything as dark, depressing and morbid. Many of them wouldn't look out of place wearing one of those 'The End is Nigh!' sandwich boards.

The Jehovas Witnesses have predicted the end of the world so many times I've lost count. It never happens, but you get the impression they would absolutely love it if 'the masses' were turned into the living dead by some horrible apocaplypse, just so they could say 'we were right!'

They believe 'the masses' have got it wrong, just like the Mormons, the Christian Scientologists and millions of other groups who tend to see themselves as an enlightened force for good, and just about everyone else as 'the masses'.

In fact, it's really difficult to find anyone who counts themselves as a member of 'the masses'. Almost everyone has joined a group, segregating themselves from 'the masses'. You've got bands of goths who attend festivals in Whitby and like to believe in vampires. There are knife-carrying hoodies who like to 'live on the edge' and seem to be culturally confused.

Look around for 5 minutes and you will also see animal rights activists who chase members of the aristocracy around fields at fox hunts - the green people, the nationalists, the socialists, the existentialists, ufologists, philosophers, hippies, punks, crusties, 'young upwardly mobile people' and hundreds of other sub-groups and divisions.

This includes the 9/11 truthers and the debunking set.

'The masses' is just a phrase we use to describe 'other people' we don't know anything about. People are constantly aspiring not to be part of this group, but the simple fact is - WE ARE ALL PART OF IT by association. How can we not be?

The only people who escape from all this confusion are small tribes in rainforests who laugh when Westerners from Channel 4 turn up with laptops and interview them about lake monsters.

Additionally, the only people in life I've met who are truly enlightened say very little about anything because they don't need to.

Me? I'm currently writing long and tedious posts on the David Icke forum for no particular reason. Enlightened people would find that very irrational and suggest I do something more important. But I can't, because like most of the people on this planet, I have flaws.

I seem to have gone off topic a bit don't I?

What I am trying to say is that rather than seeing the world as black and white with 'me and them' or the 'conspirators' and the 'enlightened' I rather tend to view the world as a humungous mixing pot of different things which are at turns good, bad, occasionally smelly and often extremely hilarious.

About 10 years ago I became interested in conspiracy theories to a point where I had virtually alienated myself from absolutely everyone - after all they were 'the masses'. They were controlled by the TV and the government and they were not to be trusted - I knew it all you see.

Eventually, my behaviour had got to such a level of paranoia that I would not answer the door and I had taken to stabbing myself in the legs with a knife, just to feel something. Seriously.

There are people on this board who are dangerously close to that 'leg stabbing' state of mind. Trust me I know. I used to be exactly like that.

There is so much freedom of information right now to all and sundry. There are so many people who know aboout conspiracies and corruption in government, but what can you do about it?

As soon as one goes, there's another to replace it. Sometimes we get someone boring in power who 'just gets on with their job' and no-one notices. We only ever talk about the bad ones.

It's a widely used statistic in the retail industry that customers are MUCH more likely to tell other people if they encounter bad service, than if they encounter good service. Oh how we LOVE a good moan! Even when a politician does something we right, we all point and say 'He's only doing it for the votes'.

Ultimately I could choose to see the world as a completely evil place, dark and forboding and absolutley dominated by control and fear.

On the other hand, it may be more productive to get on with something more important like playing a musical instrument or spending some time with my family. If that makes me a member of 'the masses' then so be it.

And I still don't own a TV or read newspapers.

[white horse]

A lot of that stuff I am familiar with (I remember the Volkswagon one from way back), but there are good things in life as well.

Not everyone in a high place is a manipulative source of corruption. Not everyone in the general public is stupid or retarded.

It's a tired old cliche but your cup is either half empty or half full.

One of the things I find sad on this forum, is that a lot of the posters see almost everything as dark, depressing and morbid. Many of them wouldn't look out of place wearing one of those 'The End is Nigh!' sandwich boards.

The Jehovas Witnesses have predicted the end of the world so many times I've lost count. It never happens, but you get the impression they would absolutely love it if 'the masses' were turned into the living dead by some horrible apocaplypse, just so they could say 'we were right!'

They believe 'the masses' have got it wrong, just like the Mormons, the Christian Scientologists and millions of other groups who tend to see themselves as an enlightened force for good, and just about everyone else as 'the masses'.

In fact, it's really difficult to find anyone who counts themselves as a member of 'the masses'. Almost everyone has joined a group, segregating themselves from 'the masses'. You've got bands of goths who attend festivals in Whitby and like to believe in vampires. There are knife-carrying hoodies who like to 'live on the edge' and seem to be culturally confused.

Look around for 5 minutes and you will also see animal rights activists who chase members of the aristocracy around fields at fox hunts - the green people, the nationalists, the socialists, the existentialists, ufologists, philosophers, hippies, punks, crusties, 'young upwardly mobile people' and hundreds of other sub-groups and divisions.

This includes the 9/11 truthers and the debunking set.

'The masses' is just a phrase we use to describe 'other people' we don't know anything about. People are constantly aspiring not to be part of this group, but the simple fact is - WE ARE ALL PART OF IT by association. How can we not be?

The only people who escape from all this confusion are small tribes in rainforests who laugh when Westerners from Channel 4 turn up with laptops and interview them about lake monsters.

Additionally, the only people in life I've met who are truly enlightened say very little about anything because they don't need to.

Me? I'm currently writing long and tedious posts on the David Icke forum for no particular reason. Enlightened people would find that very irrational and suggest I do something more important. But I can't, because like most of the people on this planet, I have flaws.

I seem to have gone off topic a bit don't I?

What I am trying to say is that rather than seeing the world as black and white with 'me and them' or the 'conspirators' and the 'enlightened' I rather tend to view the world as a humungous mixing pot of different things which are at turns good, bad, occasionally smelly and often extremely hilarious.

About 10 years ago I became interested in conspiracy theories to a point where I had virtually alienated myself from absolutely everyone - after all they were 'the masses'. They were controlled by the TV and the government and they were not to be trusted - I knew it all you see.

Eventually, my behaviour had got to such a level of paranoia that I would not answer the door and I had taken to stabbing myself in the legs with a knife, just to feel something. Seriously.

There are people on this board who are dangerously close to that 'leg stabbing' state of mind. Trust me I know. I used to be exactly like that.

There is so much freedom of information right now to all and sundry. There are so many people who know aboout conspiracies and corruption in government, but what can you do about it?

As soon as one goes, there's another to replace it. Sometimes we get someone boring in power who 'just gets on with their job' and no-one notices. We only ever talk about the bad ones.

I could let this 'knowledge' destroy me, or I could get on with something more important like playing a musical instrument or spending some time with my family. If that makes me a member of 'the masses' then so be it.

And I still don't own a TV or read newspapers.

I get what you're saying, but don't worry about me I'm not at the leg stabbing or not answering the door stage yet!

That is a mixture of paranoia and depression, both probably feeding back on each other.

I am in fact trying to do somehting useful, and that is growing my own food as much as I can!

It is unfortunate but after sticking my head in the rabbit hole I cannot now unsee what I have seen!

I amobviously one of the masses - when I am in the supermarket there are probably others that look at me with contempt "There goes another one of the masses..."!

The hardest thing to do each day is to leave your own front door and not judge other people... :cool:

The unfortuante thing is that you say

"There is so much freedom of information right now to all and sundry. There are so many people who know aboout conspiracies and corruption in government, but what can you do about it?"

... you would think so, however when you get deep into 911 investigations you realise that this is not the case; that op changed everything, this is now no longer just a normal 'conspiracy theory'. Most people have not given a second thought about 911 until someone points it out to them... most poeple don't know about conspiracies and just how deep the corruption is.

Most people don't even know that Rumsfeld was pals with Saddam in the 80s; most people don't know that the CIA created Al Qaeda - the list goes on, 'most people' unfortunately don't seem to know shit...

Honestly Dusthead - don't get me wrong... I like people... I love humanity! I'm reminded of Men in Black when Kay says to Jay
A person is smart. People are dumb.

[redman]

Me thinks Whitehorse knows his shit. :rolleyes:



Good on ya. I've just learnt a few things just off the posts you have just done.



Thanx a lot.

[dusthead]

Most people don't even know that Rumsfeld was pals with Saddam in the 80s; most people don't know that the CIA created Al Qaeda - the list goes on, 'most people' unfortunately don't seem to know shit...


Now this is key to my whole view on 9/11.

I have a very different opinion on the whole matter to the one generally circulated here. I can rarely put my argument forward as it always causes an argument (and that argument is always static).

However, if there's one thing I know with absolute certainty, it's that the neo-conservatives instigated the term 'Al Qaeda' as we know it through a variety of channels. The CIA may well have implemented it, but the ideology started with the stupid, STUPID neo-conservatives.

This seems to have been a key factor in creating the events of 9/11.

Going back in time, Reagan's administration had their thing with the Russians. Nixon had Vietnam. The neo-conservatives decided it would be a great little idea to create their own nemesis and that was a really, REALLY stupid idea.

The neo conservtives wanted to bolster support for the US government, and believed fear was more effective than idealism. Their problem was that instead of targetting a fictional threat (they KNEW the Russians didn't pose a serious threat in the Reagan era), they targetted a group who already had a reputation for violent and unpredictable behaviour - they gave them a name and a public image (where previously neither had existed). Stupid, stupid, stupid.

People will probably see my opinion as flawed here - I am fully expecting it, but that is all I see these days. Opposed to a world built on control and intense intellectual mind control, I just see people with too much power making the same horrific mistakes over and over. But hey! that's just my opinion - I am not saying you have to agree with me.

However, if there's one good thing that has come out of all of this, it would appear that neo-conservatism has been rather damaged by the resultant tidal wave of crap that has spiralled out of inventing 'boogie men' to scare the public. Indeed, George Bush will go down in history as one of the single WORST political leaders in American history and that is something the majority of people agree on. It is arguable that he's topped Nixon.

Before people judge me too harshly, please consider the above statement, because it is something we should all feel very positive about.

Regarding concepts such as the NWO and neo-conservatism - I feel it will be quite a while before we see those groups back in action (and this is a VERY good thing). If I were them, I would be sitting in a back room, biting my nails and going 'whoops!' quite a lot right now.

I believe they will be back, but they will have to update their political ideologies quite severely in order to make them palatable for the general public and that will mean they will be tamed down, or so secretive we never even hear about them, much less have to deal with the idiots.

Lest we forget, the term 'New World Order' was at one time used for positive aims such as anti-nuclear policy. The neo conservatives should be ashamed of their ham-fisted attempts in hijacking the concept.

My basic opinions on 9/11 are quite unconventional and I rarely air them here.

People are free to openly disagree with me if they wish. However, please remember I am not here to argue, it's just my opinion. I am just laying more stuff on the table. Do with it what you will.

Someone said I'm a believer in 'incompetence theory' (whatever that is). I have no idea whether that is true or not. Whatever the case, I hope it does not cause massive stress on this board and I have no intentions of offending anyone, so I apologise in advance.

[arten]

White Horse: Einstein said that the Theory of Relativity was his greatest mistake

M8 a very thought provoking post and in principle I can agree with much of what you say especially about the Roman Myth Jesus Christ.
However, your statement about Einstein above is wrong. Einstein by his own admission said he's greatest mistake was rejecting The Cosmological Constant, you can look that up because I am typing this from memory.
I think the proviso you need to be aware of regarding science is that Scientists construct models and these models are based on their best guesses at the time. They are constantly being tweaked as and when new information comes along. The problem is for example with the so-called Big Bang theory is that the Observations do not match the predictions so they are falsed to do so by what Hawking called Sleight of hand. Without getting to technical Cosmologist engage in Mathematical trickery to remove infinities from their equations.
For me the Electric Universe Hypothesis seems to make more sense.

[slartibartfast]

Someone said I'm a believer in 'incompetence theory' (whatever that is). I have no idea whether that is true or not. Whatever the case, I hope it does not cause massive stress on this board and I have no intentions of offending anyone, so I apologise in advance.

A good post, if I understand it correctly I am a proponent of the "incompetence theory". More spectacular results are achieved by sheer incompetence than by all the careful planning in the world. Of course, what that means is that the people looking after our fuel, food and safety may be pretty useless, not a very reassuring thought. Much better to imagine a high skilled and organised group who can do anything.

[white horse]

I do have a lot of sympathy with the last couple of posters, Dusthead, slartibartfast (cool name!), Arten...

The incompetence theory is very very good - the thing is I also beleive there is a layer above that that take avantage of that incompetence to futher their agenda. And no, not everything goes right for them either! That is why we try to join to gether to fight and stop them. I believe they are fallable and can be stopped...

But it's gonna be a close run thing!!

My problem is once you've seen the dots joined up.. you can't forget what the picture was.

It's like magic eye pictures... once you've seen it you can see it easily eah time you look at it then; there are others who can't be bothered to try to see it, and others who try but can't. But then when you do, you cango back each time and instead of seeing a mess of randomness, you see a very clear picture...

Evidence and proof is the killer - and this is where their skill comes in! If you look inot Relativity you will see most people just repeating what they think they know without understanding...

I am not trying to say the Einstein and Relativity is wrong; but its usage has been manipulated by teh Powers That BE becasue for now it suits their needs.

LEts use an analogy from history; (forgive me, my time is limited, I will try to find the guy's name and the source...)

A geologist visited the Sphynx recently (90s)... and basically said that as far as he was concerned the stone showed signs of weathering from rain AFTER it had been carved and placed at Giza.

He had no axe to grind, he had no agenda, he basically could not care less if anyone believed him or not - he just basically said, from where I'm sat this object has been here for many thousands of years longer than established history claims.

He was ridiculed by Egyptology as a nutter and shelved along with Graham Hancock, Raymond Drake, Erich Von Daniken etc etc

No evaluation of the evidence.. no 'lets check this out, let's look elswhere for corroberation'... no, just dismissed.

This is the same with physics/science.

I'm not saying Einstein was wrong; but why is Relativity used as a measuring rod whne so much of it doesn't fit?

Many many people, including physicists spout relativity but don't understand it; they are 'repeating' what they have been told... I do understand (some of it!) I also understand Chaos theory and fractals, and a (tiny!) bit of quantum physics; relativity famously does not exist down there - why try to marry the two together?

Schroedinger's cat is used in quantum physics as a theoretical way to have things exist that appear mutually exclusive; quantum physics and general physics can co-exist under diferent rules; as can chaos and other 'frame works' to understand the way things work. This does not make one right or better than others...

[white horse]

By the way - Dusthead;

No need to apologise dude - this is a forum, think ancient Greece or Rome! Step in, say your thoughts, let it roll!

It may cause arguments cos not everyone agrees - but generally people here seem mature enough to dicsuss things reasonably (beware to judge from teh 911 forums cos they are a 'special' place lol!)...

I see your theory on people with too much power - thing is I wonder if there is not a level ABOVE them who is pulling the strings in variety of ways, mainly psychological; the best psychological trick being the trick that we don't even know they exist!!

[arten]

White Horse I'm not saying Einstein was wrong; but why is Relativity used as a measuring rod whne so much of it doesn't fit?

Mate another smashing post lol and I am impressed that you have read Raymond W Drake I have all of his books to :p
Listen Mate Einstein never ever claimed that Relativity was the finished article he knew that his theory was full of holes, he even said Cosmologist and Mathematicians would come along and find those holes and demolish his theory. That is now happening, leading the charge are people like Dave Talbot with the Electric Universe Theory and Alton Arp who claims the whole BB theory is repudiated because you have stars in galaxys that are older than the galaxy it is in etc.
As for your question you must realize that Cosmologist have invested a great deal of time and money in their theory, they would rather tweak data than admit they are blind men drifitng hopelessly down a dark alley.:cool:

[white horse]

White Horse I'm not saying Einstein was wrong; but why is Relativity used as a measuring rod whne so much of it doesn't fit?

Mate another smashing post lol and I am impressed that you have read Raymond W Drake I have all of his books to :p
Listen Mate Einstein never ever claimed that Relativity was the finished article he knew that his theory was full of holes, he even said Cosmologist and Mathematicians would come along and find those holes and demolish his theory. That is now happening, leading the charge are people like Dave Talbot with the Electric Universe Theory and Alton Arp who claims the whole BB theory is repudiated because you have stars in galaxys that are older than the galaxy it is in etc.

I shall have to look those dudes up.. have heardof Electric Universe Theory, but don't know too much about it... does it have sympathies with Dirac and his 'electron sea'?

Stars older htan the galaxy... :eek: hmmmm... interesting...


As for your question you must realize that Cosmologist have invested a great deal of time and money in their theory, they would rather tweak data than admit they are blind men drifitng hopelessly down a dark alley.:cool:

It is exactly the same in the field of history;

you must realize that Historians have invested a great deal of time and money in their theory, they would rather tweak data than admit they are blind men drifitng hopelessly down a dark alley :cool:

lol...!

[dusthead]

I do have a lot of sympathy with the last couple of posters, Dusthead, slartibartfast (cool name!), Arten...

The incompetence theory is very very good - the thing is I also beleive there is a layer above that that take avantage of that incompetence to futher their agenda. And no, not everything goes right for them either! That is why we try to join to gether to fight and stop them. I believe they are fallable and can be stopped...

There could well be a fraction of political organisations who use incompetence to further their aims.

The point about people who constuct political ideologies however, is that they live on borrowed time.

If we look at something as horrific as World War II, people were all too willing to sign up and be sent off as cannon fodder. In the cold light of day, the general public didn't want anything like that to happen again. The governments at the time based their control system on 'idealism'. The concept that 'we are a great nation with a sense of pride'.

Unfortunately for the engineers of such ideologies, a sense of national pride can be easily outweighed by the fact that family members have been gunned down on a battlefield and resentment for a higher power will ultimately creep in.

Later on, throughout the 60s and early 70s, the western public started to rebel against what they saw as a corrupt and shameful government. The protests against Vietnam were a good example. The neo-conservatives didn't like that at all because the population wasn't as easy to round up, so they devised a new plan - scare the crap out of everyone! The threat of nuclear war was a great tactic because they knew no-one would actually push the button. If you are faced with the prospect of Hiroshima levels of destruction, you will need a government in place to make sure it never happens.

What we see in the wake of 9/11, is that this 'fictional threat' became a reality. This has ultimately scuppered any plans for a 'New World Order' or a united westernised global policy.

Whether it was an inside job or not, the events of 9/11 have finally made America look weak. The mere suggestion that the attacks were committed not by a huge superpower, but by a small band of Islamic Radicals has pointed out a massive achilles heel in American defenses. If it was indeed orchestrated, the plan has backfired massively.

The public are increasingly unwilling to be manipulated by fear - the government has shown that they CAN'T protect you from a small group of terrorists with box-cutters. Effectively, they are useless.

Additionally, those who suspect the government orchestrated 9/11 have lost all faith in any sort of political agenda - they will suspect everything and anything at this point in time.

With 9/11, those in power finally lost touch with their 'target market' and with economic disaster currently looming over everday life, even shallow members of society no longer have money and status to fall back on. They are not happy about it and they blame the government.

So where to now? Idealism hasn't worked and fear has ultimately failed.

The population becomes less easy to control with every passing year and they are much harder to fool. With the internet, we can find information on any subject at the click of a button, so politicians can't assume we are stupid anymore.

There are hints that we may see higher powers adopt a 'social conscience' in the coming years - with environmental issues taking centre stage and also political correctness (however annoying it is), that would seem to be an increasing trend.

Although these things seem very plastic right now, they do suggest that society may eventually get it right, but I don't think I'll be alive when it happens, which is a great shame.

[slartibartfast]

...My problem is once you've seen the dots joined up.. you can't forget what the picture was....

A very human trait, problem is that the brain tends to fill in the missing pieces even if they aren't there. (slight sidetrack, can you look at the Great Bear/Big Dipper and not see it ... very much join the dots, even though there is no relationship between thos dots)

[white horse]

A very human trait, problem is that the brain tends to fill in the missing pieces even if they aren't there. (slight sidetrack, can you look at the Great Bear/Big Dipper and not see it ... very much join the dots, even though there is no relationship between thos dots)

Aye - granted.

But this is where human intelligence comes in, and is what is supposed to make us interstellar dwellers yet we choose to disengage brains.

Occam's Razor:

Has an array of meanings; generally taken to mean taking the shortest simplest route; the simplest explanation is often the best; after all impossibilities have been elliminated, what is left has tobe possible. Whittling down the impossibilities, through the possibilities, to the probabilites, to the most likely;

Used by the best thinkers. It allows a thinker to leap beyond the immediately obvious, and not wait for 100% proof, or all of the dots to make an 'assumption', to see a picture...

[OK, I know, - these examples or fictional, but they serve to illlustrate; Spock and Lt Cmd Data both use Occam's razor modes of deduction, as does Sherlock Holmes and Columbo. They can make a 'leap of faith' without all the evidence, and effectively take a shortcut. After the leap, youtake a look around, adn see if from the evidence you are in the same territory; if you are you move on, and take another leap, repeating process...]

Here is a real world example of the use of Occam's razor;

In the Australian Bush the modern search and rescue teams use a mixture of old Aboriginal and modern western search methods; the modern is the equipment, i.e. helicopters, the old is the brain.

Starting point - for example, a plane has gone missing, single pilot. A couple of teams of searchers head out, they go to the planes last known position and plot a likely area to find the downed plane.

When they have found the plane, they land; the Aboriginal trackers get out and they scout the plane, and determine which way the pilot set out.

They then radio second helicopter with the pilot's heading.

Now as the outback is mainly featurless, they presume the pilot heads in a straight line for some feature that may hold shelter/water/people etc. Using psychology the trackers try to get into the person's head and figure their next move. The second team heads for that likely spot; it may be a distant blob on the horizon for instance due North.

When they get tehre, the second team's trackers again get out and search for signsof the pilot;

(If they find no signs, the tell the 1st team, who then head for a point halfway between the two, and look for signs again.)

If they find signs at this feature, the pilot may have relaised no hope of rescue and set off for the next feature; the trackers detects the signs, this time the pilot has headed due West; They radio the 1st team who heads towards the likely second feature;

And so on.

In this way they can find people very fast.

Very very efficient.

(Compare that to just endlessly searching grid after grid after grid.)

You don't need to track every foot print; you make a leap of faith; if the evidence does not support the leap of faith, you back track and try to find where it deviated.

Occam's razor.

Joining the dots.

:D

[slo0]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4617650616903609314

point of view coming from architect and engineer

[ashur]

This is what happened.....

Bombs in basement were set off to begin demolition procedure. Creating insecurity at the base of the building a common practice for controlled demolition. (some black helicopters are hovering round my house as I type this) They got military planes resembling the design of American airlines but inbuilt with a missile on the underside of the plane that shot through the building. The missile being released as it went into the building by remote control. Chemical reaction softening the steal was released. Once chemical reacted with steel. The detonations then began and sliced the steel up as it demolished it. The metal evidence then was shipped away by a demolition corporation that was part of the octopus of what funded the entire operation.

That's my theory of it coming from common sense....

[themime]

This is what happened.....

the got military planes resembling the design of American airlines but inbuilt with a missile that shot through the building. The missile being released as it went into the building by remote control.

That's my theory of it coming from common sense....

Or they used several young, stupid, angry men to kill themselves and others in the name of a false cause just as al-Hassan ibn-al-Sabbah had centuries before.

Cheaper, easier, less mess.

[dave52]

Cheaper, easier, less mess.

And unpredictable...

[bryan]

They got military planes resembling the design of American airlines but inbuilt with a missile on the underside of the plane that shot through the building. The missile being released as it went into the building by remote control. Chemical reaction softening the steal was released.


1. How far from the building would the plane be when it fired the missile?

2. How long would it take from the missile being fired to the steel being softened by the chemical reaction?

3. How would the missile cause the chemical reaction to expand outwards in a diagonal line 156ft long from wingtip to wingtip?

4. Is this based on any evidence, like video footage?



That's my theory of it coming from common sense....


No comment. :rolleyes:

[liltroofer]

Or they used several young, stupid, angry men to kill themselves and others in the name of a false cause just as al-Hassan ibn-al-Sabbah had centuries before.

There is no video evidence of the actual destruction. Or any real plane crashes, because there were none.

Shanksville, patently fake. No bodies recovered. No full passenger list released.

Pentagon, even worse, video stills of what looks like a missile. Blown up was a piece "under construction." No full passenger list released.

WTC, no evidence of a plane crash, no evidence of the 767s, no full passenger lists released.

It's BS man. Patently false garbage. No, there is no video evidence of the lack of evidence. That is why the video was created, so that you could not MENTALLY LET GO OF THE FAKERY.

Tell me, when you are watching a movie like say, Lord of the Rings or Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, and there is a music swell in the background, do you believe it actually happened? How about in the news when military drums start pounding and flashes of hot red graphics fly across the screen? Is that just 'something that happens' to you? Do you know how much money, time and effort are put into *grabbing your attention* and POUNDING you with information 24/7?

Turn off your TV. It is dangerous for people like you to watch it.

[joe911]

Ok here is something to consider,,ill demonstrate with adobe after effects:

Ok so here is a standard window,,lets presume this is footage:
http://i330.photobucket.com/albums/l425/tadahjoe/comp2.jpg
intrestingly this is what happens when i add in the 3d object,,as it must be3d i honestly dont beleive it could have been a static 2d image they are too hard to manipulate in the way they would have needed to be.
http://i330.photobucket.com/albums/l425/tadahjoe/comp3.jpg
See what im trying to explain is that there would have had to have been depth added to the image and this would be impossible from the live tv feeds because the planed would be different angles on different chanels and i dont think its possible to cgi things like that in real time
http://i330.photobucket.com/albums/l425/tadahjoe/comp4.jpg

but because the videos on 911 moved about the object would have had to be stabaleized and i think it would have been too difficult to do that live.It could have been preplanned so that all they would have had to do is to load the live feed to it and the object would be preprogrammed,,but then think if the choppers camera had been just 10 degrees out it wouldnt have looked right.

[bryan]

Ok here is something to consider,,ill demonstrate with adobe after effects:

Ok so here is a standard window,,lets presume this is footage:

intrestingly this is what happens when i add in the 3d object,,as it must be3d i honestly dont beleive it could have been a static 2d image they are too hard to manipulate in the way they would have needed to be.

See what im trying to explain is that there would have had to have been depth added to the image and this would be impossible from the live tv feeds because the planed would be different angles on different chanels and i dont think its possible to cgi things like that in real time

but because the videos on 911 moved about the object would have had to be stabaleized and i think it would have been too difficult to do that live.It could have been preplanned so that all they would have had to do is to load the live feed to it and the object would be preprogrammed,,but then think if the choppers camera had been just 10 degrees out it wouldnt have looked right.

Thanks for confirming you're a troll.

[joe911]

Thanks for confirming you're a troll.

wtf??? how is that trolling im trying to demonstrate the difficulties of creating 3d space over 2d footage,,in all the videos ive seen (in my opinion) if the planes arent real they must be 3d

edit: if you think im trolling then wouldnt you also agree this thread is the work of trolling,,there is no way currently to proove that no planes is did-info so this thread was just to provoke an argument?

[arten]

wtf??? how is that trolling im trying to demonstrate the difficulties of creating 3d space over 2d footage,,in all the videos ive seen (in my opinion) if the planes arent real they must be 3d

edit: if you think im trolling then wouldnt you also agree this thread is the work of trolling,,there is no way currently to proove that no planes is did-info so this thread was just to provoke an argument?

M8 I have to agree with you it seems bryan did not like your post and was looking for a way out. I personally think they used Planes via remote control but I am still open to the possibility that I might be wrong.

[bryan]

M8 I have to agree with you it seems bryan did not like your post and was looking for a way out.


I didn't like his post because it's a repost of one he made yesterday in another thread. After he posted it the first time, it was pointed out to him that the live shots and the non-live shots are so different in kind that they would have needed a totally different method of compositing. The live shots were prepared in advance in 2D, and the non-live shots were prepared after the explosions in 3D.

Instead of following the links, learning more about the subject, and either accepting or disputing what we were saying, he just reposts the same stuff in a different thread. That indicates to me that his only interest in the subject is to dismiss it out of hand.



I personally think they used Planes via remote control but I am still open to the possibility that I might be wrong.

If you believe remote-controlled planes were used, why don't you go to the other thread and tell us how the left-hand wing of the plane managed to push the cladding the over to the right and then enter the building without leaving a gap.


wtf??? how is that trolling im trying to demonstrate the difficulties of creating 3d space over 2d footage,,in all the videos ive seen (in my opinion) if the planes arent real they must be 3d


Did you watch the ABC live footage I linked to?



edit: if you think im trolling then wouldnt you also agree this thread is the work of trolling,,there is no way currently to proove that no planes is did-info so this thread was just to provoke an argument?

If you can prove that faking the videos is impossible, then you'll have proved the planes must have been real. That would mean no planes is wrong and is probably disinfo.

The problem you have is that the videos have already been reproduced convincingly using software. You need to address these reproductions before you start posting screen shots of a 3D model of the WTC showing how YOU can't do it.

[stannrodd]

You need to address these reproductions before you start posting screen shots of a 3D model of the WTC showing how YOU can't do it.

Convenient way of getting someone else to do the leg work.

No plane theory is simply rubbish.

Everyone knows that.:eek:

Stann

[architectorion]

Although I don't believe terrorists hijacked planes and crashed them at WTC I also don't believe that the planes were just holograms or 3D models edited in later. There were hundreds of average Joes on the street in New York who saw the planes hit the towers, including my aunt. They SAW planes, not missles or the buildings just suddenly exploding. I just don't believe physical planes weren't involved, people saw them in the sky before they hit, end of story for me.

The Pentagon is another matter......

[bryan]

Convenient way of getting someone else to do the leg work.


Why should I do the leg work of trying to discredit my own argument? If you and Joe are unconvinced by the reconstructions of the 9/11 videos I linked to, it's up to you to explain why you don't think they're valid as evidence.



No plane theory is simply rubbish.

Everyone knows that.


Here's how 'peer review' works, according to Stann:



A video expert inserts 3D models of planes into existing 9/11 footage and the resulting composites are uncannily similar to the images that were broadcast on TV.


The peer reviewer tries to build his own models, even though he may be clueless at inserting 3D models into 2D video footage.


The peer reviewer fails and concludes that faking the planes would be too difficult.


Wannabe peer reviewers post on forums saying "No plane theory is simply rubbish".


A convenient way of ignoring evidence if it leads to the wrong conclusion.

[joe911]

Why should I do the leg work of trying to discredit my own argument? If you and Joe are unconvinced by the reconstructions of the 9/11 videos I linked to, it's up to you to explain why you don't think they're valid as evidence.
ok so lets say that the planes were added later,it leaves a huge problem>
http://www.kasjo.net/ats/wtcimpac.jpg
The video editor would have to add the plane in exactly fitting and creating this hole. i watched the vids you linked too which were cleverly done but just like matrix911 said in the other thread:

first... are you saying that the software/tech TODAY
was the same or as sophisticated as it would have been in 2001?

NOT.

so imo you're comparing apples and oranges.
so does this not also apply to this situation? the guy was using modern software.


The peer reviewer tries to build his own models, even though he may be clueless at inserting 3D models into 2D video footage.
yea fair play you win that one i am pretty clueless about 3d animation i can do almost anything with after effects but thats another story for another day lol.

The peer reviewer fails and concludes that faking the planes would be too difficult.
I still uphold that belief,it still sounds too difficult and to pointless,i cant prove its disinfo,,but doesnt common sense suggest it was real planes?

[dave52]

so does this not also apply to this situation? the guy was using modern software.

You are assuming that the software used in 2001 was comercially available. What the military had in 2001 might just be available to the public in 2020.


but doesnt common sense suggest it was real planes?

Not when you look at how the plane dissappears into the tower without any slow down, reaction or shattering. If the planes had failed to penetrate the towers, the collapse story would've been out of the window. If the planes had missed the towers, the whole day would've been lost.

Risky...?

[joe911]

If the planes had missed the towers, the whole day would've been lost.

Risky...?

but people beleived building 7 fell without a plane hitting it,or they could have said that alCIAda had planted a bomb inside,,mainstream public would buy any crap they tell them

[dave52]

but people beleived building 7 fell without a plane hitting it

No, people belive that Building 7 fell because of fires caused by falling debris from the twin towers...

[stannrodd]

Here's how 'peer review' works, according to Stann:



A video expert inserts 3D models of planes into existing 9/11 footage and the resulting composites are uncannily similar to the images that were broadcast on TV.


The peer reviewer tries to build his own models, even though he may be clueless at inserting 3D models into 2D video footage.


The peer reviewer fails and concludes that faking the planes would be too difficult.


Wannabe peer reviewers post on forums saying "No plane theory is simply rubbish".


A convenient way of ignoring evidence if it leads to the wrong conclusion.

There is conjecture and there is evidence.

The NPT is conjecture. Therefore it is BS until proven.

You have no evidence.

@ dave52

No, people belive that Building 7 fell because of fires caused by falling debris from the twin towers...

I don't believe that.. you have generalized using what you think people believe.

Do you have any polls suggesting what the majority may or may not believe ?

Just curious.

Stann

[matrix911]

You are assuming that the software used in 2001 was comercially available. What the military had in 2001 might just be available to the public in 2020.

Thats what i was trying to explain... i should have clarified that i was talking about the SOFTWARE and TECH available at the time for commerical sale and use.

the only ones with the hi tech were those in the MEDIA, FILM INDUSTRY and then obviously MILITARY TECH.

those issues are VALID and RELEVANT.

and thats why its taken 8 years now for the TRUTH and revelations etc to come out... the technology to analyze etc are available to the average person now. So of course their trickery is more CLEAR NOW.

Let me explain it this way...

Of course MOST will claim those who say inside job are NUTS bla bla bla... 99 percent of these lazy ignorant fools have NEVER seen the video evidence and ANALYSIS thats been done because 99% of all the 911 footage analyzed was NEVER again shown after the FIRST DAY AND WEEK!! The media selectively edited, blocked, or kept it hidden and unaccessible and only allowed a specific set of that footage to be accessible... and its this specific limited footage thats been cherry picked and shown over and over ad naseum (brainwashing) into the consciousness and subconsciousness of the world!
All these MORONS who say there's no evidence, no one cares, or shit like
if there was so much proof then the media, lawyers people etc would be all over it, totally ignore the most basic reason that the MSM are part of the COVER UP and linked to the PERPETRATORS. SO NO SHIT YOU'LL NEVER SEE THE MSM TAKE ANY SERIOUS INTEREST OR DO ANY SERIOUS INVESTIGATION ON THE KEY EVIDENCE... They cherry pick and broadcast soundbytes implying its just a crazy conspiracy or coincidence on a limited amount the FACTS and EVIDENCE... all intended to discredit the truth movement and give the impression they've done investigation when in reality the investigation is biased, out of context, and never dedicates proper air-time to the discussion
and FACTS necessary for one to make an objective opinion or decision.

FAIR AND BALANCED? YEAH RIGHT! FUK FOX NEWS. that news org has to be THEE most UNFAIR and UNBALANCED in Media history. They're the leading propoganda machine for the military, and government!

So there's thousands of hours of footage of 9/11 from eye witnesses, reporters, firemen, police and even government officials talking about missles, bombs, secondary explosions, demolition squibs and claims they saw no plane, or the planes didn't look like a normal commerical jet, had no windows, was too small, and looked like a military aircraft of some type.

Again, of COURSE most don't agree or want to believe 911 was an inside job. Most of these mindless lazy sheep haven't done or refuse to do any real research/investigation and SEE/believe only what they've been shown or told happened by the MSM. Few if any have ever truly and seriously questioned, analyzed or SEEN even 10% of the data, info, evidence, facts or footage let alone whats been analyzed and revealed by docs such as SEPT CLUES. And thats not even to mention how many DO NOT have the TECHNICAL tools or understanding how to even ANALYZE the footage or iow, HOW TO USE THE TECHNOLOGY let alone retrieve or know where to go to FIND the footage now.

And for most to even begin to see the conspiracy for what it is,
one really HAS to take time to look at both sides of the argument and ALL the evidence documentaries like SEPT CLUES has put together and analyzed.

How can anyone make an EDUCATED determination whether 911 was the conspiracy being claimed when most have NO ACCESS to the footage which was never even shown publically by the MSM after that ONE DAY/week of 9/11?

The CONTEXT is whats important and thats what the MEDIA et al haven't and refuse to do for obvious reasons now.

This has continued for 8 years and the only way one can see everything the media STOPPED showing is VIA the internet and YOUTUBE.

Another important issue is the FACT WTC7's collapse was NEVER shown or MENTIONED ever again by the media even to this DAY!!! Not even in the 9/11 REPORT! But of course those ridiculing those who claim inside job etc see nothing unusual or suspect about these inconsistencies, contradictions occuring over and over, flaws, anomalies, unanswered questions, omissions etc etc etc. throughout the OCT.

ITS A FACT THOSE WHO CLAIM THE OCT IS BS AND LIE HAVE FAR MORE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE PROVING INSIDE JOB THAN THOSE WHO SUPPORT THE OFFICIAL MEDIA/GOVERNMENT STORY. Its that simple. Which is why I've said those who support the official LIE and claim no inside job can only be one of 3 types:

1. In Denial or retarded
2. Haven't done enough research
3. Part of the cover-up/disinfo agents.

So the bottom line and all that matters now is that its a FACT there's missing footage, whats been released has been tampered and contains FAKERY, and its THAT FOOTAGE which is LIMITED and has only been shown the DAY/WEEK of 9/11 which 80 to 90% of people have never even seen. It took a few conspiracy "nuts" or truth seekers years ago to begin analyzing and pointing out the flaws, anomalies, problems and contradictions that most MISSED!

MOST DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT THERE WERE 3 WTC'S THAT COLLAPSED! which is a HUGE factor in why its taken 8 years and only 10% of the world if that even believe the OCT is bullshit.

And the only people who believe the OCT and refuse to consider what the real NPT is about, are those who haven't seen ALL THE EVIDENCE let alone seen it properly and in CONTEXT.

[matrix911]

Although I don't believe terrorists hijacked planes and crashed them at WTC I also don't believe that the planes were just holograms or 3D models edited in later. There were hundreds of average Joes on the street in New York who saw the planes hit the towers, including my aunt. They SAW planes, not missles or the buildings just suddenly exploding.


with all due respect, B U L L S H I T.

First,,, the FACT there ARE witnesses who DID claim to have seen a MISSLE, that the "plane" didn't look like a normal commerical jet, or that they didn't see any plane (even if its just ONE witness), destroys your entire reasoning, logic and argument.

Second, there weren't HUNDREDS of average joes claiming what you claim they saw,,, but even if there were, you can't make that CLAIM unless you have proof to back it up... So where are all those hundreds of witnesses? Wheres the verifiable evidence and details of what they claim to have seen for EACH CASE?

Third, its a FACT that MOST of the witnesses are connected to the MEDIA. But of course you and most don't find that suspect at all. :rolleyes:

And Fourth, you refuse to consider (or just haven't seen the evidence yet) whats been explained regarding people DEDUCING planes, or that to "witnesses" on the ground, a drone/missle/uav could easily have APPEARED TO LOOK LIKE A PLANE. Let me guess, you missed that evidence/argument too. :rolleyes:

maybe the JOES you're talking about are related to JOE THE PLUMBER?



I just don't believe physical planes weren't involved, people saw them in the sky before they hit, end of story for me.


which IMO only shows how CLOSE-MINDED you are since you refuse to consider the IRREFUTABLE FACTS (ie of witnesses accounts etc) i just pointed out above.

You're just another example of those I'm talking about who haven't done enough research or state generalities and OPINIONS based upon no verifiable supporting evidence. If thats not true and you're unbiased or have a truly educated opinion, you'd have mentioned both sides of the argument and FACTS known about what WITNESSES have claimed and in context. The fact you leave that out, makes your OPINION nothing more than an OPINION let alone your agenda suspect or the very least DISINFORMATION that contributes to confusion and perpetuating ignorance about 9/11 truth.

You can believe whatever you want or ignore the evidence as much as you want, but any objective reasonable or logical person would never dismiss what you claim is nonsense.

Ignorance is bliss right?

[matrix911]

No plane theory is simply rubbish.
Everyone knows that.:eek:
Stann

Right,,, the original NPT thats been incorrectly labeled and explained by those with a RETARDED understanding of it, is RUBBISH.

And rather than point out that there is this DISAGREEMENT and confusion or iow, there are 2 different understandings/definitions, shows a BIAS if not also perpetuating ignorance and disinformation that confuses and derails those seeking the truth.

the only reason that makes sense why you leave out CONTEXT and both sides of the issue on purpose because its the only way you can make it look like the NPT is rubbish, that there's no conspiracy or you've won the argument.

[bryan]

i watched the vids you linked too which were cleverly done


The vids are not just cleverly done - they change the burden of proof.

You can't get away from the fact that the planes in the 9/11 footage don't behave like planes are expected to behave when they're involved in an accident. On the other hand, they DO behave like the planes in the composite videos which I linked to. That means we should assume the 9/11 plane videos are composites unless we find compelling evidence to suggest they were real planes.



the guy was using modern software


The guy thinks the perps used Avid, and he says the company were advertising all the features needed to make the 9/11 composites in 2001. Even if that wasn't the case, it would still be a weak argument because it's not realistic to suppose the perps would be limited to using commercially available software.



The video editor would have to add the plane in exactly fitting and creating this hole


I don't see where the problem is here. The editor only had to line up the nose of the cgi plane with the flash that went off on the side of the building, then make sure the plane was tilted at the right angle.



I still uphold that belief,it still sounds too difficult and too pointless


These are two different arguments. You have a habit of starting off saying it was too difficult, then when you're losing the argument you switch over to saying it was pointless. As it happens both arguments have been totally demolished.




but doesnt common sense suggest it was real planes?


The exact opposite is true. Gerald Holmgren pointed this out a long time ago, but there are still people who are deternined not to understand the logic.


Why they didn't use planes

Sometimes people ask me "why would they use missiles or whatever and run the risk of being caught out ? If they're going to sell a story about planes, why not make it as convincing as possible and use real planes" ?

It's a silly question, because in the face of direct visual and forensic proof that they didn't use planes (mostly supported by what little witness evidence we have), speculations about their thinking and planning are meaningless.

Nevertheless, since we live in extremely silly times, I'm going to address this question on its own terms.

Put yourself in the position of the perps. You have to think through what could go wrong in each possible scenario and then decide which scenario poses the smallest risk.


http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml



but people beleived building 7 fell without a plane hitting it,or they could have said that alCIAda had planted a bomb inside,,mainstream public would buy any crap they tell them


You seem to be clutching at straws to justify an irrational belief.

[bryan]

There is conjecture and there is evidence.

The NPT is conjecture. Therefore it is BS until proven.

You have no evidence.


Stann's a big fan of evidence and proof, yet he subscribes to the 'pancake collapse theory', which is based on a physical impossibility.

It's a classic case of double standards. All the government needs to do to prove its own version is to set up a trial by media and persuade a couple of scientists to write a paper saying the story is not impossible. At the other end of the scale, alternative theories are rejected out of hand because they can't provide 100% mathematical proof of every detail.

A more honest approach would be to apply the same criteria to both sides, using a process that lies somewhere between scientific methodology and legal standards for conviction.


Here's how wikipedia describes the scientific method:


The essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings, and orderings of the following:


Characterizations (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)


Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject


Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory)


Experiments (tests of all of the above)



Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A good example of making a logical deduction from the hypothesis would be to try to predict which tower would be expected to take the first strike. If real planes were to be used, the logical sequence would be to hit the South Tower first so that the TV cameras would get a good shot of the second plane hitting the north face of the North Tower. If the planes were to be faked, the logical sequence would be to hit the North Tower first so that the TV cameras could be kept away from the impacted face of the South Tower.

As it turns out, the actual sequence on 9/11 is logically inconsistent with the use of real planes. That means the plane theorists need to provide a plausible explanation for the anomaly or go back and formulate a new hypothesis. No-planers have already been through this stage of the scientific method and found that the no-planes hypothesis is the only one that can provide a logical explanation for the many apparent anomalies of 9/11. That's how they became no-planers in the first place. Stann, on the other hand, hopes the inconsistency will just go away if he spends long enough ignoring it.


Debunkers try to give the impression that for a scientific theory to be credible it has to be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. According to Stann's view, Darwin's theory of evolution was rubbish when it was first published and is probably still rubbish today, given that some scientists claim the missing link has never been found in the fossil record.


Transitional fossils and the theory of evolution

In 1859, when Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known, and Darwin described the lack of transitional fossils as "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory", but explained it by the extreme imperfection of the geological record. He noted the limited collections available at that time, but described the available information as showing patterns which followed from his theory of descent with modification through natural selection


Transitional fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The reality is that two competing theories might both lack conclusive proof and they might both fail to explain all the anomalies in the evidence. In that case, the two theories need to be evaluated and compared, taking into account the strength of the supporting evidence and the number and nature of any assumptions made.


In a court of law the standard of proof needed for conviction ranges, depending on the type of case, from 'balance of probabilities' (more than 50% probability), to 'beyond reasonable doubt' (around 75% probability). 'Beyond a shadow of a doubt' (100% probability) is considered a legal impossibility.

The standard of proof required for an arrest is 'probable cause' (30% to 50% probability).

These figures show how ludicrous it is to demand that no-planers need to explain every detail of the operation, such as 'how they made the plane-shaped holes', 'what video editing software was available at the time', or even 'what happened to the passengers'. Dozens of TV company employees could be arrested, charged, prosecuted and convicted as accessories to murder on the evidence we already have that fake planes were broadcast on 9/11.


Another sleight of hand used by the planehuggers is to claim that the burden of proof lies with the no-planers. In both science and law, the burden of proof rests with whichever party is making the most extraordinary claims. Since the archived footage of the 9/11 attacks shows images of planes apparently defying the laws of physics, the theory that the planes were real is an extraordinary claim which has to be proved. Now it's been shown that the videos could have been faked relatively easily using computer software, no planes theory carries the benefit of assumption, which means it's reasonable to assume the videos were faked unless there's convincing evidence to the contrary. The extraordinary claim that aluminium planes flew straight through steel columns needs to be backed up by extraordinary evidence.

Burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ashur]

Bryan just because you say they are planehuggers does not mean anything. It is not doing anyone a favour that is abusive language. Call it the plane theory. Or 'the belief of planes' But it's not mature to go targeting and generalizing with insults and making up new words to target people with certain understandings.

Now you can imagine that you have evidence or enough evidence. But you don't. It's easy for intelligence and military black operations to fly a plane with a missile into a building. And people saw the planes. The video footage is not fabricated and there is witnesses. You have unreasonably ignored that evidence, with baseless other claims about why it's not evidence. And then you have fabricated some other reasons also based on nothing why you say you have evidence. But they don't hold a candle to anything.

It just sounds like you are debating with debating skills. Rather than being realistic about it. You actually sound like someone who is making a debate about why the earth is flat. It doesn't matter how good you are at twisting words. It still sounds ridiculous.

People with basic common sense and intuition, perspective. They know planes are a part of the investigation. And you aren't going to override that anymore than you can get rid of the force of gravity.

We all know that it's a distraction and a waste of time what you are debating. And it's getting us no-where.....

[bryan]

Now you can imagine that you have evidence or enough evidence. But you don't. It's easy for intelligence and military black operations to fly a plane with a missile into a building. And people saw the planes. The video footage is not fabricated and there is witnesses. You have unreasonably ignored that evidence, with baseless other claims about why it's not evidence. And then you have fabricated some other reasons also based on nothing why you say you have evidence. But they don't hold a candle to anything.


You keep coming back to make the same wild statements. The trouble is, on the many occasions when your arguments have been ripped apart one by one, you're never prepared to back them up. One example is the hilarious idea of a military plane firing a missile which would melt the steel just before the plane hits the building. I asked you not long ago if you had any evidence for this or if you could at least tell us how such a missile would go about melting a 156ft long gash in the wall in the space of a few milliseconds. I'm still waiting for an answer.



It just sounds like you are debating with debating skills. Rather than being realistic about it. You actually sound like someone who is making a debate about why the earth is flat. It doesn't matter how good you are at twisting words. It still sounds ridiculous.

People with basic common sense and intuition, perspective. They know planes are a part of the investigation. And you aren't going to override that anymore than you can get rid of the force of gravity.

We all know that it's a distraction and a waste of time what you are debating. And it's getting us no-where.....

For the last few weeks I've been inviting the planehuggers to offer a plausible explanation to why the perps would plan for the second plane to crash into the only side of the WTC that was hidden from the view of the TV cameras. That question concerns motive and logic. If the object of the operation was to convince the public that passenger planes were hijacked by Islamic terrorists and flown into the WTC, it would be logical for the perps to let the cameras film the second impact in all its glory. In fact, it would be totally illogical to go to all that trouble without making absolutely sure the crash was captured on film.

You'd be more convincing if you tried to address this issue instead of just accusing your opponents of being flat-earthers with good debating skills.

[stannrodd]

Why should I do the leg work of trying to discredit my own argument? If you and Joe are unconvinced by the reconstructions of the 9/11 videos I linked to, it's up to you to explain why you don't think they're valid as evidence.

Bollocks !

That's the same stupid logic which Christopharter uses to prove his idiotic concrete core theory.

"If you can't prove steel columns .. then the core is concrete" :confused: ??

Give me a break sunshine.

It's about proving your OWN case .. it's not about me disproving it.

To date the NPT does not hold water, it is totally unproven and unconvincing.

All that's been shown is that a clever clogs video operator can simulate footage which was shown on TV.

That's not proof that there were no planes on 9/11.

May I suggest you get a copy of this paper and study it carefully to attempt an understanding of the physics involved in the collision at WTC 2.

If you are serious about your theory, you perhaps need to debunk this first, and show that what you theorize is a better explanation of the events.

It's called being critical of your own work, and, is necessary in all good research. It's what we do.


Ms. No. EM/2004/023764

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center

Mohammed R. Karim(1) and Michelle S. Hoo Fatt(2)

January 19, 2005

(1) Graduate Student, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Akron,
Akron, OH 44325-3903.

(2) Associate Professor and Corresponding Author, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, The University of Akron; Akron, OH 44325-3903,

(330) 972-6308 (phone); (330) 972-6027 (fax); hoofatt@uakron.edu (e-mail).

Enjoy .. it's a good read.

Cheers
Stann

[bryan]

Mohammed R. Karim(1) and Michelle S. Hoo Fatt(2)

(1) Graduate Student, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Akron,
Akron, OH 44325-3903.

(2) Associate Professor and Corresponding Author, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, The University of Akron; Akron, OH 44325-3903,



May I suggest you get a copy of this paper and study it carefully to attempt an understanding of the physics involved in the collision at WTC 2.

If you are serious about your theory, you perhaps need to debunk this first, and show that what you theorize is a better explanation of the events.

It's called being critical of your own work, and, is necessary in all good research. It's what we do.

Enjoy .. it's a good read.


Like all conspiracy debunkers, you have an unhealthy admiration for people with letters behind their name. Sceptics prefer to judge researchers on the merit of their work, especially their methodology, the assumptions they make and the quality of the input data they use.

When I first commented on this paper about a month ago I wondered if it had been published as a joke. I made a list of some of the funniest parts so the planehuggers here would understand that their theory is based on bogus science.

For example, the authors build a computer model of WTC2 consisting of nothing more than a row of 36ft long steel box columns. The model doesn't include the steel spandrels which connected the columns to each other and fastened the column/spandrel sections to the concrete floors every 12ft. The concrete floors are not included in the model either.

On the other hand, they build a computer model of a single wing and engine of a Boeing 767 based on the specifications of the metals used in the production of the plane. They calculate that the steel used to make the columns would have to be around double its thickness to withstand the impact of the wing and engine. As if that kind of guesswork is not bad enough, the authors assume, without even constructing a model, that the fuselage would have penetrated the columns in the same way as the wings and engine.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50161&page=17 (post #169)

It's a pity you didn't read that post, but then again you were busy at the time debunking the concrete core theory.



All that's been shown is that a clever clogs video operator can simulate footage which was shown on TV.

That's not proof that there were no planes on 9/11.


You're easily impressed by lists of equations and calculations but not by a practical demonstration. Maybe that's because the calculations lead to a conclusion that suits you and the practical demonstration leads to the opposite conclusion.

If the simulated footage was the only evidence we had, you'd be right to say it's not proof there were no planes. The fact is the original 9/11 footage looks very much like the simulated footage and nothing like a real plane crash. As I pointed out in an earlier post, that throws the burden of proof onto the plane theorists.

The videos of the plane were so unconvincing that the reporters on TV had to keep telling the viewers that the images were real even though they looked more like a 'bad special effect'. One of the cameramen, Evan Fairbanks, said as much on ABC at 10.40pm on 9/11.


The image of that plane, coming out of nowhere, coming into the frame, and disappearing into the side, into the south side of the tower, as if a floor had been hollowed out and it was a hangar that it was just landing in, we've seen these images in movies and we know that it's all artificial, that Hollywood makes it, and it's hard to put together that it's real this time.


People believed the plane was real even though they knew deep down that something wasn't right about the way it flew into the building. I think there are two main reasons for that.

1. The images were presented as a news item on TV, and people generally believe the TV news reports facts.

2. Most people didn't realize it was possible to fake the images using existing technology.

If the same images had been shown as part of a Hollywood film, everybody would have known straight away they were special effects.

Now we know the images we saw on the news could have been faked, and we realize there's nothing to stop the TV companies broadcasting fake news, we can go back and trust our first impressions, which we had to suppress before we could accept the story of planes crashing into buildings. Once we've done that, we can see clearly that the planes were faked.



Bollocks !

That's the same stupid logic which Christopharter uses to prove his idiotic concrete core theory.

"If you can't prove steel columns .. then the core is concrete" :confused: ??

Give me a break sunshine.

It's about proving your OWN case .. it's not about me disproving it.

To date the NPT does not hold water, it is totally unproven and unconvincing.


Statements like these are not conducive to the peer review process which, according to yourself, forms the basis of scientific research. On the one hand, you should be offering meaningful criticism to the theories you dispute. On the other hand, and more importantly, you should be defending your own theory against its critics. I'm still waiting for an answer to the questions I've asked several times concerning the logic behind the sequence of the plane hits on the Twin Towers and how it fits in with the real planes hypothesis.

[mynameis]

If the simulated footage was the only evidence we had, you'd be right to say it's not proof there were no planes.

You are doing the LALALALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! Again. This is all backed up by mathematical figures and peer reviewed if published in an Engineering or Physics Journal. I thought you would know that by now.

[jahzel]

This is a great article here:

http://911research.com/essays/salter/review.html

Totally slam-dunks these idiotic No Plane theories and sends them right back to hell where they belong.

The WTC no-plane theories are exactly what they appear to be: amateur misinterpretations of images and unsupported suppositions sustained beyond their shelf life by aggressive bluffing, bald-faced denials of obvious mistakes and personal attacks upon critics of the theories.

[bryan]

This is a great article here:

http://911research.com/essays/salter/review.html

Totally slam-dunks these idiotic No Plane theories and sends them right back to hell where they belong.


Here's a perfect example of Eric Salter's faulty reasoning:


The over arching weakness of the media overlay argument is this: how could the perpetrators have ensured control over all the images taken of the planes that approached the WTC? Only one good image posted to the web would have threatened the exposure of the operation. New York is a media capital of the world, with both national networks, local network and independent TV stations, and international media bureaus, and many independent video companies like the kinds I've worked for, and professional photographers. Professionals would have been rushing out to document whatever they could, through professional pride or the hope for making a buck off it. Evan Fairbanks and war photographer James Nachtway are some examples. And then there are also cameras in the possession of ordinary citizens and the thousands of New York's ever-present tourists.


This list of "over arching weaknesses" is totally devoid of any evidence. All Salter's arguments rely on apriori assumptions. He wants us to believe that the logistically difficult outweighs the physically impossible.


This is all backed up by mathematical figures and peer reviewed if published in an Engineering or Physics Journal.

If you could shake off your Marxist background you might start thinking for yourself one day, instead of putting all your faith in the technocrats appointed by the government.

[joe911]

The exact opposite is true. Gerald Holmgren pointed this out a long time ago, but there are still people who are deternined not to understand the logic.

Put yourself in the position of the perps. You have to think through what could go wrong in each possible scenario and then decide which scenario poses the smallest risk.

Yea and the scenario with the smallest risk would be to use real planes,,you know,,because the wtc were enormous buildings and there would have been eyewitnesses,,the npt theorists always say the eyewitnesses who came foreward were actors now how about that for a carry on,,they want rid of the world trade complex [fact]so the best way to do it would be to plant explosives to ensure it falls down [fact]but thats when it gets complicated,,they need a way to blame osama so they could either just blow it up and say it was osama,or they could fly a plane into it,a good excuse since osama and alCIAda couldnt bomb the pentagon too,,so they run with the plane idea yea... new york is always crowded with millions of people every day,,so your saying that a plane missing the tower would be there biggest concern? NO they would just let the explosives go off and tell us it was the "terrorists" and people would have baught it. Yea granted there may not have been many who saw the first plane hit the north tower,,but EVERYONE WORLDWIDE was fixed with the second tower even in the naudet brothers film you see new yorkers crowding the streets watching in horror,so your telling me that not one person there saw anything hit the second tower??

[matrix911]

then disprove the evidence and facts that prove otherwise.

Yea and the scenario with the smallest risk would be to use real planes,,


This well articulated article thats never been refuted, disagrees.
http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml


you know,,because the wtc were enormous buildings and there would have been eyewitnesses,,the npt theorists always say the eyewitnesses who came foreward were actors now how about that for a carry on,,they want rid of the world trade complex [fact]so the best way to do it would be to plant explosives to ensure it falls down [fact]but thats when it gets complicated,,they need a way to blame osama so they could either just blow it up and say it was osama,or they could fly a plane into it,a good excuse since osama and alCIAda couldnt bomb the pentagon too,,so they run with the plane idea yea... new york is always crowded with millions of people every day,,so your saying that a plane missing the tower would be there biggest concern? NO they would just let the explosives go off and tell us it was the "terrorists" and people would have baught it. Yea granted there may not have been many who saw the first plane hit the north tower,,but EVERYONE WORLDWIDE was fixed with the second tower even in the naudet brothers film you see new yorkers crowding the streets watching in horror,so your telling me that not one person there saw anything hit the second tower??

let me repeat...

This well articulated article which has never been refuted, disagrees and proves othewise.
http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml

[reptillianbreath]

Pretty simple to sort this argument out. Just follow these simple instructions -



1) Look at the CGI technology used in big budget commercial films around the time of 9/11. Films from 2001 that used CGI include Jurassic Park III, Pearl Harbour and Lord of the Rings:The Fellowship of the Ring. Remember this was THE most cutting edge CGI available at the time.

2) Look at the news footage of 9/11.

3) Compare the two.

I don't even need to state an opinion. The answer will be obvious.

What about the eyewitnesses? Their minds were controlled? Good luck with that one. Planes did go into the building, because just explosives would not be believed.... How could terrorists get in to install them? They were installed when the building was constructed, I assume.

[bryan]

EVERYONE WORLDWIDE was fixed with the second tower


So why didn't the perps arrange it so the TV cameras would film the second plane crashing into one of the towers?

[joe911]

So why didn't the perps arrange it so the TV cameras would film the second plane crashing into one of the towers?

i dont understand the question.:confused:

[stannrodd]

The fact is the original 9/11 footage looks very much like the simulated footage and nothing like a real plane crash.

This is typical of your false logic. You seem to be suggesting that you know what happens when a 767 flies into a building constructed as the Twin Towers were. I doubt that you can honestly substantiate this claim.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, that throws the burden of proof onto the plane theorists.

No it doesn't. It is you and your band of silly theorists who need to recognize that it is your theory and since you own that theory, the burden of proof remains with those who have a need to peddle that BS theory.

Own it .. be responsible.. !

The physics involved in the modeling is exact in terms of the model. I never said it is representative of the reality of such a collision between a 767 and a WTC tower. But I can tell you that it is a very convincing piece of work.

There's only one real way to prove that a 767 can slice into a WTC type tower isn't there .. that's to do it .. and see what happens. But why do that when it's already been done and we already know what happens .. not only that but the physics proves it. ;)

You never did respond to the force vector analysis of the damage to the perimeter columns.. was that too difficult?

Simple high school physics !!

Stann

[joe911]

This well articulated article thats never been refuted, disagrees.
http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml


Ill start with a little bit from it:

Put yourself in the position of the perps. You have to think through what could go wrong in each possible scenario and then decide which scenario poses the smallest risk.

You want to sell a story about hijacked planes.

At the first level of decision making, you have two choices.

1) Actually use planes.

2) Use missiles or whatever the blobs 11 thing is, and convince people that they were planes.


Agreed....

Before addressing the problems with that, the scenario splits into more -sub-choices.

1) Hijack a real flight with real passengers aboard. 2) Launch a plane from somewhere else and pass it off as a real flight.

Basically, the choices here split into the option of crashing a plane with passengers aboard or with no passengers aboard. Both possibilities create potentially insurmountable problems in the cover up - and a reduced likelihood of the crash being successfully targeted to begin with.


Remember the story a few weeks ago about the guy who managed to land the pane in the hudson,,thats presice piloting so lined up well enough in advance there is no way it could have missed, it would be just like lining up for the runway its pretty easy in flight simulator (i know its not real life and some say its no comparison but the ideas still the same) and if i can do it at 15 with no clue about plane flying im sure anyone else could.

And what are they going to find ? Two choices. A plane with no -one in it. How are the perps going to explain that, huh ? Or a plane with passengers. This raises even more problems. Using a plane with passengers creates two more sub-choices.

No bodies were found at shanksville or the pentagon.....

1) Hope that all the passengers get killed in the crash, so there's no survivors to talk or hope that the perps can get to them first and knock them off before they do talk.

2) Kill them before the crash with a timed release of gas into the aircon system. Which of course leaves more forensic evidence to cover up, when the bodies are examined. Imagine the massive operation needed to get enough perps swarming over the wreckage quickly enough to control what the media,innocent rescue workers or survivors would start blabbing before the spin sets in. Far worse than anything a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the two tower strikes.

what if it really was hijackers,we knoe they boarded planes on 9/11,,and the passangers would be clueless as to what was going on anyways so they could have been told it was gps failure or anything. and as for forensics just look at shanksvilles wally miller...maybe flight 11 and 175 planes were landed and the passangers taken from them and and then flown into the towers either by remote or suicide pilots or anything

If the planes were successfully crashed into the towers, its still possible - although not very likely - that there could be survivors. Nevertheless, even assuming that everyone was killed, real crashes with real people leave real bodies, they don't just vapourize like in the S11 cartoon. So you have hundreds of retrievable bodies to worry about. If they were killed with gas prior to the crash, then you have the same forensic cover up nightmare as in the scenario where the plane misses its target

But thats assuming the plane wasnt engulfed in the flames,and besides they only would have had just over an hour to escape it,impossible if they had been killed beforehand,but 102 mins to escape a plane and down all those floors with severe injuries or at least whiplash or concussion,,seems very improbable.

And if you avoid this problem by hoping that everyone is killed in the crash, you face the horrible risk that there will be dozens of survivors to try to shut up - unlikely if the plane hits the target properly - but you don't know that for sure.

So lets say it was planes that hit the wtc,why would the passangers survive,they would have some injuries at least,,so to escape the plane and down all the floors with whiplash concussion and any other injuries,,besides by the time any survivours got out they wouldnt get very far down because the building would have collapsed

[mynameis]

If you could shake off your Marxist background you might start thinking for yourself one day, instead of putting all your faith in the technocrats appointed by the government.

Basically you are saying that you don't want to believe qualified professionals and are going to LALALALALALALALA! With your hands in your ears. :D

As typical of most imaginary plane huggers. If anyone is Marxist it's your child pron spreading friends like Ozzybinoswald and Killtown.

[john white]

This list of "over arching weaknesses" is totally devoid of any evidence. All Salter's arguments rely on apriori assumptions. He wants us to believe that the logistically difficult outweighs the physically impossible.

You just think this piffle to avoid having to actually understand what Salter says, don't you?

A claim of "apriori assumptions" does NOT make it true, no matter how comforting trotting out the phrase makes it for you to fire off a reply as quickly and thoughtlessly as possible

But to properly refute Salters arguments, you'd have to first understand them

Never mind! Just make another NPT blibbering post instead :)

[john white]

Compounding the misinterpretations due to blurry footage, the no-planers were originally using a half size, compressed mpeg movie to conduct their analysis. Moreover, Webfairy performed processing on this low quality movie which created even more degraded images, aptly described by Mark Bilk as "abstract video art." The no-planers, not knowing what full quality video was or what compression artifacts were, claimed these muddy, altered images were proof of the absence of a real plane.

This should have "Uh-oh someone's trying to con me" alarm bells ringing in all but the minds of the comatose

What's that Bryan?

Webfairy pushing images she fraudulently tampered with and degraded isn't relevant to you?

She was lying to your face for your own good, is that it?

Oh hang on, exposing the material tampering with evidence, and then exposing passing the adulterated pap off as "proof of da troof" counts as an "A priori argument" does it?

Or does it count as one MORE reason why NPT has been thoroughly and utterly pwned and you just dont want to hear it?

Unfortunately, in this section squatted by "special needs" truthseekers, not wanting to accept the truth is the whole of the problem:


PLANES

HIT

THE TOWERS!

True in 2001, true today and True in 100,000 years time, long after we are all dust

What a waste of life this shite is!

[ashur]

This is dumb. Of course planes hit the towers.

How bias is your responses making up all this rubbish about no planes, what for? It's easy to understand how a missile attached to the plane can blow a hole in the building on entry and how the extra explosion as the plane goes into the building can be seen for extra dramatic effect.

And what a dumb question about why didn't they arrange it so the second plane was filmed.

That's actually a question for your theory. As you think it was digital or somehow fabricated. We should be asking you why there is no footage of it faked why they left it out. That trick question is relevant just as much to your nonsense.

Why waste our time on this when we could be debating if it was the Cookie Monster or Elmo that brought down the towers.

Where does this no plane conviction come from? Something is like an elephant standing in the room. Like throwing sand on an invisible person and seeing them. Only with the dis info. Instead of clouding the movement. Seems like it's exposed something else against it more.

[matrix911]

This is typical of your false logic. You seem to be suggesting that you know what happens when a 767 flies into a building constructed as the Twin Towers were. I doubt that you can honestly substantiate this claim.


no, but STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS that designed the WTC CAN and HAVE.

So he doesn't need to.

I know little details like that ruin your argument, but the first step in accepting the ugly truth is denial.



There's only one real way to prove that a 767 can slice into a WTC type tower isn't there .. that's to do it .. and see what happens. But why do that when it's already been done and we already know what happens .. not only that but the physics proves it. ;)


unfortunately for you the FACTS and STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS of the WTC prove otherwise.

when you have a structural engineer license, let us know.

until then your opinion on this matter is just an opinion.

[matrix911]

[QUOTE=mynameis;840601]Basically you are saying that you don't want to believe qualified professionals QUOTE]

do the words Pot Kettle Black mean anything to you?

[matrix911]

This is a great article here:

http://911research.com/essays/salter/review.html

Totally slam-dunks these idiotic No Plane theories and sends them right back to hell where they belong.

This is one of the most LAUGHABLE and pathetic attempts at debunking NPT to date.

Filled with nothing but speculation, opinions, cherry picking data, and the citing of NIST whose reports have either been full of OMISSIONS or flawed and altered facts.

I'd waste more of my time with this knuckleheads failed debunking, but why bother when his opening paragraph is the basis for his entire article which relys on the proven TV FAKERY and TAMPERED photo evidence as proof there were planes and the NPT is nonsense.

rofl

with buffoons like salter, no wonder the NPT has never been disproven and continues to grow.

[mynameis]

Basically you are saying that you don't want to believe qualified professionals QUOTE]

do the words Pot Kettle Black mean anything to you?

Are you a Kettle or a qualified professional? I have yet to see anyone's expertise besides Judy Wood and her theory has never been presented, published, peer reviewed, and examples shown or testable. Now why do you want to subvert actual evidence with non-evidence. Oh that's right, you think her doctored videos are actual evidence, when it is only evidence of something missing between Judy Wood's ears. Now how about a bet about Handschuh?

[architectorion]

No, people belive that Building 7 fell because of fires caused by falling debris from the twin towers...

Personally I believe WTC1&2 and B7 had additional explosives inside to ensure their utter collapse. With Bush's relative suddenly being handed the job in charge of security at the WTC just prior to 9/11 that was the opportunity they used to plant and hide all of the explosives.

[matrix911]

Ill start with a little bit from it:

Remember the story a few weeks ago about the guy who managed to land the pane in the hudson,,thats presice piloting so lined up well enough in advance there is no way it could have missed, it would be just like lining up for the runway its pretty easy in flight simulator (i know its not real life and some say its no comparison but the ideas still the same) and if i can do it at 15 with no clue about plane flying im sure anyone else could.


you can't remotely compare landing in the Hudson to lining up to flying into a skyscraper.

there's a difference between LANDING and CRASHING.

an entirely different scenario in targeting dimensions not to mention a different targeting and maneuvering scenario that would be necessary to hit a precise point at the WTC.

unless of course you have a hi tech lazer military targeting system available to you, a Trillion dollar Military budget for hi tech graphics facilitated by having the entire control rooms of the MSM at your disposal.


what if it really was hijackers,we knoe they boarded planes on 9/11,,


No, we were TOLD and made to believe "hijackers" boarded planes on 9/11.

There is no independent or verifiable confirmation of the "facts" the perps fabricated, not to mention all the flaws, contradictions and unanswered questions that to this day have never been answered.

If there were any hijackers that boarded those planes, it wasn't any of the muslim finatics with boxcutters who btw, have oddly been turning up still alive.


and the passangers would be clueless as to what was going on anyways so they could have been told it was gps failure or anything. and as for forensics just look at shanksvilles wally miller...maybe flight 11 and 175 planes were landed and the passangers taken from them and and then flown into the towers either by remote or suicide pilots or anything


those flights either never took off, were intercepted and forced to land, or the pilots were IN ON IT and the perps themselves... most likely MILITARY pilots dressed up like AA and UA pilots.

If the passengers in fact were all real, they were either also in ON IT, or EXECUTED. imo

[matrix911]

[QUOTE=john white;840688]

PLANES

HIT

THE TOWERS!

QUOTE]








IN

YOUR

WET

DREAMS

[matrix911]

This is dumb. Of course planes hit the towers.


and the facts prove otherwise.

sorry.



How bias is your responses making up all this rubbish about no planes, what for?


the question what for is DUMB in of itself and irrelevant.

what matters are the FACTS.

FACT, evidence of video fakery has been PROVEN far beyond a doubt.

As you think it was digital or somehow fabricated. We should be asking you why there is no footage of it faked why they left it out.


There is.

just because you haven't seen it because you failed to do any serious indepth research, isn't our fault.


Where does this no plane conviction come from?

the FAKED LIVE FOOTAGE from the MSM

duh

[stannrodd]

FACT, evidence of video fakery has been PROVEN far beyond a doubt.

If this is the case, .. why isn't it widely accepted in any sort of media.

Widescreen ,, broad band .. Main stream media .. alternative media ....

Broad based science forums .. even pet lovers forums.

You say this stuff has been

PROVEN far beyond a doubt I don't see that sort of acceptance ..

Sorry .. you are pushing a sloshy wheel barrow of manure and your slippers are getting smelly.. and your socks need a wash !!

Stann

[matrix911]

If this is the case, .. why isn't it widely accepted in any sort of media.

Widescreen ,, broad band .. Main stream media .. alternative media ....

Broad based science forums .. even pet lovers forums.

You say this stuff has been

I don't see that sort of acceptance ..


1. because its a very advanced and relatively NEW theory which in order to fully understand it, one has to have an advanced level of understanding of 911 in full context and have done an indepth detailed analysis of all the evidence. Most haven't and refuse to even do the most basic research out of laziness, ignorance or denial... like you.

2. because the MSM won't touch it. WHY? because they DID IT and/or were complicit in the operation.


since when is truth measured by WHO ACCEPTS IT?

your remark in of itself is beyond ignorant.

and when most in the world are IGNORANT to begin with, not to mention victims of brainwashing by the most elaborate hoax of all time, the fact its not accepted in the way you're eluding PROVES OR DISPROVES nothing you're asserting.

your entire argument is based on false logic and/or a false premise.

new discoveries are made all the time that aren't initially ACCEPTED.

just like the MASSES who refused to ACCEPT that the world was ROUND and called the FEW who were revealing that advanced knowledge, CRAZY and tried to SILENCE, SUPPRESS and BAN any discussion of it.

hmmmmmmmmm... thats kinda odd aint it? history appears to be repeating again.

Seems those same nazi scumbags are doing the same thing in this very group
and all over the net.

you wouldn't happen to know any do you? :rolleyes:

[john white]

PLANES

HIT

THE TOWERS!

IN

YOUR

WET

DREAMS

No you sad man, not in my sexual fantasies, but in reality, and you are a fool

[ashur]

There is. just because you haven't seen it because you failed to do any serious indepth research, isn't our fault.

I feel sorry for you because I have made mistakes like this before too. You got this idea in your head you once believed and now there is too much emotional investment to let it go.....

There is no footage of any plane hitting the pentagon ever.......sorry man. This proves that you don't know what you're saying and you are more relying on hope and blind conviction. Please don't do that. Re-assess reality.

To say there is footage of the pentagon plane is utterly false. There isn't any footage of it. And you don't have it to show us either.....

What is ironic you say there is footage of the pentagon plane, and you'r saying that to prove your ridiculious no planes theory. Which has no place in a truth movement. Because it doesn't make any sense how there is no footage of the pentagon plane and only of the tower planes. Like the towers, your theory also falls down. Evidently the reason why there is no footage of the pentagon plane is because it is the one plane that genuinely didn't exist.

That's a epic fail to tell me I haven't done research. It's evident I know more about it than you do now.....As you thought it was possible to show me a pentagon plane.

Instead of clouding things they become more clear what the deception is about.

I'm not against you at all I want to help.....please don't be foolish about it be realistic with me.


How could a plane penetrate the building at nothing more than the speed of fresh air?

[bryan]

If this is the case, .. why isn't it widely accepted in any sort of media.

Widescreen ,, broad band .. Main stream media .. alternative media ....

Broad based science forums .. even pet lovers forums.

You say this stuff has been

I don't see that sort of acceptance ..

The simple answer to this question is that it takes two to peer review. Nicola Tesla found out the hard way when his fellow scientists refused to acknowledge his work even though he's now considered to have been a genius. I can just imagine Tesla's peers shouting to him: "Why haven't your theories been accepted by mainstream science, Tesla?".

While we're on the subject, Stann, you're still refusing to cooperate with my peer review of your theory that planes flew into the WTC. I'll make the question so clear that even the most hardened con man wouldn't be able to claim he doesn't understand it.

Here are the main points again, broken down into 10 easy steps:

1. All sides in the 9/11 debate agree that the purpose of the first plane crash was to attract the media's attention to the WTC.

2. All sides in the 9/11 debate agree that the perps, whether they were Islamic hijackers or false-flag operatives, wanted images of the second plane crash to be broadcast around the world to be used as propaganda.

3. A logical deduction from the hypothesis that the planes were real is that the perps would want the TV cameras to capture as much detail as possible of the second plane crash.

4. A logical deduction from the hypothesis that the planes were cgi fakes is that the perps would want to hide the fine details of the second plane crash from the TV cameras.

5. It's a fact that the TV cameras failed to capture the details of the second plane crash because they were positioned on the wrong side of the towers.

6. It's a fact that if the plane sequence had been reversed, the TV cameras would have captured in detail the second plane crashing into the north face of the North Tower.

7. It's inconceivable that the planners of the operation would not have taken this into consideration.

8. It's inconceivable that the planners of the operation would not have been aware that the impact of the second plane crash would be hidden from the TV cameras.

9. The planners of the operation must have felt there were drawbacks to reversing the sequence.

10. The planners of the operation must have believed that the drawbacks outweighed the benefits.


Now the question is:

If the planes were real, what drawbacks could there be to flying the first plane into the south face of the South Tower, and the second plane into the north face of the North Tower, allowing the TV cameras to film the impact?

[ashur]

Nicola Tesla found out the hard way

Please do not use Nicola Tesla to support your theory of no planes......
Your candle is out of wax. Finished. You're all burnt out.

This is comical but we are almost ready to move on......Just finishing up here I think.

Your argument sounds contrived beyond irrelevant.

Ok we all think there is no planes. Now what?

You have nothing to do. You hinder this movement with this bull.

[ashur]

1. All sides in the 9/11 debate agree that the purpose of the first plane crash was to attract the media's attention to the WTC.

No, the media is part of this deception whether it hits or not. It's not attracting the media they are part of it all. You start with a fallacy about the connection between the media and the event. So No. Wrong.

2. All sides in the 9/11 debate agree that the perps, whether they were Islamic hijackers or false-flag operatives, wanted images of the second plane crash to be broadcast around the world to be used as propaganda.

It's not a matter of getting the footage for propaganda. The event itself is the strategy. It's got nothing to do with bits and pieces of it. Your twisting this molding the framework so you can work with something. So you can make your baseless conclusions from it. No no-one particularly thinks the second plane crash was more important than the entire event itself. This is definitely cherry picking and not credible analysis of it.

3. A logical deduction from the hypothesis that the planes were real is that the perps would want the TV cameras to capture as much detail as possible of the second plane crash.

That's not logical you are being bizarre. The controllers can't control everything. They aren't particularly over obsessed with the film footage they have the death of families and the trauma of the event would be effective enough don't you think? If they were there ready with cameras capturing it all in detail it would definitely be suspicious and obviously unnatural to know ahead of time.

4. A logical deduction from the hypothesis that the planes were cgi fakes is that the perps would want to hide the fine details of the second plane crash from the TV cameras.

Look, it's not even logical to assume it was CGI faked let alone assume they want to hide certain parts of it. There's nothing that makes any particular part of the event more special or forbidden. You're sculpting your argument around a pre-concieved conclusion that you want to try and use as evidence.

Bad news for you. We are no longer stupid anymore.....

5. It's a fact that the TV cameras failed to capture the details of the second plane crash because they were positioned on the wrong side of the towers.

So? It wasn't a TV camera. It was someones home video.....They couldn't be everywhere at once they didn't know it was going to happen. Forgive them for not getting the exact details.

I guess he should have hired a helicopter and being right up close ready. Shame on him for not flying around to the other side of the towers for the next shot.

Don't be stupid......


6. It's a fact that if the plane sequence had been reversed, the TV cameras would have captured in detail the second plane crashing into the north face of the North Tower.

Not only is it impossible to reverse the sequence of the planes and how they crash into the buildings. It's totally irrelevant for you to say lets reverse it so the second plane goes in first and then we see the details of it from the other side. No it's not suspicious you are making a crazy fantasy about an imaginary idea you have in your head about reversing the sequence of the planes. It's not a fact.

7. It's inconceivable that the planners of the operation would not have taken this into consideration.

At this point your imagination seems to have taken a course of it's own....It's inconceivable to me in fact you made this up yourself.....

8. It's inconceivable that the planners of the operation would not have been aware that the impact of the second plane crash would be hidden from the TV cameras.

First how are they faking it? Not they were aware.....They can't control every single movement of the media and position them before it happens.....And if they did it would be suspicious....That's probably the realistic reason why they didn't cover the entire event in movie like detailed high definition quality with helicopter coverage......cause then would that be realistic how they would do that? I don't think that would look natural do you?

9. The planners of the operation must have felt there were drawbacks to reversing the sequence.

Reversing the sequence was your imagination. How were they even thinking such a thing? This isn't scientific logic at all. Even as speculation it's crazy and irrelevant.


10. The planners of the operation must have believed that the drawbacks outweighed the benefits.

The planners of the operation must have felt that your argument is good enough to swallow.

Your entire evidence is based on the way in which the second plane crash was filmed on a different angle to the first captured. And that's ridiculious. You have crafted at entire essay to take advantage of the fact that the second plane crash wasn't covered like the first one was. But So what? The camera wasn't on the other side of the building at the time.....That's why we can't see it.....

So it doesn't matter if it was reversed. It has nothing to do with anything. Nothing stops CGI fakey on the second tower anymore than the first does. Nothing special would stop pentagon fakery either. So your going to have to improve your essay and include other complicated stories about why it was filmed a certain way. And why there is no CGI pentagon plane at all.....So that's a spanner in the works because where is the pentagon plane?

Your theory is not sustainable and based on what? Based on way out there speculations that have no-where near as muich significance as the core of the investigation to 911.

Give it a rest......your finished. You're all washed up. Show is over for the no planes nonsense.

[bryan]

A claim of "apriori assumptions" does NOT make it true, no matter how comforting trotting out the phrase makes it for you to fire off a reply as quickly and thoughtlessly as possible

But to properly refute Salters arguments, you'd have to first understand them


The point is that Salter's assumptions are the same kind of assumptions that are used to debunk controlled demolition. It boils down to a single argument:

"They'd never get away with it".

It's an assumption that carries no weight when contradicted by physical evidence.



Webfairy pushing images she fraudulently tampered with and degraded isn't relevant to you?


It's interesting to note how the planehuggers are prepared to spend time debunking webfairy's methods, but they don't consider it worhwhile to point out exactly where Ace Baker went wrong in his research, even though he went out of his way to ask for feedback.


Basically you are saying that you don't want to believe qualified professionals and are going to LALALALALALALALA! With your hands in your ears. :D


As we speak, a group of qualified medical professionals are trying to persuade me that I'd benefit by having fluoride added to my tap water. Should I trust them or should I believe what David Icke says about fluoride, bearing in mind that David Icke is not a qualified medical professional?



And what a dumb question about why didn't they arrange it so the second plane was filmed.

That's actually a question for your theory. As you think it was digital or somehow fabricated. We should be asking you why there is no footage of it faked why they left it out. That trick question is relevant just as much to your nonsense


We already know why there's no fake TV footage of the impact. It's because the live shots had to be kept simple and so the the cgi planes were made to disappear behind the towers just before the explosion. The more complicated cgi's of the impact were post-edited into the videos filmed by freelance cameramen. I'm amazed you weren't aware of that information. No wonder you still believe planes hit the towers! If people who are debating this stuff are so ignorant of the facts, what chance is there for people on the forums where the subject is banned?


Please do not use Nicola Tesla to support your theory of no planes......


I'm using Nicola Tesla to show how even the best science can be blackballed for political or economic reasons.

[ashur]

Two giant genetically modified slugs from a military operation were released and crawled up the side of the towers with snail shells from the Philadelphia Experiment that made them invisible to onlookers. They ate a hole in the towers and the smoke was it's slime fumes as it reacted with the metal melting it. And then the towers fell down.

The planes were holographic distractions created from reflections of the slug camouflage that bent light around and projected the images.

Building 7 fell down when the invisible slugs fell from the towers onto building 7. How else would building 7 fall down if not from planes? How else would they test the capability of the slugs to bring down buildings. It's only logical they were testing the biological slugs out on the tallest building available.

A truck came and picked the slugs back up returning them to the military underground base where they lived.

That's a more legitimate theory that what you said Bryan....I would believe that before I believed your speculations and creations.

[arten]

Two giant genetically modified slugs from a military operation were released and crawled up the side of the towers with snail shells from the Philadelphia Experiment that made them invisible to onlookers. They ate a hole in the towers and the smoke was it's slime fumes as it reacted with the metal melting it. And then the towers fell down.

The planes were holographic distractions created from reflections of the slug camouflage that bent light around and projected the images.

Building 7 fell down as the invisible slugs fell from the towers onto building 7.
A truck came and picked the slugs back up returning them to the military underground base where they lived.

That's a more legitimate theory that what you said Bryan....I would believe that before I believed your speculations and creations.

:eek:;):D:rolleyes:

[mynameis]

As we speak, a group of qualified medical professionals are trying to persuade me that I'd benefit by having fluoride added to my tap water. Should I trust them or should I believe what David Icke says about fluoride, bearing in mind that David Icke is not a qualified medical professional?

First, I think that you should earn your way with educational merit for a position of understanding from an educated point of view as they. This is how science and understanding work. If you can't speak to those qualified medical professionals then they will continue to keep adding fluoride to your water with smiles while doing it. When they are educated to make those broad generalizations and you are a non-participant, you do nothing to change the fact that you are not educated.

Secondly, why bitch and moan about something that is not the subject of this thread. No planes has no education behind its fantasies and nobody it has presented is qualified or has peer-reviewed published evidence that states its position in any science journals etc... Conjecture is not science, conjecture is a meatless baloney sandwich without facts.

[john white]

The point is that Salter's assumptions are the same kind of assumptions that are used to debunk controlled demolition. It boils down to a single argument:

"They'd never get away with it".

It's an assumption that carries no weight when contradicted by physical evidence.




It's interesting to note how the planehuggers are prepared to spend time debunking webfairy's methods, but they don't consider it worhwhile to point out exactly where Ace Baker went wrong in his research, even though he went out of his way to ask for feedback.

Bullshit Bryan sheer bullshit! That's the point!

Its not some sophistry about "they'll never get away with it" its that every single piece of evidence claimed to support NPT turns out to BE bullshit, whereas ALL the hard verifiable evidence supports PLANES

But of course perish the thought that your should see YOUR support for NPT is based on "They will never get away with it" : your bizarre belief that its not possible to organise crashing a plane into one of the largest buildings ever built by mankind

And also, there is your blatant refusal to see fraud and deception as what they are: fraud and deception

Your denial doesn't change that Bryan, and you are clearly a lost and confused man




As we speak, a group of qualified medical professionals are trying to persuade me that I'd benefit by having fluoride added to my tap water. Should I trust them or should I believe what David Icke says about fluoride, bearing in mind that David Icke is not a qualified medical professional?

The price of a dozen eggs is £1.20

Thats about as relevant as your point:

Except to note how unhealthy it is for you to be looking for personalities to define your reality for you, even ones with the track record of Icke: which does explain why con artists like the NPT pushers have found you so easy to manipulate into covering up the truth of 9/11 while you think you are exposing it

The lack of original thought says volumes




We already know why there's no fake TV footage of the impact

Yep. Cos its real footage

Then your blather

It's because the live shots had to be kept simple and so the the cgi planes were made to disappear behind the towers just before the explosion. There more complicated cgi's of the impact were post-edited into the videos filmed by freelance cameramen. I'm amazed you weren't aware of that information.

"Information"

What a quant way of phrasing made up bollocks.

Obviously helps you swallow it

"Claim" "truth"

"well they are both information so who cares if I blend them into a fantasy inside my head": thats what your posts are saying to me. It's wearing underpants on your head and saying "Its a hat to me so there"

No wonder you still believe planes hit the towers!

Evidence. Facts. Objective balance of reality

Not becuase I don't lap up fraud masquerading as "information" and fail to be so foolish, gullible or self deluding to buy it wholesale as truth

If people who are debating this stuff are so ignorant of the facts,

Your willfull ignorance is your own self harm Bryan. I can no more stop you that if you were self harming yourself with a razor in your own hand slicing your own arm

what chance is there for people on the forums where the subject is banned?

None what-so-ever, thank fuck, but here we are with the David Icke forum hosting a "special needs" section for the hopelessly deluded


I'm using Nicola Tesla to show how even the best science can be blackballed for political or economic reasons.

Lol yes, trot out the Tesla mythology if that's where you have to retreat to in your basic denial of reality

"oh Nicola Tesla! Thats why NPT is Truuuuuuuuuuuuuueeeeeee"

What gobshite

[joe911]

you can't remotely compare landing in the Hudson to lining up to flying into a skyscraper.

there's a difference between LANDING and CRASHING.

Yea crashing is alot easier then landing

an entirely different scenario in targeting dimensions not to mention a different targeting and maneuvering scenario that would be necessary to hit a precise point at the WTC.

No because it wouldnt really matter where it hit in the towers,there were allready explosions going off before the plane even hit (i heard that first hand from william rodriguez) so they could just run with a story like "alCIAda planted bombs into the wtc"

unless of course you have a hi tech lazer military targeting system available to you, a Trillion dollar Military budget for hi tech graphics facilitated by having the entire control rooms of the MSM at your disposal.

or just someone wiling to give thier life and who is trained in the basics of steering a plane

No, we were TOLD and made to believe "hijackers" boarded planes on 9/11.
They were in the airport...
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/flight77/hijackers/dulles_2hijackers.jpg

There is no independent or verifiable confirmation of the "facts" the perps fabricated, not to mention all the flaws, contradictions and unanswered questions that to this day have never been answered.

How about you give a few examples,this statement is very blunt without them.

If there were any hijackers that boarded those planes, it wasn't any of the muslim finatics with boxcutters who btw, have oddly been turning up still alive.

Ok you talk about facts and evidence,,do you have any real proof that they are alive?

those flights either never took off, were intercepted and forced to land, or the pilots were IN ON IT and the perps themselves... most likely MILITARY pilots dressed up like AA and UA pilots.
If the passengers in fact were all real, they were either also in ON IT, or EXECUTED. imo

yes your spidey sense must be tingling after all that,,you can support some of what you say with evidence but when it comes to the logical side of things that you cant explain you have to invent a more complicated story to fill in the space.

[jahzel]

Thank God for John White http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/xsmall2/2403_worshipper.gif

[mercuryrapids]

Critics pan CNN's fake election holograms (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/television/news/article.cfm?c_id=339&objectid=10541732)

Holograms: High art or just a gimmick? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3832361.stm)

3D Images Floating in Thin Air (http://www.humanproductivitylab.com/archive_blogs/2006/12/04/3d_images_floating_in_thin_air.php)

A holographic projection of Prince Charles giving an address is presented at the opening ceremony of the World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/21/energy.renewableenergy)

Holograms, live onstage (http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/01/15/holograms-live-onstage/)

[joe911]

Critics pan CNN's fake election holograms (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/television/news/article.cfm?c_id=339&objectid=10541732)

Holograms: High art or just a gimmick? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3832361.stm)

3D Images Floating in Thin Air (http://www.humanproductivitylab.com/archive_blogs/2006/12/04/3d_images_floating_in_thin_air.php)

A holographic projection of Prince Charles giving an address is presented at the opening ceremony of the World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/21/energy.renewableenergy)

Holograms, live onstage (http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/01/15/holograms-live-onstage/)

how do you create a hologram in broad daylight?

[mercuryrapids]

how do you create a hologram in broad daylight?

No idea. I don't subscribe to the NPT... :)

[bryan]

First, I think that you should earn your way with educational merit for a position of understanding from an educated point of view as they. This is how science and understanding work. If you can't speak to those qualified medical professionals then they will continue to keep adding fluoride to your water with smiles while doing it. When they are educated to make those broad generalizations and you are a non-participant, you do nothing to change the fact that you are not educated.


I'll ignore the parts that don't make any sense at all and just concentrate on the bits that are comprehensible.

The reason those qualified medical professionals want to add fluoride to my water has nothing to do with their education or the lack of it. After campaigning for fluoridation, these experts will enjoy guaranteed promotion up through the hierachy of government health agencies and beaurocracies. In the 1970's a prominent Dutch fluoride proponent eventually became prime minister of the Netherlands. No amount of evidence or reasoned debate will change the minds of these corrupt officials who are only looking after themselves.



your bizarre belief that its not possible to organise crashing a plane into one of the largest buildings ever built by mankind


It doesn't matter how tall the buildings were - they were still relatively narrow and not an easy target at 500mph even for an experienced pilot.

An argument often used against no-planers is to say that we can't know whether a plane would have gone right through the walls of the Twin Towers or not, simply because that type of building had never been hit by a plane before. Well, if that's the case for the people researching the events 9/11 today, it was also the case for the poeple planning the attacks, who had to make sure the planes appeared to cause enough damage to justify a collapse. How would the perps know if the planes would go right into the buildings or not?



The price of a dozen eggs is £1.20

Thats about as relevant as your point:

Except to note how unhealthy it is for you to be looking for personalities to define your reality for you, even ones with the track record of Icke: which does explain why con artists like the NPT pushers have found you so easy to manipulate into covering up the truth of 9/11 while you think you are exposing it


The fluoridation debate is extremely relevant because it involves corrupt experts peddling bogus science in return for personal gain, in the same way that Bazant, Zhou, Greening, Wierzbicki, Teng, Karim and Hoo Fatt have written papers to support the official lies of 9/11.

David Icke is relevant because he's an example of how thinking for yourself is more important than having formal qualifications.



Yep. Cos its real footage
Then your blather
"Information"
What a quant way of phrasing made up bollocks.
Obviously helps you swallow it
"Claim" "truth"


There are many hidden facts about 9/11 that should fascinate anybody who's looking for the truth, but instead what we find is they are totally ignored because they point to a politically inconvenient truth. One example is the positioning of the TV cameras just before the second plane appeared. The coincidences are too many to be accidental, but as with the amazing Naudet brothers fairy tale, the truth movement orthodoxy is not interested in pursuing this kind of inquiry.

It's a common fault of planehuggers to attack what they'd LIKE the no-planers to be saying rather than what they ARE saying. There's no doubt that some of you are deliberately ignoring the evidence and the arguments and to misrepresent them, although I get the impresssion that Ashur is genuinely clueless.



"well they are both information so who cares if I blend them into a fantasy inside my head": thats what your posts are saying to me. It's wearing underpants on your head and saying "Its a hat to me so there"
Evidence. Facts. Objective balance of reality
Not becuase I don't lap up fraud masquerading as "information" and fail to be so foolish, gullible or self deluding to buy it wholesale as truth
Your willfull ignorance is your own self harm Bryan. I can no more stop you that if you were self harming yourself with a razor in your own hand slicing your own arm
None what-so-ever, thank fuck, but here we are with the David Icke forum hosting a "special needs" section for the hopelessly deluded


Nice to see you back on form, John. It was posts like this on 911truth.co.uk that made me realize the accusations levelled against the no-planers were just rhetoric. You're an excellent recruiting sergeant and I'm sure there'll be other people reading this who can spot emptiness when they see it.

[stannrodd]

1. because its a very advanced and relatively NEW theory which in order to fully understand it, one has to have an advanced level of understanding of 911 in full context and have done an indepth detailed analysis of all the evidence. Most haven't and refuse to even do the most basic research out of laziness, ignorance or denial... like you.

2. because the MSM won't touch it. WHY? because they DID IT and/or were complicit in the operation.


since when is truth measured by WHO ACCEPTS IT?

your remark in of itself is beyond ignorant.

and when most in the world are IGNORANT to begin with, not to mention victims of brainwashing by the most elaborate hoax of all time, the fact its not accepted in the way you're eluding PROVES OR DISPROVES nothing you're asserting.

your entire argument is based on false logic and/or a false premise.

new discoveries are made all the time that aren't initially ACCEPTED.

just like the MASSES who refused to ACCEPT that the world was ROUND and called the FEW who were revealing that advanced knowledge, CRAZY and tried to SILENCE, SUPPRESS and BAN any discussion of it.

hmmmmmmmmm... thats kinda odd aint it? history appears to be repeating again.

Seems those same nazi scumbags are doing the same thing in this very group
and all over the net.

you wouldn't happen to know any do you? :rolleyes:

Can you cut out the NAZI insinuations please .. it doesn't look good.

You sound desperate !!

The reason the NPT is not accepted is that it relies totally on conjecture.

There are no facts.

How can you show a picture with no plane in it and say ..

"there you go .. PROOF!! "

That's how loony the whole thing is.

Stann

[bryan]

This is typical of your false logic. You seem to be suggesting that you know what happens when a 767 flies into a building constructed as the Twin Towers were. I doubt that you can honestly substantiate this claim.


I'm suggesting I know what happens when a plane collides with something that's hard and strong.

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2009/Feb/Week4/15229991.jpg
Wreckage of the Turkish Airlines jet in Amsterdam

http://www.nrc.nl/multimedia/archive/00207/ENG-crash_207716e.jpg
Firefighters look inside the Turkish Airlines passenger plane which crashed while attempting to land at Amsterdam's Schiphol airport.


As long as Newton's laws are not taking the day off, that is.



It is you and your band of silly theorists who need to recognize that it is your theory and since you own that theory, the burden of proof remains with those who have a need to peddle their BS theory.


A theory that's pure BS should die naturally and I find it hard to understand why so many people would make a such a concerted effort and spend so much of their time trying to discredit a theory they consider to be total rubbish. For example, I've got better things to do with my time than chase you all over the internet asking you to explain why you think the perps would fly a DC10 into the North Tower and pretend it was a Boeing 767. It's so laughable it doesn't need any effort from me or anybody else to debunk it.



The physics involved in the modeling is exact in terms of the model. I never said it is representative of the reality of such a collision between a 767 and a WTC tower. But I can tell you that it is a very convincing piece of work.


So the model doesn't need to represent anything in the real world, as long as it's designed by somebody with a PhD and produces the right result. But if we already know the result before we start, we can just skip the model altogether. The trouble is it wouldn't be science anymore.



There's only one real way to prove that a 767 can slice into a WTC type tower isn't there .. that's to do it .. and see what happens.


That's what the JREFers would like us to believe, but no, there's another way. We can build a model of the building, based on the construction plans, taking care to include the columns, the spandrels, the floor trusses and the concrete floor pans. Then we can build a model of the plane, based on the specifications of a Boeing 767, and fly it into the building to see whether the fuselage passes straight through the wall or whether it crumples up on the outside. The main obstacle seems to be that the physicists who could do it only have access to a PC with a 4GHz Pentium processor, which is not powerful enough to crunch the numbers. It makes you wonder where all the funding goes.



But why do that when it's already been done and we already know what happens .. not only that but the physics proves it.


Why carry out experiments when you can beg the question and assume the conclusion before you start your research?



You never did respond to the force vector analysis of the damage to the perimeter columns.. was that too difficult?

Simple high school physics !!


I did respond. After you drew my attention to the force vector analysis, I modified my position. You won't have noticed because you have no concept of listening to what other people are saying.

My original position was that the perfectly clean gashes at the extremities of the North Tower hole were the kind of damage that a planehugger would expect to see after the wings of a Boeing 767 had cut through the steel columns. That's why I was treating the bent cladding seen in the images of the South Tower hole as an anomaly.

After you pointed out that the bent cladding is exactly what we'd expect to see, I began to treat the perfectly cut North Tower hole as the anomaly. That's when my position changed, as you can see from the quote below.


If the bent cladding on the left-hand side of the South Tower hole is what we'd expect to see after a plane's wing has passed through, how can the cuts in the North Tower hole be so clean? There's no sign of any cladding having been pushed or dragged in either direction, and it's not reasonable to assume they were made in the same way.

[stannrodd]

I'm not sure that posting an image of plane which fell down into a soft muddy field, because of wake turbulence, during the final approach to landing is a fair comparison with a Plane impacting a WTC tower at 500mph.

The dynamics are very different.

For example, I've got better things to do with my time than chase you all over the internet asking you to explain why you think the perps would fly a DC10 into the North Tower and pretend it was a Boeing 767. It's so laughable it doesn't need any effort from me or anybody else to debunk it.

The first tower impact vehicle was never identified positively as being a 767. That was what was reported. I have never said it was a 767 .. I don't know.

The DC10 thing evolved out of the an analysis of the two gashes in the towers .. it is simply speculation as to the reason why the two gashes are different when perhaps they should have been strikingly similar, had the planes both been 767's.

So the model doesn't need to represent anything in the real world, as long as it's designed by somebody with a PhD and produces the right result. But if we already know the result before we start, we can just skip the model altogether. The trouble is it wouldn't be science anymore.

Let's do physics..

At the instant of impact there is no movement or standing still, because there is no "time " component. Motion or standing still only becomes apparent with a forward movement of the "time" component. (Second law of thermodynamics)

There is an impact between two objects. It doesn't matter if the tower was moving or whether the plane is moving , in determining what should or shouldn't happen. However in this case we shall say the plane is moving.

At the instant of impact the plane has a kinetic energy (force) content, and the tower has an ability to resist that force.

It wouldn't make any difference as to what the objects were made of, it's the energy values attached to the relative objects during impact.

If one force is larger than the others resistance then the outcome will be one way. If however that force is smaller than the other then the outcome will be the opposite.

So .. if the tower has the ability to resist the impact of the plane, then it should. If it doesn't, then it won't.

Simply stating that it should, is not proof.

You would need to provide a detailed analysis of the aircraft's ability to transfer the kinetic energy to overcome the resistance of the tower or alternatively provide a detailed analysis of the towers ability to resist that kinetic energy and therefore show that it was an impossibility for a plane to have penetrated the tower.

The simple fact that the planes penetrated the buildings shows that the buildings could not resist that first impact.

My suspicion is, that a detailed analysis would confirm the result we saw on 9/11. This has been done. I can live with that outcome.

Cheers
Stann

[white horse]

Well at least we haven't descended into name calling.

"The video record of 911 is the dodgiest of any previously recorded event... period."

Start there, then when you have fully explained or debunked every aspect of the video record then you can call me names.

Until then;

How do you expain the extremely dodgy live footage on the day. The supposedly shown live chopper 5 and chopper 4 shots... in particular.

I fully believe there is a case to answer in the recorded footage, and there are a lot of people who think the live and recorded video of 911 is way fucking dodgy.

Now what does that proove?

Nothing. Means it doesn't prove planes either.

Prooves nothing.

Which is exactly why I and so many others are sniffing around it so much because...

The video evidence of 911 proves nothing

At least remember where we are people. This is David Icke forums... this is not a 911 'Truth' forum. We can talk about anything here.

At DI we have always been able to freely discuss all aspects of things. And if you'll excuse me but some people here are not yet satisfied that we've travelled far enough down this road to see its end. In fact feels like we're being held back constantly. So much bad vibes and personal attacks. I've seen how NPT is hounded from 911 boards, but this aint a 911 board... back off on the personals.

I wanna fucking discuss the possibility of no planes, the possibility of holograms... I'd be much much happier to have everything I have ever proposed a a therory fully debunked and disproven utterly... then I can relax a bit, feel a bit of a fool and get on with my sheep life.

Otherwise, We're looking at the greatest event possibly in recorded history.

On the back of that one morning we have gone into two wars - how many countries did the US con into going into Iraq and Afghanistan?

http://pwhce.org/willing.html#list4

The United States invaded Afghanistan FOR FREE. There was barely an audible murmer of protest. The entire world was mesmerised and sat and watch them do it and NOBODY QUESTIONED ANYTHING!

(They got that for free, but Iraq they had to actually go throws the pretence of justifying, and the opposition was massive. But they still did it)

Without 911, as we all know neither Afghanistan or Iraq would have been possible.

And they are just the first step on this road. We know we were lied to from morning till night on 911.

Can you imagine the trouble we are in IF they did stage this without those Boeings appearing at all...??

I don't care about Septemebr Clues, it aint the best, I have seen others but the best ones have all but disappeared.

Just try to watch the unfettered footage that was supposedly shown live and sit back fully happy deep deep inside that you are watching a real live event unhindered, unfettered, wither durign the broadcast or later.

Cos I can't.

Like a lot of people I have spoken to - I looked at the evidence FIRST then went looking for theories. AFTER seeing reruns of the apparant live shots; why did it look so bad?? Started hunting around, there were many others thinking the same... what's this? We are hated and vilified across the internet for proposing such tosh!

No one is pedling anything here. I don't know if any others at these 911 threads have a presence at a 911 forum, but this aint one of them, so we can say what we like in this forum we aint splitting no movement by doing it.

I aint dividing no movement. And just what is this movement by the way? Where is it?

I'm not entirely sure that whatever movement there is floating around, much of it hasn't already been hijacked and rendered virtually useless. Call me paranoid but DI forums is sometimes like a Wilderbeast being dragged down by a couple of lions these days; has the feelign of being railroaded; being rendered useless by reducing every debate to a rabble, and scarign newbies off.

Hmmm...

[bryan]

No, the media is part of this deception whether it hits or not. It's not attracting the media they are part of it all. You start with a fallacy about the connection between the media and the event. So No. Wrong.


We're not talking about media connections to the event. I'm saying that even the official story assumes that the purpose of the first plane crash was to set the scene for a huge media event 15 minutes later. That remains true no matter who you think planned or carried out the attacks and whether the media were involved or not. Whoever did it, did it for the propaganda.



It's not a matter of getting the footage for propaganda. The event itself is the strategy. It's got nothing to do with bits and pieces of it. Your twisting this molding the framework so you can work with something. So you can make your baseless conclusions from it. No no-one particularly thinks the second plane crash was more important than the entire event itself. This is definitely cherry picking and not credible analysis of it.


If you don't think the images of the second plane crash were important to the perps, you need to watch some archived footage from 9/11 and see how many times they were replayed in the hours and days that followed.

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/9-11_TV_archive.html



That's not logical you are being bizarre. The controllers can't control everything. They aren't particularly over obsessed with the film footage they have the death of families and the trauma of the event would be effective enough don't you think? If they were there ready with cameras capturing it all in detail it would definitely be suspicious and obviously unnatural to know ahead of time.


It's not suspicious for the TV news chopper crews to be filming a blazing tower from all angles. It IS suspicious for them to be filming it only from the north side when a plane hits the south side. It's not bizarre to think the perps would want to get a good shot of the second plane crash to use as propaganda to kick off the war on terror. It IS bizarre to think they'd risk not getting any shot at all after going to the trouble of organising multiple hijackings, a military stand-down, and the demolition of seven large buildings.



Look, it's not even logical to assume it was CGI faked let alone assume they want to hide certain parts of it. There's nothing that makes any particular part of the event more special or forbidden. You're sculpting your argument around a pre-concieved conclusion that you want to try and use as evidence.

Bad news for you. We are no longer stupid anymore.....


I only assumed the planes were cgi fakes to test the no planes hypothesis. In the previous step I assumed the planes were real planes to test the real planes hypothesis. If you don't agree that it would be logical to cover up the faking of planes, then there's really no hope for you.



So? It wasn't a TV camera. It was someones home video.....They couldn't be everywhere at once they didn't know it was going to happen. Forgive them for not getting the exact details.

I guess he should have hired a helicopter and being right up close ready. Shame on him for not flying around to the other side of the towers for the next shot.

Don't be stupid......


You're happy to to write off the anomalies in the TV coverage as cock-ups made by the camera crews in the fog of war. Are you willing to do the same for the inconsistencies on the part of the government, the military, the FBI and the CIA?


All your other comments lead back to your basic assumption that the perps wouldn't have been arsed about getting a good shot of one of the planes hitting the towers. I must admit I didn't foresee that as a possible answer to my questions. I take it for granted that the images of the second plane were one of the major pieces in the psyop, if not THE major piece. I'd be interested to know if many people agree with you on that score. If the images were important for the perps, your criticism has no basis and my argument is valid.

Anyway, at least you've peer-reviewed my theory, which is more than your pseudo-scientist co-religionists have done. So thanks for that.

[stannrodd]

I did respond. After you drew my attention to the force vector analysis, I modified my position. You won't have noticed because you have no concept of listening to what other people are saying.

Simply missed it .. so you can cut the crap comments.

In light of that comment though, I went back and have read the entire thread and probably missed other things too. It's a human thing to do .. !

Well I found this comment from white horse in post #66 page 7 .. to which I will respond.

Why are images of the second plane videos showing an entirly black plane?

A high resolution image (18.9Mb) is available .. of the first of four which John White posted earlier .. this image. I'll upload it when I can access Photobucket again. They're down for maintenance right now.

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/2707/wtccrashlro3.jpg

This pic is cropped from the high resolution image.

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/impact6.jpg

It looks remarkably like a UA 767 to me anyway. It isn't just "entirely black" and it may not be Flight 175.

But then it's a still .. not a video ! ;)

Stann

[ashur]

If your genuine yes I will look into it. But you have some serious gaps in your conclusions. Very serious wide far reaching gaps. If you were correct then you should have brought a lotto ticket. As this is a totally random unlikely theory to want to focus on. And still very much disprovable. Because there is also some significant inaccuracies I see.

The purpose of the attack was to demolish the towers and do the ritual sacrifice. It wasn't about the media footage or setting the scene. When they made speeches gloating about it they didn't show the footage. This was because they didn't need to show the details of it. That isn't the focus of it. Otherwise they would have screened it over and over. And would still be doing so now. But they don't because it isn't the strategy or approach that they take with their propaganda.

They replayed it after it happened. But that's normal. Every significant event has to be replayed when it happens. It doesn't mean they were interested in details of the footage.

It is very suspicious to have helicopters flying around filming it. Cause they only had 60 minutes to react before the entire buildings collapsed. Not only did they not yet understand what's going on...They don't have permission to be flying around doing that it such a short period of time which such uncertainty and 'chaos' unfolding.There is no way they could have been in the correct position to film it in time.....They just don't have the resources and organization to do that in time.

Everyone in the media isn't aware. They are ignorant. They are only given what they need to do their part. Otherwise the media would be too transparent and become troublesome for them. So they aren't given the ability to do these things.

The reason why the theory doesn't work is whoever filmed that live the plane going into the building. They could not fake that plane explosion and they couldn't fake the resulting damage and smoke seen from it anyway. Windows media player won't let you do that. And why would he want to add planes to it when he is a civilian and has no idea what's going on.

If it was CIA fabricated fake footage. Then give me some evidence, or it's not even relevant to theorize it. Noting that there is not a full view of the second plane as it crashes is not significant evidence to theorize that.

Like I said the media is just humans being controlled, and they are not sufficient in themself enough to go off on their own and jump on every single event within the hour to film it perfectly. I don't think you understand what it takes to get a proper shot of live events like that as it happens. It's not easy. They did well to film building 7 going down as it is....

The images close up is definitely not wanted because it's obvious why. The planes were not American airline...and they had a missile attached that hit the building as it went in. So why on earth would they want a close up of that operation......The plane pic above is bad enough to realize it's not a authentic airline plane but an imitation it's black for crying out loud, that's military secret government stuff. It would be far easier to get it from a distance and keep it that way so no-one finds out what plane it was. Not because the planes were not present. That's taking it way too far.

Please re-consider sensibly....The no planes thing could be some operation to discredit us and decieve us again..

They way I see it, they are bold enough as it is using those planes in broad day light....They couldn't use airline planes as it's not designed for it. They really must know how stupid the public is, to be getting away with this stuff.....

But there is some that ain't this stupid. They are hoping or confident there isn't enough of us perhaps.

I always like to use this analogy, when you truly look back and reflect on this secret government stuff and then see them operating on this level in broad day light. It is like an elephant in the room.

They must manipulate all defense systems and control these major buildings operations. For they did infiltrate it magnificently to be doing this stuff. Not one person or group of lone terrorists can override the entire security of a countries airspace without serious reactions of military responses.

So you have to admit you are dealing with the people who MADE the system. I think they would be able to override their own creations when it suits them.....

[stannrodd]

The plane pic above is bad enough to realize it's not a authentic airline plane but an imitation it's black for crying out loud, that's military secret government stuff.

ashur,
I'm not sure how you can make that judgement given the lack of detail. Perhaps it's more that you want it to be military, rather than you clearly identifying the aircraft as being military.

Doesn't exactly look black to me. Compare these images.

Another image of the same plane on 9/11, at this address.

http://911wideopen.com/pics/UA175-port.jpg

And here is another up close photo of a UA 767 you can compare it to.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/529513/L/

Stann

[matrix911]

Simply missed it .. so you can cut the crap comments.

In light of that comment though, I went back and have read the entire thread and probably missed other things too. It's a human thing to do .. !

Well I found this comment from white horse in post #66 page 7 .. to which I will respond.

A high resolution image (18.9Mb) is available .. of the first of four which John White posted earlier .. this image. I'll upload it when I can access Photobucket again. They're down for maintenance right now.

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/2707/wtccrashlro3.jpg

This pic is cropped from the high resolution image.

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/impact6.jpg

It looks remarkably like a UA 767 to me anyway. It isn't just "entirely black" and it may not be Flight 175.

But then it's a still .. not a video ! ;)


SO WHAT???????

ITS DOESN'T MATTER.

Now once again, i have to lower the discussion to a kindergarten level so that your little mind can comprehend things...

you CANNOT assert or make the CLAIM the npt is bs unless you've disproven EVERYTHING in question in such docs like SC etc, or you can refute, answer and explain LINE BY LINE EVERY SINGLE ONE of the contradictions, anomalies and analysis thats been presented as supporting npt and fakery.

If even ONE CONTRADICTION or piece of evidence of fakery is not answered with an intelligent counter-argument including supporting independently verifiable evidence and facts, then your ASSERTIONS CLAIMS AND OPINIONS ARE WORTHLESS.

IOW, One only has to produce evidence of just ONE ANOMALY, or CONTRADICTION EXISTS.

The burden of PROOF is on the Govt and Msm to PROVE their CONSPIRACY THEORY.

These are the normal methods/criterion and concept used by any real COURT OF LAW.

Yet NONE OF YOU who cry about how full of shit the NPT etc is, EVER offer any academic, or scholarly fact-based evidence to refute or disprove the contradictions, anomalies, missing frames, cuts, and oct flaws!

if YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN, DISPROVE or show EXACTLY HOW AND WHERE that evidence is wrong, then it doesn't matter HOW MANY OTHER VIDEO'S OR PLANES YOU SHOW which you BELIEVE and claim are REAL.

You Can't have it both ways.

Either all the VIDEO EVIDENCE, FOOTAGE AND PHOTOS are CONSISTENT throughout the OCT "evidence" of PLANES etc and show the SAME THING, or they DON'T. IE, how do you account for the abnormal behaviour and many different colored planes, backgrounds, the ghosting, cuts, missing frames, blurred footage, moving bridge, tilted buildings, missing buildings, etc etc IN FOOTAGE THATS SUPPOSED TO BE "LIVE" from HI TECH media equipment?

Its either ONE OR THE OTHER.

Any unanswered questions, flaws or contradictions in the OCT and/or FOOTAGE etc can only mean INSIDE JOB and PROOF of A DECEPTION.

In which case the OCT is just that, a CONSPIRACY THEORY, NOT FACT, AND NOT PROOF OF PLANES etc.

And therefore, any questions and theories such as NPT when evidence can be proven there's FAKERY in the footage, are valid, reasonable and FAIR GAME to discuss.

Show me ONE SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE from the "LIVE" footage thats shows FLIGHT 175 and 11.

if you can't, then you can't dismiss NPT and/or FAKERY.

EOS

jeezuz effin chrizt you people are unreal.

[stannrodd]

You sound like a raving mad man..

What about the NAZI thing Mr Matrix ..

Your tirade sounds a bit like .. believe this which I assert is fact or else you are a nutter

i have to lower the discussion to a kindergarten level so that your little mind can comprehend things...


Seems to me that this is the level at which YOU need to operate.

you CANNOT assert or make the CLAIM the npt is bs unless you've disproven EVERYTHING in question in such docs like SC etc, or you can refute, answer and explain LINE BY LINE EVERY SINGLE ONE of the contradictions, anomalies and analysis thats been presented as supporting npt and fakery.

That's how you think .. it's not how I think .. it is your theory after all.

Show me ONE SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE from the "LIVE" footage thats shows FLIGHT 175 and 11.

I can't do that and you know it. It doesn't enhance your argument though, it simply shows that you and your likes are charlatans.

I have been very encouraged by bryan and his almost civil attitude to the NPT and I have been totally open minded to the proofs as presented so far.

That's a fair response from a researcher .. I like to look at what is on the table .. if it is presented without prejudice. I do think bryan is attempting to be seen that way for what ever reason.

For me it doesn't gel .. is that OK, or in your opinion am I a NAZI sympathizer because I don't fill your church !!

I'd really like you to address that last one .. because I do object to the insinuations you made in post #213.

Moving on though .. to simply suggest that all footage and stills in the public domain are faked .. is ... unusual and not really logical.

Another unproveable excuse for evidence.

Stann

ps The thread is called

No-Planes is disinfo? Then PROVE it

the above image shows a plane .. on 9/11

No planes IS disinfo

[ashur]

Stann it doesn't look the same to me......

Remember witnesses also said it wasn't American airline what they saw. It's not just based on the pictures.

[matrix911]

You sound like a raving mad man..


you sound like a little baby.


What about the NAZI thing Mr Matrix ..


what about it?

have you not attacked the npt? ridiculed it? or wanted it suppressed?



Your tirade sounds a bit like .. believe this which I assert is fact or else you are a nutter


which isn't even remotely what I've said mr hypocrite



That's how you think .. it's not how I think .. it is your theory after all.


that its a THEORY is your OPINION.

its NOT an OPINION the video evidence has been shown to contain fakery.


I can't do that and you know it. It doesn't enhance your argument though, it simply shows that you and your likes are charlatans.


what it shows is that you like taking sentences out of context to give the impression you've created any rational argument that disproves what i've said
so you can use the term charlatan. pffff



I have been very encouraged by bryan and his almost civil attitude to the NPT and I have been totally open minded to the proofs as presented so far.


open minded? logical?

"almost" doesn't count and has no place in discussion where OPINIONS prove and disprove nothing... FACTS do.

and spare me your holier than thou claims of being totally civil and respectful.

accusing someone of using STUPID logic and other derogatory disrespectful jabs, makes you a hypocrite.


Moving on though .. to simply suggest that all footage and stills in the public domain are faked .. is ... unusual and not really logical.
Another unproveable excuse for evidence.


To suggest that the footage showing a plane hitting the towers is not faked that most like you use as basis for your argument when there's irrefutable proof of video fakery whether you choose to believe or accept that fact or not, is beyond bizarre and illogical and demonstrates your complete lack of common sense and critical thinking skills.

but then I've explained my position on what NPT means which most have a retarded concept and misunderstanding of.


the above image shows a plane .. on 9/11
No planes IS disinfo

logical fallacy

not to mention its nothing more than your OPINION, however flawed it is.

[bryan]

At the instant of impact there is no movement or standing still, because there is no "time " component. Motion or standing still only becomes apparent with a forward movement of the "time" component. (Second law of thermodynamics)

There is an impact between two objects. It doesn't matter if the tower was moving or whether the plane is moving , in determining what should or shouldn't happen.

At the instant of impact the plane has a kinetic energy (force) content, and the tower has an ability to resist that force.

It wouldn't make any difference as to what the objects were made of, it's the energy values attached to the relative objects during impact.

If one force is larger than the others resistance then the outcome will be one way. If however that force is smaller than the other then the outcome will be the opposite.

So .. if the tower has the ability to resist the impact of the plane, then it should. If it doesn't then it won't.

Simply stating that it should, is not proof.

You would need to provide a detailed analysis of the aircraft's ability to transfer the kinetic energy to overcome the resistance of the tower or alternatively provide a detailed analysis of the towers ability to resist that kinetic energy and therefore show that it was an impossibility for a plane to have penetrated the tower.

The simple fact that the planes penetrated the buildings shows that the buildings could not resist that first impact.

My suspicion is, that a detailed analysis would confirm the result we saw on 9/11.


Stann, the most interesting thing about the above quote is that it's taken from a post you made on another forum three months ago, yet it's word for word what you posted here yesterday. Maybe I wasn't far off when I suggested you have no concept of modifying your position.

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54994

My suspicion is that it originates from the 'Resources for Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories' section of the JREF forum.



It wouldn't make any difference as to what the objects were made of, it's the energy values attached to the relative objects during impact.

If one force is larger than the others resistance then the outcome will be one way. If however that force is smaller than the other then the outcome will be the opposite.

So .. if the tower has the ability to resist the impact of the plane, then it should. If it doesn't, then it won't.


You're forgetting that I've debated this subject with JREFers and I know all the tricks. The physics you're describing here may apply to an analysis of a cannonball hitting a castle wall, but a plane is made up of different sections that would behave in totally different ways. The bottom line is that before the wings and engines got anywhere near the building, the front section of fuselage would be doing an impersonation of an accordion, and that would be obvious in the videos when we slow them down. Take any video of the impact and stop it when the plane's half way into the building. You'll see no sign of any damage to the plane, and if you look closely you'll see that there's no damage to the wall even after the wing has gone through. We had a 19 page thread recently on this very subject, as I've pointed out before.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50161



You would need to provide a detailed analysis of the aircraft's ability to transfer the kinetic energy to overcome the resistance of the tower or alternatively provide a detailed analysis of the towers ability to resist that kinetic energy and therefore show that it was an impossibility for a plane to have penetrated the tower.


Is it not up to FEMA, NIST, the FBI, and the Courts to show that this was not only possible, but that it actually happened on 9/11? It's a murder case, not a PhD assignment. The few half-hearted attempts at modelling that have been done weren't even officially commissioned by the government. They were allegedly done by scientists who were just curious about the physics of 9/11.



The simple fact that the planes penetrated the buildings shows that the buildings could not resist that first impact.


If I tried, I couldn't make up a better example of begging the question. There's even a kind of beauty in its circularity. The trouble is it has no place in a discussion of empirical science, except to point out the pitfalls of faulty reasoning.

Karim and Hoo Fatt make the same statement, but in a less elegant way.


Before the buildings collapsed, one can see an imprint of the fuselage, engine, and wings on the side of the buildings. This means that the airplanes must have perforated the buildings before exploding and starting fires within the building.


But to be fair, their paper was never intended to prove that the planes penetrated the walls.



It looks remarkably like a UA 767 to me anyway. It isn't just "entirely black" and it may not be Flight 175.


There's no reason why it should be even vaguely black. The sun was shining directly on the side that's visible, although from the left.

According to a certain video expert, or 'clever clogs' depending on your point of view, one of the hardest things to get right in video compositing is the colour. He thinks they gave the plane a dark appearance as a last resort, because they were struggling to make a convincing model of a United Airlines plane.



Moving on though .. to simply suggest that all footage and stills in the public domain are faked .. is ... unusual and not really logical.


The logic works better in the opposite direction: Physics and the video evidence prove the planes can't be real, so logically all the images must have been faked.

Your version of the logic is: Faking all the images would be impractical, so logically several miracles must have happened on 9/11.



I like to look at what is on the table .. if it is presented without prejudice. I do think bryan is attempting to be seen that way for what ever reason.


Maybe I AM that way. Have you heard of Occam's razor?

[joe911]

"almost" doesn't count and has no place in discussion where OPINIONS prove and disprove nothing... FACTS do.


well if thats the case then your reply to my 1st post had no place either>

those flights either never took off, were intercepted and forced to land, or the pilots were IN ON IT and the perps themselves... most likely MILITARY pilots dressed up like AA and UA pilots.

If the passengers in fact were all real, they were either also in ON IT, or EXECUTED

[stannrodd]

Stann, the most interesting thing about the above quote is that it's taken from a post you made on another forum three months ago, yet it's word for word what you posted here yesterday. Maybe I wasn't far off when I suggested you have no concept of modifying your position.

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54994

My suspicion is that it originates from the 'Resources for Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories' section of the JREF forum.

Did I forget to put a link ??

No point in reinventing the wheel matee !! It is a circular discussion isn't it.:D

Same argument, might as well use the same rebuttal.

Just one point though .. it is my work and didn't originate where you suggest.

Nice to see you checking up on me though, I guess it's called homework.

As they say .. "know your enemy" .. Truth versus fiction. Which one is which bryan?

You should call your pit bull (matrix) to heel as well .. he doesn't help your case at all.

Stann

[white horse]

Did I forget to put a link ??

No point in reinventing the wheel matee !! It is a circular discussion isn't it.:D

Same argument, might as well use the same rebuttal.

Just one point though .. it is my work and didn't originate where you suggest.

Nice to see you checking up on me though, I guess it's called homework.

As they say .. "know your enemy" .. Truth versus fiction. Which one is which bryan?

You should call your pit bull (matrix) to heel as well .. he doesn't help your case at all.

Stann

Why use a word like 'enemy' at a place like this? Are you saying you have no intetion of being in a discussion but have set up a position for a fight?

Truth versus fiction? That's a laugh. There is nothing anywhere in the strange land that is 911 has anything ever been other than theory from the OS to DEW. There is ZERO proof of anything related to... 911. What truth? So fine, NPT sucks the devils ass, but no one 'on the other side of the fence' can even decide what the plane was? A DC 10, a large drone, unclassified, a Boeing, what? No one has proved what it was.

'Eye Witnesses' deviate from not seeing any form a flying object AT ALL, all the way through missiles, cesnar, small commercial, and large Boeings, some even describing the livery. So where is the truth in that? No one knows.

And worst of all - (Ok call me a 'no-planer' if ya like, I stand up to be counted, I have a lot of sympathy with it) is that most No-planers begin in the video/TV evidence lounge and NO-ONE has been able to adequately explain that.

Stock knee-jerk reactions are;
1 - Look at the plane shaped holes in the buildings.
2 - What about the thousands of witness.
3 - You are splitting the 'Truth MOvement' with your false truths.

But they generally do not engage in a straight debate about the TV/video evidenc.

So OK;

1 - I have looked, but not in detail. Could have been made by a flying object 'spose, but I'm kinda leaning towards - aluminium doesn't cut steel.

2 - I have started to look and have seen/heard that out of the hundreds of witness statements recorded, only a very small number, less than 30, actually 'saw' the 'plane'. Talk of 'thousands' which is rolled out a lot is not based on anything, I have followed 911 for a bit and I have never been aware of 'thousands of witnesses' to the second strike recorded (except on forums).

3 - Somebody help me here. Where is this movement? Show me this movement and where it is being fractured by the planes discusion? Almost every aspect of 911 is open to fragmentation to the extreme... this is because many people are becoming aware of what the PTB are possible of and how deep this hole might go.

People seem to be aware of a shifting of the sands which signifies that the PTB are are in a final preperation for something big. TV fakery/no plane is a signpost on the road to that event, which will be some form of massive psyop.

And yes it is more complex to use a futuristic mixture RC drone carrying holographic projectors; what I 'believe' (probably 'imagine' would be a better word) was a mixture of real flying objects that emitted holograms. Just not those sceduled Boeings. No chance.

I have no evidence for this (except if you count the lack of evicdence as a form of evidence). It was just a thought, based on heresay, conjecture, and imagination, and other peoples theorising. However, I do believe it is not beyond the boounds of probability that they had the technology to do it, only just. This was a Beta test. Not all of it worked. The holograms were crap by the way, and the live TV was fuddled through like it was controlled by a load of school kids. Obviously a lot of work to be done.

We get trapped in linguistics and labels. No planers/plane huggers, etc, and oppositions are set up immediately before and discussion has begun. Some of it deliberate, but much of it just a misunderstanding.

However - one major problme is the lingo, cos I like many 'no-planers' I know began life in TV fakery.

I'm a;

TV fakery - Absolutely definately.
Boeings - not
Planes - probably not
Missiles - possibly
Drone holograms* - possibly/maybe

The way I imagine this is a holographic projector device attached or inside a flying vehicle, probably a small drone or a missile. I think this could explain the 'pod' on the underside, it was this 'missile' poking out from the projected hologram, being not aligned dead centre of the projected picture for some reason.

However, if this hologram device now works properly, they could fly drones all over our skies projecting holograms of alien motherships. Heck, they could even fly dragons around if they wanted! They don't have to be brillaint, we only need sudden glimpses to be convinced. With a marriage between real holography and CGI TV the world really would be their oyster!

After the military what is the biggest cash farm...?

Hollywood!

Military Industrial Complex + Hollywood and broadcast media = rubbing hands in glee!

[joe911]

Why use a word like 'enemy' at a place like this? Are you saying you have no intetion of being in a discussion but have set up a position for a fight?

Why else would bryan be checking up on him? other then the old phrase "keep your friends close buy your enemys closer" bryan was probably looking for an ace to keep up his sleeve so anyone who spys on you isnt your friend

[killtown]

Has any NPT-haters proven NPT is disinfo yet? Or are they still just shouting that it is?

[stannrodd]

Why else would bryan be checking up on him? other then the old phrase "keep your friends close buy your enemys closer" bryan was probably looking for an ace to keep up his sleeve so anyone who spys on you isnt your friend

"Know your enemy" is simply a term to describe the opposing view, the challenger, the other side, etc. This wasn't intended to label anyone as an enemy, as per white horses response.

I have always used "stannrodd" as my username, unlike others who visit multiple forums and hide behind multiple usernames.

I'd rather people be able to look at my history in forums. But often that history is misquoted and out of context. People do change their views with time.

Fill yer boots as they say in the Army. I don't give a damn, because it's the honest way of participating in 9/11 debate.

Are you saying you have no intetion of being in a discussion but have set up a position for a fight?

No, I like to discuss things, but I do that my way .. not the way I'm told to.

I can see why NPTers get pissed off every time they are challenged .. the simple answer is to start your own forums and work toward a common goal with like minded folk.

CIT forums do that, Pilots for 9/11 Truth do that, Artists for 9/11 Truth do that .. how come the NPT for 9/11 Truth doesn't do that. Instead you waltz around other peoples forums preaching something they do not subscribe to, do not want to engage in, and then they ban you.

Makes the NPT'ers look like trolls. Set up a forum, you can get free ones .. no cost $$ ... invite discussion and debate and work this theory out with your supporters.

Pushing the theory here or in similar forums, isn't gaining you any support .. it's simply marginalizing your effort. You don't need "planehuggers" in your group, but you'll get that in an open forum such as this.

Cheers
Stann

[joe911]

Has any NPT-haters proven NPT is disinfo yet? Or are they still just shouting that it is?

killtown you know full well its an ongoing debate doesnt the last 25 pages prove to you that there are alot of interesting discussions going on about it. So rather then coming demanding put up or shut up why dont you join in the debate and share your ideas?

[white horse]

We made 25 pages before we teetered over the edge of the rant room lol!

This is exactly my point! Why the attacking stances?

(And yes I might go to another 'more specialised' forum but I will still discuss it here - its something I've learn here, this is a nexus, a hub for an immense range of topics and posters. There are less than half a dozen other forums like this. 911 and conspiracy forums do not have this range, maybe Camelot and Cassiopea, not really deeply looked into them yet. But I do know I have settled here as my net forum home. So no, I wont move away elsewhere... good ploy... and I wont get into a fight... a discussion yes... fight no... wont do negative...)

'Kinnel!