The General Theory of 911 Planes

[white horse]

Ok I have developed my own theory on the planes, no planes issue.

(Ready to shoot me out of the sky in a ball of flame?)

After researching the planes issue for a couple of years I have now had a brainwave on the whole issue; there is not one aspect to this, there are many.

I am concentrating on the NY planes, and more specifically on UA175, the second plane.

Whatever hit the second Tower, I think we are all mainly in agreement that it was not UA175. As many have pointed out, why go to all the trouble of arranging this show, only to leave the most crucial element up to a load of half-trained extremists?


The Theory:

The real planes were subsituted for small drones/missiles, that are targeted to the Towers. (Accomplished with control of the commercial airlines involved, and the security firms at the airports in question, and direct control of the military/CIA)

The first plane hit was never intended to be filmed live by the media.

The media are now watching the tower burn and reporting on the story of a possible plane hit.

The second plane comes in and hits; despite this being the headquaters of the most cutting edge media operations outside London adn the BBC, no one captures footage of a large commercial plane over New York.

This is where the new theory comes in:
(I call it 'new' becasue forthe first time I realised it is possible that it was a missile AND a holographic plane AND a CGI plane - they are not mutally exclusive elements!)

The drone/missile is equipped with a transmitter. This tranmitter emits a holgram of a large 767 type plane. However, depending on the angle of the 'witness' some do not see the hologram, others do.

Also, depending on the angle of the camera, some see the hologram, others do not.

Additionally, the live TV feed is intercepted by teh 'perps' and a CGi plane is insered over the missile/drone on the live feed.

There are many layers to this theory.

1 - As this was expeimental technology they wanted to see how it behaved in the 'real world'
2 - The CGI was used for two reason; a) to test the validity and effectiveness of intercepting a live feed and the quality of the results; and b) as a fall back in case the hologram plane did not work at all.
3 - they used all three; holograms, real objects (missile/drone) AND CGI. This was to roadtest the technolgy in preperation for a future even larger scale global psyops that will rely on a believable image being shown live on TV AND to be corroborated by eye witnesses, hence CGI is not enough on its own.

They have got their feedback from the test; they can see how bad their planes looked on TV and will seek to improve that. CGI has advanced massively in the interim years, so that should not be a problem.

The hologram is a contentious issue. I don't believe it was a free-floating projection. I believe a real flying physical object hit the towers. but it was not a Boeing; this device transmitted a holgram, but as an infant technology, it had mixed results.

Seen from head on no hologram can be seen; hence the shots from Chopper 4 etc show a very small 'blob' approach the towers (definitely no plane seen here)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4YoC14qi4c

Was no plane visible because the hologram could not project a front facing view?

Here is the Fox Chopper 5 'nose oute/fade to black' live shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64lWubr31No

This looks like dodgy live CGI insert that doesn't go exactly to plan.

The other dogy live footage is the result of thi slive feed interception;

other video that was handed into news stations later was possibly the result of the cameras and operator seeing the hologram from the side view; the hologram did not work properly as it was flat and black. But it was useful to produce some feedback from real witnesses for improvements.

The famous CNN Battery Park footage that emerged later could be the result of a post production CGI mash up; the plane inseted over the missile/drone.

---------------------------
Conclusion
---------------------------

As we are seeing the reults of 3 actions; a live drone/missile, an experimental hologram projected by equipment carried by the drone, and a live TV feed interception, we cannot agree on the one thing that was used;

That is because it was not one thing alone; we are arguing round and round, it was planes, it was holograms, it was missiles, it was live CGI...

That is because they used a mixture of all of them.

This was a real live road test in preperation for a global psyops that will require a believable event that needs to be witnessed 'live' by millions.

Can this theory be feasible? What do you think?

In my analysis, if each element can be shown to be true; we all see planes in the footage, yet we also all see footage where there were no planes; something has to answer these anomalies; a mixture of all elements is the only answer.

The only certainty is that Fligh UA175 was never anywhere near NY!!

(If you are going to now flame me, [omg did he mention holgram!?!?! :mad:] I don't mind if you make it personal and call me a loon, this is DI forums, we are all a little unhinged else we wouldn't be here!! ANd personal insults have no effect on me...

But please try to come up with something more plausible than 'it's a ridiculous idea' or 'they could never do that' or 'it just isn't possible'

THIS IS MY NEW THEORY, it is meant to be now pulled apart to see if it holds up to scrutiny, that is what we do here, I throw this theory into the ring and see if it resonates with anyone, and see if it is possible/plausable or if it is totally unfeasable... Whaddaya think people?

Hologram technology; (not totally unfeasible that black psyops would have this technolgy in trial by 2001 is it...? After all the effects, if they did use holography, were pretty ropey...)

http://www.physorg.com/news2516.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thOxW19vsTg

http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2008/11/04/cnn_hologram/index.html

This from3 years ago; and you knw that military/black ops is years ahead of any commercial application of a technology.
http://news.cnet.com/Holograms-help-protect-Super-Bowl/2100-11398_3-6035042.html

I believe it is possible; and I believe 'they' would do it.)

[liltroofer]

This is very plausible based on what I've seen.

Sometimes people say "look very closely at the footage" to see where it is not matching up to physics.

Nothing could make the towers 'fall' the way they do on the video. It is mostly CGI with some motion-captured processing of amateur videos. None of the amateur videos make sense, even the ones where the impact is simply cut - probably due to lack of ability to make a plane for those videos that accounts for all the discrepancies in other videos.

The missile was probably in the AGM family, since it has the same proportions as a 767, though much smaller, and firable from a fighter. The vast majority of witnesses said 'small plane.' Even some of the media producer-hired actors and anchors said small plane. This is done to suck in the witnesses who saw the missile and would never id it as a wide bodied aircraft. *Everyone* was meant to be drawn into the TV screen and explain every question it forced us to ask.

Why were two fighters (at least) headed out to sea for no particular reason? Are the contradictions in the story the only way to mask that they were actually the ones firing the missile? Or missiles?

(Though personally I do not see the sense in the first 'hit' being anything other than an explosion. Where are all the witnesses along the entire length of Manhattan crying 'plane!'? Only the second tower drew a reasonable amount of 'plane' witnesses.)

Jamming recorders is not an issue, electronic warfare is as old as electricity. As for analog, we must understand that 7 seconds is not enough time to capture the only missile fired and besides that, they even had a back up. We have a story about a police officer whose job on that day was to go to the film kiosks and collect rolls. The questions we must now understand is the amount of emergency vehicles blocking the streets, the limited number of vantage points to actually see the towers from street levels and the forms of persuasion which hid people from the truth.

[liltroofer]

Another note, on mind control. One very old trick to get people to think 'properly' is the following:

a) Get attention (explosion/chaos)
b) Force trust by anticipating topics of speculation and being the first to introduce them ("don't imagine an elephant" forces the question: what elephant??)
c) Control speculation by creating and answering questions in rapid succession ("don't imagine the number of people in the towers. don't imagine the people in the airplanes. don't imagine the color of skin of the hijackers.")
d) Narrow variety of answers by methodical pattern invention ("could it have been a missile? a small plane? a large plane? a 727? a 737? a 747? maybe a 757 flown by hijackers? maybe a 767 flown by hijackers with box cutters under a terrorist organization that the US has been watching? maybe it was Osama bin Laden?")

If you know what actually happened, such as a missile being fired, you know what questions will come up and you know which 'experts' and 'expert witnesses' to call in to throw their weight against those facts and into the story you want people to believe.

Interesting how all of the witnesses on ABC, CBS, CNN, BBC, FOX and NBC all were producers of those stations, partners of those producers or under the employ of those producers? And isn't it also interesting how often the anchors declare that they can't see what's going on and must rely on those very people to narrate the 9/11 Video Game for them? The only purpose the anchors served was to keep people on the mind-control script. They were otherwise not allowed to see the in-simulation 'events' as they happened except to say things like 'oh the top is falling off' or 'oops explosion'.

[i_mght_be_hypnotized]

I am ready to accept that planes may not have been used in the attacks, or, if they were used, then they were not the planes full of passengers we were led to believe they were. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't recall any class action lawsuit or anything similar against the NASB, the airlines, etc. filed by the families of the passengers on these planes. You heard a lot from families of WTC workers who died in the attack, but almost nothing from the families of the people who were on the planes. The few individuals who did open their mouths (like Eileen Mariani) quickly shut them again in short order. I have heard talk of both threats and payoffs. One friend of mine tells of a coworker whose brother was one of the people who died on flight 93. According to my friend, several weeks after the 911 attacks occurred, she quit a high-paying job at General Motors and moved out of state, virtually no explanation given. Coincidence? Threats? Payoff? I am prepared to believe that
1. the planes were unoccupied except for the terrorists
2. the planes were piloted by remote control
3. something other than "simply" planes (like missiles, bombs in conjunction with planes, or something similar) were used in the attacks

[matrix911]

your assessment to me is the most plausible and logical.

so id agree


I am ready to accept that planes may not have been used in the attacks, or, if they were used, then they were not the planes full of passengers we were led to believe they were. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't recall any class action lawsuit or anything similar against the NASB, the airlines, etc. filed by the families of the passengers on these planes. You heard a lot from families of WTC workers who died in the attack, but almost nothing from the families of the people who were on the planes. The few individuals who did open their mouths (like Eileen Mariani) quickly shut them again in short order. I have heard talk of both threats and payoffs. One friend of mine tells of a coworker whose brother was one of the people who died on flight 93. According to my friend, several weeks after the 911 attacks occurred, she quit a high-paying job at General Motors and moved out of state, virtually no explanation given. Coincidence? Threats? Payoff? I am prepared to believe that
1. the planes were unoccupied except for the terrorists
2. the planes were piloted by remote control
3. something other than "simply" planes (like missiles, bombs in conjunction with planes, or something similar) were used in the attacks

[matrix911]

I agree with everything except the hologram imaging portion.



Ok I have developed my own theory on the planes, no planes issue.

(Ready to shoot me out of the sky in a ball of flame?)

After researching the planes issue for a couple of years I have now had a brainwave on the whole issue; there is not one aspect to this, there are many.

I am concentrating on the NY planes, and more specifically on UA175, the second plane.

Whatever hit the second Tower, I think we are all mainly in agreement that it was not UA175. As many have pointed out, why go to all the trouble of arranging this show, only to leave the most crucial element up to a load of half-trained extremists?


The Theory:

The real planes were subsituted for small drones/missiles, that are targeted to the Towers. (Accomplished with control of the commercial airlines involved, and the security firms at the airports in question, and direct control of the military/CIA)

The first plane hit was never intended to be filmed live by the media.

The media are now watching the tower burn and reporting on the story of a possible plane hit.

The second plane comes in and hits; despite this being the headquaters of the most cutting edge media operations outside London adn the BBC, no one captures footage of a large commercial plane over New York.

This is where the new theory comes in:
(I call it 'new' becasue forthe first time I realised it is possible that it was a missile AND a holographic plane AND a CGI plane - they are not mutally exclusive elements!)

The drone/missile is equipped with a transmitter. This tranmitter emits a holgram of a large 767 type plane. However, depending on the angle of the 'witness' some do not see the hologram, others do.

Also, depending on the angle of the camera, some see the hologram, others do not.

Additionally, the live TV feed is intercepted by teh 'perps' and a CGi plane is insered over the missile/drone on the live feed.

There are many layers to this theory.

1 - As this was expeimental technology they wanted to see how it behaved in the 'real world'
2 - The CGI was used for two reason; a) to test the validity and effectiveness of intercepting a live feed and the quality of the results; and b) as a fall back in case the hologram plane did not work at all.
3 - they used all three; holograms, real objects (missile/drone) AND CGI. This was to roadtest the technolgy in preperation for a future even larger scale global psyops that will rely on a believable image being shown live on TV AND to be corroborated by eye witnesses, hence CGI is not enough on its own.

They have got their feedback from the test; they can see how bad their planes looked on TV and will seek to improve that. CGI has advanced massively in the interim years, so that should not be a problem.

The hologram is a contentious issue. I don't believe it was a free-floating projection. I believe a real flying physical object hit the towers. but it was not a Boeing; this device transmitted a holgram, but as an infant technology, it had mixed results.

Seen from head on no hologram can be seen; hence the shots from Chopper 4 etc show a very small 'blob' approach the towers (definitely no plane seen here)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4YoC14qi4c

Was no plane visible because the hologram could not project a front facing view?

Here is the Fox Chopper 5 'nose oute/fade to black' live shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64lWubr31No

This looks like dodgy live CGI insert that doesn't go exactly to plan.

The other dogy live footage is the result of thi slive feed interception;

other video that was handed into news stations later was possibly the result of the cameras and operator seeing the hologram from the side view; the hologram did not work properly as it was flat and black. But it was useful to produce some feedback from real witnesses for improvements.

The famous CNN Battery Park footage that emerged later could be the result of a post production CGI mash up; the plane inseted over the missile/drone.

---------------------------
Conclusion
---------------------------

As we are seeing the reults of 3 actions; a live drone/missile, an experimental hologram projected by equipment carried by the drone, and a live TV feed interception, we cannot agree on the one thing that was used;

That is because it was not one thing alone; we are arguing round and round, it was planes, it was holograms, it was missiles, it was live CGI...

That is because they used a mixture of all of them.

This was a real live road test in preperation for a global psyops that will require a believable event that needs to be witnessed 'live' by millions.

Can this theory be feasible? What do you think?

[merlincove]

Hi white horse :D

The drone/missile is equipped with a transmitter. This tranmitter emits a holgram of a large 767 type plane. However, depending on the angle of the 'witness' some do not see the hologram, others do.

i think i came up with that some time ago and threw it around briefly on another thread, rather jokingly though. I'm surprised no one picked up on the concept, or at least that it has takenm a few months for anyone else to shape a theory around it. Which i didn't btw, just the hologram projection from a missile idea :D

i think it is a huge probability.

i like your thinking.

i have always looked at the holes in no plane and plane theories as they are strikingly obvious in both camps.

Maybe we have al been woprking toward the same conclussions, albeit from different starting points?

All the lose ends seem to tie up, al the holes seem to be filled with a mariage of both theories.

Respect

Edit
posted here

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43149&highlight=merlincove+banoyes&page=4

#33

by me

At best, and this is an extremely long shot, the planes were not planes at all but were cruise missiles, or similar, fitted with some technological hologram equipment that generated the image of a plane around it. I do not believe that, I’m just searching around a little, and nor do I believe that the technology to do that is apparent just yet. But that concept bridges both angles of the story, although it doesn’t answer why there was a plane shaped hole, I don’t think that holograms leave holes – and if it turns out to be true, you heard it here first hehe >>> humour btw <<<

[dave52]

I saw a very reasonable argument a while ago proposing that Chemtrails are laid down by drones that project holograms to make them look like average Passenger Airliners...

I thought the concept was pretty plausable...

Cool thread!

[mr_pixie]

Ok I have developed my own theory on the planes, no planes issue.

(Ready to shoot me out of the sky in a ball of flame?)

After researching the planes issue for a couple of years I have now had a brainwave on the whole issue; there is not one aspect to this, there are many.

I am concentrating on the NY planes, and more specifically on UA175, the second plane.

Whatever hit the second Tower, I think we are all mainly in agreement that it was not UA175. As many have pointed out, why go to all the trouble of arranging this show, only to leave the most crucial element up to a load of half-trained extremists?


The Theory:

The real planes were subsituted for small drones/missiles, that are targeted to the Towers. (Accomplished with control of the commercial airlines involved, and the security firms at the airports in question, and direct control of the military/CIA)

The first plane hit was never intended to be filmed live by the media.

The media are now watching the tower burn and reporting on the story of a possible plane hit.

The second plane comes in and hits; despite this being the headquaters of the most cutting edge media operations outside London adn the BBC, no one captures footage of a large commercial plane over New York.

This is where the new theory comes in:
(I call it 'new' becasue forthe first time I realised it is possible that it was a missile AND a holographic plane AND a CGI plane - they are not mutally exclusive elements!)

The drone/missile is equipped with a transmitter. This tranmitter emits a holgram of a large 767 type plane. However, depending on the angle of the 'witness' some do not see the hologram, others do.

Also, depending on the angle of the camera, some see the hologram, others do not.

Additionally, the live TV feed is intercepted by teh 'perps' and a CGi plane is insered over the missile/drone on the live feed.

There are many layers to this theory.

1 - As this was expeimental technology they wanted to see how it behaved in the 'real world'
2 - The CGI was used for two reason; a) to test the validity and effectiveness of intercepting a live feed and the quality of the results; and b) as a fall back in case the hologram plane did not work at all.
3 - they used all three; holograms, real objects (missile/drone) AND CGI. This was to roadtest the technolgy in preperation for a future even larger scale global psyops that will rely on a believable image being shown live on TV AND to be corroborated by eye witnesses, hence CGI is not enough on its own.

They have got their feedback from the test; they can see how bad their planes looked on TV and will seek to improve that. CGI has advanced massively in the interim years, so that should not be a problem.

The hologram is a contentious issue. I don't believe it was a free-floating projection. I believe a real flying physical object hit the towers. but it was not a Boeing; this device transmitted a holgram, but as an infant technology, it had mixed results.

Seen from head on no hologram can be seen; hence the shots from Chopper 4 etc show a very small 'blob' approach the towers (definitely no plane seen here)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4YoC14qi4c

Was no plane visible because the hologram could not project a front facing view?

Here is the Fox Chopper 5 'nose oute/fade to black' live shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64lWubr31No

This looks like dodgy live CGI insert that doesn't go exactly to plan.

The other dogy live footage is the result of thi slive feed interception;

other video that was handed into news stations later was possibly the result of the cameras and operator seeing the hologram from the side view; the hologram did not work properly as it was flat and black. But it was useful to produce some feedback from real witnesses for improvements.

The famous CNN Battery Park footage that emerged later could be the result of a post production CGI mash up; the plane inseted over the missile/drone.

---------------------------
Conclusion
---------------------------

As we are seeing the reults of 3 actions; a live drone/missile, an experimental hologram projected by equipment carried by the drone, and a live TV feed interception, we cannot agree on the one thing that was used;

That is because it was not one thing alone; we are arguing round and round, it was planes, it was holograms, it was missiles, it was live CGI...

That is because they used a mixture of all of them.

This was a real live road test in preperation for a global psyops that will require a believable event that needs to be witnessed 'live' by millions.

Can this theory be feasible? What do you think?

In my analysis, if each element can be shown to be true; we all see planes in the footage, yet we also all see footage where there were no planes; something has to answer these anomalies; a mixture of all elements is the only answer.

The only certainty is that Fligh UA175 was never anywhere near NY!!

(If you are going to now flame me, [omg did he mention holgram!?!?! :mad:] I don't mind if you make it personal and call me a loon, this is DI forums, we are all a little unhinged else we wouldn't be here!! ANd personal insults have no effect on me...

But please try to come up with something more plausible than 'it's a ridiculous idea' or 'they could never do that' or 'it just isn't possible'

THIS IS MY NEW THEORY, it is meant to be now pulled apart to see if it holds up to scrutiny, that is what we do here, I throw this theory into the ring and see if it resonates with anyone, and see if it is possible/plausable or if it is totally unfeasable... Whaddaya think people?

Hologram technology; (not totally unfeasible that black psyops would have this technolgy in trial by 2001 is it...? After all the effects, if they did use holography, were pretty ropey...)

http://www.physorg.com/news2516.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thOxW19vsTg

http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2008/11/04/cnn_hologram/index.html

This from3 years ago; and you knw that military/black ops is years ahead of any commercial application of a technology.
http://news.cnet.com/Holograms-help-protect-Super-Bowl/2100-11398_3-6035042.html

I believe it is possible; and I believe 'they' would do it.)

Very good post IMO :)

[skunksmash]

personally i believe there were planes.....

its far too much trouble to go to not to of used planes..??

not to mention the 30.000 ppl that would of seen rockets :rolleyes:

im not saying there were no explosives used b/c i know they used enough to sink a ship, but its far easier to send in 2 NATO air liners, under auto pilot than to create some big holographic farce......IMO ;)





:)SK

[thelyran]

personally i believe there were planes.....

its far too much trouble to go to not to of used planes..??

not to mention the 30.000 ppl that would of seen rockets :rolleyes:

im not saying there were no explosives used b/c i know they used enough to sink a ship, but its far easier to send in 2 NATO air liners, under auto pilot than to create some big holographic farce......IMO ;)





:)SK

...i agree,can't tell if they were Nato or US military planes,but they did have no windows.I know alot here favour holograms,but Holograms do not project
the sound of the 757's/767's engines...if you see various ground footage,you will notice people looking up when they hear the sound,before the impact occured...their is no mistaking the reverb and scream of a Boeing's engine...
to me holograms exist,geez,that had one on Obama's acceptance speech,but
they were'nt used on 911...I respect those who argue the theory,but it's
lala land...

[merlincove]

lala land? :rolleyes:

looking at the hologram thing though and then the largher implication of that, we can see then the possabilities of a hologramatic illussion appearing in the skies of of aliens / Jesus / Allah / Buddah / inserrt whatever religious figure head - to induce nationwide / global panic and fear.

There is a lot that can concievably go wrong with holograms, but then there is a lot wrong with the 911 picture. i would imagine that a hologram is suseptable to atmospheric conditions? if this is so then there might very well be instance of 'on, off, on, off' with the hologram as it moved through the air? But what we saw in Tokyo with Sony filling the Tokyo bay with a hologram 'sea monster' / loch ness monster was only the tip of what 'they' are allowing us to know what they have and can utilise. Or at least that is usually common concensus in the conspiracy worl...

Where are the planes on some of the footage? Why are there impact holes in the towers if there were no planes?

Anyway, thelyran, lala land is nice, you don't get snow and the sky is always blue, hehe :-)

[secondsun]

...anyone familiar with the audio of the witness`s to planes in the first couple of minutes of this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD0FM1c-4cg&eur

[merlincove]

...anyone familiar with the audio of the witness`s to planes in the first couple of minutes of this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD0FM1c-4cg&eur

That first guy sounds like Albert or Costello, from the who's on first sketch :rolleyes:

[bryan]

...anyone familiar with the audio of the witness`s to planes in the first couple of minutes of this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD0FM1c-4cg&eur

They're all witnesses to the first plane, which could have been a flyover just before the tower exploded.

[secondsun]

They're all witnesses to the first plane, which could have been a flyover just before the tower exploded.

...did you get that idea after watching Pandora`s Black Box?

...i always thought the North Tower jumped up just at the right time myself!

[dusthead]

...i agree,can't tell if they were Nato or US military planes,but they did have no windows.I know alot here favour holograms,but Holograms do not project
the sound of the 757's/767's engines...if you see various ground footage,you will notice people looking up when they hear the sound,before the impact occured...their is no mistaking the reverb and scream of a Boeing's engine...
to me holograms exist,geez,that had one on Obama's acceptance speech,but
they were'nt used on 911...I respect those who argue the theory,but it's
lala land...

No-one has answered the above point (which needs addressing for the theory to work). Just ignore the 'lala land' bit.

This is not just about visual, but also auditory material.

I am not dissing anyone here, but this needs to be discussed.

[christophera]

lala land? :rolleyes:

looking at the hologram thing though and then the largher implication of that, we can see then the possabilities of a hologramatic illussion appearing in the skies of of aliens / Jesus / Allah / Buddah / inserrt whatever religious figure head - to induce nationwide / global panic and fear.

Hallucinations can easily be caused by hypnosis and that has been around for eons. People can be post hypnotically programmed to go to a certain place at a certain time. The historical issue is easily covered by this. The population of a metropolitian city cannot be controlled in this way.

[dusthead]

Hallucinations can easily be caused by hypnosis and that has been around for eons. People can be post hypnotically programmed to go to a certain place at a certain time. The historical issue is easily covered by this. The population of a metropolitian city cannot be controlled in this way.

OK - feel free to keep discussing the 'lala land' thing.

I'm just off to the pub.

[dave52]

The population of a metropolitian city cannot be controlled in this way.

Go and look up Project Blue Beam...

[dave52]

This is not just about visual, but also auditory material.

Agreed, but also covered by Blue Beam. Lets not forget all the fly bys that were also happening. The other thing to think about is the vast plethora of engine noises on the videos. Lots of different sounds...

[bryan]

...did you get that idea after watching Pandora`s Black Box?

...i always thought the North Tower jumped up just at the right time myself!

If you want to talk about the witnesses to the second plane, go ahead. I know who they are and exactly what they said.

[white horse]

personally i believe there were planes.....

its far too much trouble to go to not to of used planes..??

not to mention the 30.000 ppl that would of seen rockets :rolleyes:

im not saying there were no explosives used b/c i know they used enough to sink a ship, but its far easier to send in 2 NATO air liners, under auto pilot than to create some big holographic farce......IMO ;)

:)SK

Ah yes - I do agree - it was far more trouble to use missiles with holographic projectors - BUT the reason I have come to think this way is that they used a far more difficult process as a means to test in a real-world situation a new developing technology.

They wanted to see the feasibility of the technolgy to use in teh future for other psyops.

The success was mixed, as people/cameras saw different things.

Therefore they went back to the drawing board with the technology to improve it.

This may have delayed the bigger psyops until the technology was ready - hence project Bleu Beam - which I am only just looking into!

They did not use real pilots/hijackers because the human element was too risky; they could have gotten cold feet, missed the target etc.

The easiest route would have been ot use rc planes - I 100% agree with that; I agree using holography is more difficult and more prone to error, but that was the point. They wanted to see how CGI/holography was viewed during a live event.

...

[white horse]

Hi white horse :D

The drone/missile is equipped with a transmitter. This tranmitter emits a holgram of a large 767 type plane. However, depending on the angle of the 'witness' some do not see the hologram, others do.

i think i came up with that some time ago and threw it around briefly on another thread, rather jokingly though. I'm surprised no one picked up on the concept, or at least that it has takenm a few months for anyone else to shape a theory around it. Which i didn't btw, just the hologram projection from a missile idea :D

i think it is a huge probability.

i like your thinking.

i have always looked at the holes in no plane and plane theories as they are strikingly obvious in both camps.

Maybe we have al been woprking toward the same conclussions, albeit from different starting points?

All the lose ends seem to tie up, al the holes seem to be filled with a mariage of both theories.

Respect

Edit
posted here

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43149&highlight=merlincove+banoyes&page=4

#33

by me

At best, and this is an extremely long shot, the planes were not planes at all but were cruise missiles, or similar, fitted with some technological hologram equipment that generated the image of a plane around it. I do not believe that, I’m just searching around a little, and nor do I believe that the technology to do that is apparent just yet. But that concept bridges both angles of the story, although it doesn’t answer why there was a plane shaped hole, I don’t think that holograms leave holes – and if it turns out to be true, you heard it here first hehe >>> humour btw <<<

I doff my hat to you if you came up with a combined general theory before!! :)

To me now, escpecially after reading about project Blue Beam it seems the only thing that makes sense of the conflicting reports;

(I know this is fictional - but I remember a Columbo where he was totally stumped cos it did not make sense; he was sure of the perp but he had a perfect alibi for one crucial element. Then he had a brainwave - what if he had an accomplice? he had no evidence for this, it was just pure thought; but now armed with that new thought, he was able to shift the eveidence around the new paradigm and work on finding evidence for the other accomplice;)

peace and respect! :)

[white horse]

OK - feel free to keep discussing the 'lala land' thing.

I'm just off to the pub.

Lol!! :cool:

[bryan]

I agree using holography is more difficult and more prone to error, but that was the point. They wanted to see how CGI/holography was viewed during a live event.


I think you might be in danger of making too many assumptions just because they support your theory. With an operation as important as 9/11 it makes sense to suppose success would be the overriding factor in their decisions about what methods to use to bring about the desired results. If the proof of concept was to see if they could pull off a huge TV-based psyop in general, they might have wanted to avoid any unpredictable test runs of cutting edge technologies.

One of the best arguments for not using planes is that it offered the best guarantee against unforseen disasters, such as a plane missing its target or not causing enough damage to the building.

I was wondering how many of the planes in the videos you think are holograms. Is it just the black ones?



The easiest route would have been to use rc planes - I 100% agree with that;


Was it not you who was describing how complicated this would be the other day? Somebody was. Maybe I'm getting mixed up. :confused:

[merlincove]

I doff my hat to you if you came up with a combined general theory before!! :)

To me now, escpecially after reading about project Blue Beam it seems the only thing that makes sense of the conflicting reports;

(I know this is fictional - but I remember a Columbo where he was totally stumped cos it did not make sense; he was sure of the perp but he had a perfect alibi for one crucial element. Then he had a brainwave - what if he had an accomplice? he had no evidence for this, it was just pure thought; but now armed with that new thought, he was able to shift the eveidence around the new paradigm and work on finding evidence for the other accomplice;)

peace and respect! :)


No mate, the gen theory is all yours, i just lent you the hologram bit :D

Re the noise issue, i'm sure that the planes make different noises on different footage?

:D

[white horse]

...i agree,can't tell if they were Nato or US military planes,but they did have no windows.I know alot here favour holograms,but Holograms do not project
the sound of the 757's/767's engines...if you see various ground footage,you will notice people looking up when they hear the sound,before the impact occured...their is no mistaking the reverb and scream of a Boeing's engine...
to me holograms exist,geez,that had one on Obama's acceptance speech,but
they were'nt used on 911...I respect those who argue the theory,but it's
lala land...

OK - so which footage are you refering too, cos there isn't a lot. There were only a few seconds available for filming.

Is it footage that was shown live?

If it was recorded footage that was handed into a tv station/the FBI then it can easily be sound manipulated can't it?

Also, there were other planes flying low around Manhattan; look at the footage closely, you can see helicopters and a big white plane all fairly low...

I don't buy that as conclusive proof; but I would be interested to look at any of this footage if you have any links...?

[white horse]

I think you might be in danger of making too many assumptions just because they support your theory. With an operation as important as 9/11 it makes sense to suppose success would be the overriding factor in their decisions about what methods to use to bring about the desired results. If the proof of concept was to see if they could pull off a huge TV-based psyop in general, they might have wanted to avoid any unpredictable test runs of cutting edge technologies.

One of the best arguments for not using planes is that it offered the best guarantee against unforseen disasters, such as a plane missing its target or not causing enough damage to the building.


Aye - but the assumptions came first and then the theory followed; sometimes it looks like one thing, sometims another (but never a real Boeing eh? loL!!)

Then I thought, if there is something to Blue Beam, maybe they wanted to get a multiple redundacny event to test the CGI and holos?


I was wondering how many of the planes in the videos you think are holograms. Is it just the black ones?



Hmmm... I'm not sure; I think the two left to right shots (CNN adn CBS)that were recorded and then handed in later; yes the black 'cut out planes'; possibly also the Battery park one (tho I'm leaning to thinkng thios was just pure CGI overlay)


But honestly; I find it all very confusing!


Was it not you who was describing how complicated this would be the other day? Somebody was. Maybe I'm getting mixed up. :confused:

Possibly - I'm entering new groung here now! I've started to think about holography because the TV/video footage is so messed up; I know holograms compicate the issue and introduce more chance of errors - but since discsoverin Blue Beam I wonder if they didnt sneak it in as a trial run;

It didn't foul it up too much really, even if it didn't work very well.

I'm on really shaky ground with holgrams!!

I just think it is possible...

[and where's mni and jw... cmon... I just mentioned holographic planes... surely you guys should be posting dog shit throgh my letter box by now??!! :mad:]

(Respect y'all for the discussion - the reason I came to DI in the first place, not cos everyone agrees, but because you can actually discuss things and move an idea forward with a mutual exchange of ides that creates a flexible pragmatic appraoch!! Woo hoo!!)

:) :D ;) :p :o :cool:

[3stepsahead]

theres a guy that makes a fake plane video in a couple of minutes on the tube.
he did use pre made props and some cut outs from the original video though but it is amazingly easy for an average person to do this.

[white horse]

theres a guy that makes a fake plane video in a couple of minutes on the tube.
he did use pre made props and some cut outs from the original video though but it is amazingly easy for an average person to do this.

Lol! Some of the 911 vids look so dodgey I bet they evenlet Bush himslef do one or two of them!! :eek:

[onourwayto2012]

Well if you're an "Ickey"...you would think that yes they do have the technology...was planned way in advance because they do have much more patience than us, and they have 99.9% of the bases covered.... as in just about every angle figured out..... and until someone figures out the one angle they don't have covered not much if anything will happen despite all our efforts.

[thelyran]

OK - so which footage are you refering too, cos there isn't a lot. There were only a few seconds available for filming.

Is it footage that was shown live?

If it was recorded footage that was handed into a tv station/the FBI then it can easily be sound manipulated can't it?

Also, there were other planes flying low around Manhattan; look at the footage closely, you can see helicopters and a big white plane all fairly low...

I don't buy that as conclusive proof; but I would be interested to look at any of this footage if you have any links...?


...just the first 10 hours live footage,various documenaties that followed,many
911 excepts,no sound variation,no holograms.In plane Sight being one of the
favourites.That first 10 hours of video tape,was various coverage of CNN
and ABC...done in real time,sorry not one Youtube reference amongst them...
and neither would I use that...but feel free to debate whatever.
Lala land is a place one goes to hide in a recess at the back of the mind...
because they can't deal with the reality of their true nature or the boring
monotony of their lives.It's also a place for those who can't deal with aspects
of their own relationships...but do sir,please feel free to debate whatever point of view.There are some premium researchers here...Mynameis for one...
he may give you some pointers...good luck.

[bryan]

...just the first 10 hours live footage,various documenaties that followed,many 911 excepts,no sound variation,no holograms.In plane Sight being one of the favourites.That first 10 hours of video tape,was various coverage of CNN and ABC...done in real time,sorry not one Youtube reference amongst them...and neither would I use that...but feel free to debate whatever.


http://www.911conspiracy.tv/9-11_TV_archive.html

Just give us the channel and the time and we can check out your claims. Most of the footage seems to be genuine. I only know of two clips that were altered by the TV companies for the archives. Both changes were made to hide mistakes with the cgi planes.



There are some premium researchers here...Mynameis for one...he may give you some pointers...good luck.


Would you say Stefan, Chek and Snowygrouch are premium researchers?

[white horse]

...just the first 10 hours live footage,various documenaties that followed,many
911 excepts,no sound variation,no holograms.In plane Sight being one of the
favourites.That first 10 hours of video tape,was various coverage of CNN
and ABC...done in real time,sorry not one Youtube reference amongst them...
and neither would I use that...but feel free to debate whatever.


No - what I meant was footage of the second strike; the longest footage I've seen has the object in view fo no more than ten seconds.

if it was only in the public consciousness for that short amount of time there must be a very small number of video and photo shoots of the event. There was little warning, and shooters had only a few seconds to capture the 'plane'; that's what I meant.

Which are the ones with the plane noise - seriously, it's a real question.


Lala land is a place one goes to hide in a recess at the back of the mind...
because they can't deal with the reality of their true nature or the boring
monotony of their lives.It's also a place for those who can't deal with aspects
of their own relationships...but do sir,please feel free to debate whatever point of view.There are some premium researchers here...Mynameis for one...
he may give you some pointers...good luck.

This is Icke forums right? This is la la land - then I'm right at home!

[liltroofer]

For all of you who believe airplanes crashed, I suggest you look up something called C4ISR IO information war technology, also known as C4ISTAR in the UK.

Also, please take a look at the military contractors who provide this service and who sit on the boards of those companies.

Faking airplanes is laughably easier than attempting to precision-fly an aircraft into a target *essential* to the official story of 'hijackers,' let alone wide-bodied passenger planes going - what was it supposed to be - 550mph? At sea level??

The question of using or not using real planes is akin to the following: Why does Hollywood use CGI and props? Wouldn't it be 'cheaper' and 'easier' to just use the real thing? Obviously, no. The military may have a lot of money, but they're not going to waste it flying 'practice airliners' into model towers. For ultimate control, you determine physics itself, and that requires simulation software, the same kind that appeared in all the TV networks and all the so-called 'amatuer' videos.

Does anyone here really believe a 30-second cell phone call was possible from 20,000 feet in 2001? Okay, then, try 30 minutes? Anyone want to try that kind of call TODAY?

[bryan]

Assuming that the main reason for including missiles in a No Planes Theory would be to explain how the holes were made, I think it's worth pointing out that a cruise missile has a diameter of less than 2ft and a wingspan of under 9ft, whereas a Boeing 767 has a fuselage with a diameter of around 17ft and has a wingspan of 156ft. That means a cruise missile would need to be used in conjuction with some other method of making the holes, and it could even be argued that the missile wouldn't actually contribute much.

On the other hand, there are quite a few potential drawbacks to the use of missiles.

Here are a few:


They'd have to be erased from the video footage or hidden by the cgi's.


They'd have to be synchronized perfectly with the other explosions and with whatever was used to make the holes.


They might be seen, photographed or filmed by witnesses.


They might go right through the building.


Parts of the missile might break off during the explosion and land in the street.


Is there any actual evidence to suggest missiles were used? Do the holes look like they were hit by a missile? Would it make sense to use missiles?

I know most no-planers believe missiles were used, but I wonder if they've really thought about what it would involve.

[christophera]

Faking airplanes is laughably easier than attempting to precision-fly an aircraft into a target *essential* to the official story of 'hijackers,' let alone wide-bodied passenger planes going - what was it supposed to be - 550mph? At sea level??

The question of using or not using real planes is akin to the following: Why does Hollywood use CGI and props? Wouldn't it be 'cheaper' and 'easier' to just use the real thing?

Hollywood and events causing mass murder witnessed by thousands while being videotaped on the first take with no post production are obviously different.

NPT even if true is meaningless to getting the truth and protecting our futures. Do you care about that?

[dave52]

NPT even if true

Wow that's a step forward Chris...


is meaningless to getting the truth and protecting our futures. Do you care about that?

Oh, you ruined it...

It's far from meaningless. How can we protect our futures while a complicit mass media are still in a position to feed us news from the agenda and shape public oppinion...?

[christophera]

It's far from meaningless. How can we protect our futures while a complicit mass media are still in a position to feed us news from the agenda and shape public oppinion...?

One specific issue that is verified is presented to media for dissemination. If they don't do it, publicize it however we may, and boycott them.

Explain now how to meaningfully use NPT.

[bryan]

Wow that's a step forward Chris...


Looks more like a step back to me. He's on the run and covering his ass!

[white horse]

One specific issue that is verified is presented to media for dissemination. If they don't do it, publicize it however we may, and boycott them.

Explain now how to meaningfully use NPT.

Becasue if teh real flights flew into the WTC then the media sat back and watched it happen like the rest of us and are innocent...

However if CGI was used then either there are levels of the media 'in on it' or the ptb/perps have the ability to intercept the media live news feed...

That's a big fucking deal...

That means that potentially every second of your TV could be faked...

[white horse]

OK - Lets get one thing clear yet again...

When we say NPT - we mean the NOT the schedule planes;

it should be NBT - No Boeing Theory...

Meaning there is no existing video evidence of Flight AA11 or UA175 in NY on 911...

Much of it looks like real dodgy CGI...

And I beleive there is a possibility of holography (that did not come of right, the chromotagraphy did not work so the 'planes' look black; ne 'evidence, just a thought/theory/feeling)

I beleive there were flying things; something physical hit the towers, but it wasn't what we saw on our screens.

[dave52]

Becasue if teh real flights flew into the WTC then the media sat back and watched it happen like the rest of us and are innocent...

However if CGI was used then either there are levels of the media 'in on it' or the ptb/perps have the ability to intercept the media live news feed...

That's a big fucking deal...

That means that potentially every second of your TV could be faked...

Yes White Horse - Spot on (see how easy it is to have a conversation Chris).

Just to be clear NPT to me means No Planes at any of the sites. I know that you are an advocate of the No Large Passenger Planes theory - and that's cool. We have common ground - no worries...!

[christophera]

Becasue if teh real flights flew into the WTC then the media sat back and watched it happen like the rest of us and are innocent...

However if CGI was used then either there are levels of the media 'in on it' or the ptb/perps have the ability to intercept the media live news feed...

That's a big fucking deal...

That means that potentially every second of your TV could be faked...

hmmmmm dave didn't answer, bryan BS's covering dave.

A point of media collusion is not a method of use by the public to gain more truth.

[christophera]

Yes White Horse - Spot on (see how easy it is to have a conversation Chris).

Just to be clear NPT to me means No Planes at any of the sites. I know that you are an advocate of the No Large Passenger Planes theory - and that's cool. We have common ground - no worries...!

Hmmmmm, dave evades answering HOW the public can meaningfully use NPT. We learn something.

[white horse]

hmmmmm dave didn't answer, bryan BS's covering dave.

A point of media collusion is not a method of use by the public to gain more truth.

:confused: what?

I mean - don't neven make gramatical sense let alone mean anything... :confused:

Your loosing me here... :confused:

[dave52]

Hmmmmm, dave evades answering HOW the public can meaningfully use NPT. We learn something.

Really Chris - you astound me. The Public can use NPT as a springboard to actively reject the mainstream media.

And don't accuse me of evasion until you have answered the fact that your theory relies on a documentary that no-one has seen and two very flimsy quotes without sources. Then you have the audacity to start using footage from 9/11 to prove your fantasy theory even though you have lambasted the NPT in the past for relying on footage from 9/11.

Double standards and straw clutching... sweet.

[christophera]

:confused: what?

I mean - don't neven make gramatical sense let alone mean anything... :confused:

Your loosing me here... :confused:

I'll rephrase. The fact that media colludes, does not define a method of using the fact to gain action, official, societal, or otherwise.

[christophera]

Really Chris - you astound me. The Public can use NPT as a springboard to actively reject the mainstream media.

And don't accuse me of evasion until you have answered the fact that your theory relies on a documentary that no-one has seen and two very flimsy quotes without sources. Then you have the audacity to start using footage from 9/11 to prove your fantasy theory even though you have lambasted the NPT in the past for relying on footage from 9/11.

Double standards and straw clutching... sweet.

Define how does public uses NPT as a "springboard"? Is there enough evidence to get the public to consider such a thing? If so, post it here.

[bryan]

Becasue if the real flights flew into the WTC then the media sat back and watched it happen like the rest of us and are innocent...

However if CGI was used then either there are levels of the media 'in on it' or the ptb/perps have the ability to intercept the media live news feed...

That's a big fucking deal...

That means that potentially every second of your TV could be faked...


That's exactly right, but five minutes later you seem to change your mind.

OK - Lets get one thing clear yet again...

When we say NPT - we mean the NOT the schedule planes;

it should be NBT - No Boeing Theory...


A plane that's not a Boeing is still a plane. The TV companies are not guilty again and aluminium cuts through steel again.

How will people who believe remote-controlled planes hit the towers feel about being labelled no-planers? :confused:

[dave52]

Define how does public uses NPT as a "springboard"? Is there enough evidence to get the public to consider such a thing? If so, post it here.

There is a tonne of evidence for NPT - unlike you Chris I don't see the need to keep spamming over and over again. NPT = TV Fakery = Media Complicity = public distrust in the media = a start...

[christophera]

There is a tonne of evidence for NPT - unlike you Chris I don't see the need to keep spamming over and over again. NPT = TV Fakery = Media Complicity = public distrust in the media = a start...

Okay, so you are blind to the effect or the potental effect of disinformation psyops. You loose credibility again and you haven't even gotten close to showing how the public uses NPT as a "springboard".

[christophera]

Becasue if teh real flights flew into the WTC then the media sat back and watched it happen like the rest of us and are innocent...

However if CGI was used then either there are levels of the media 'in on it' or the ptb/perps have the ability to intercept the media live news feed...

That's a big fucking deal...

That means that potentially every second of your TV could be faked...

Okay, post how you prove that is what happened on 9-11 so John and Jane Doe will understand, just to show how the process starts.

[christophera]

The TV companies are not guilty again and aluminium cuts through steel again.
:confused:

Stop generalizing and employing errors.

[dave52]

Okay, so you are blind to the effect or the potental effect of disinformation psyops. You loose credibility again and you haven't even gotten close to showing how the public uses NPT as a "springboard".

Oh my God Chris - you are unbelievable. This is my final answer...

Most people in the Western World watch TV and Movies. They understand how tv works and are familier with SFX. If it can be proven that the news they watch is created and faked to push an agenda and influence them - they just might be angry enough to demand a change.

There, a pretty concise and to the point answer. That's it. You have my various responses.

I have worked out what it is you do (I re-read a thread from ages ago where you did the same thing over and over with the B/I Seq). You ask the same question again and again in order to get people in a spin. At the same time you undermine them, chip away at their oppinions and generally exasperate the conversation. It is not helpful or constructive.

Now here is a question for you...

Bearing in mind that most of the people do little more than watch tv in their spare time, and given that most the people are not construction engineers. Could you explain to me how your concrete-core theory is going to make more of a change than the "media uses holywood fx to fool you" angle.

[christophera]

Oh my God Chris - you are unbelievable. This is my final answer...

Most people in the Western World watch TV and Movies. They understand how tv works and are familier with SFX. If it can be proven that the news they watch is created and faked to push an agenda and influence them - they just might be angry enough to demand a change.

If it can be proven that the news they watch is created and faked to push an agenda and influence them

Okay, that is what you have to do in order to show NPT can be made meaningfully useful.

I'm waiting.

[christophera]

Could you explain to me how your concrete-core theory is going to make more of a change than the "media uses holywood fx to fool you" angle.


I've already done this about 4 times in various threads. I can do it easily but I will wait until you show how NPT can be a "springboard" for the public or whatever your response is.

[dave52]

If it can be proven that the news they watch is created and faked to push an agenda and influence them

Okay, that is what you have to do in order to show NPT can be made meaningfully useful.

I'm waiting.

No - no more answers from me Chris - I told you. Now you answer my question please...

[christophera]

No - no more answers from me Chris - I told you. Now you answer my question please...

Allright, I see that as saying as that you cannot actually present a use for NPT in the "springboard" action you mention here.

Really Chris - you astound me. The Public can use NPT as a springboard to actively reject the mainstream media.

And don't accuse me of evasion until you have answered the fact that your theory relies on a documentary that no-one has seen and two very flimsy quotes without sources. Then you have the audacity to start using footage from 9/11 to prove your fantasy theory even though you have lambasted the NPT in the past for relying on footage from 9/11.

Double standards and straw clutching... sweet.

That's okay, I didn't think you could.

Here is how to meaningfully use the fact of the concrete core of the Twin Towers

When FEMA misrepresented the towers structural design to NIST, and NIST produced their analysis, the product was incompetent. It is ABSOLUTELY required in the case of a captal crime, in this case 3,000 of them, murders, everyone, to conduct as accurate as possible analysis of the cause of death.

It is alleged that 3,000 were killed and that a collapsing building was the cause. If the truth movement simply looks reasonably at the evidence of a concrete core and the above fact and unifies in a demand for an inquiry into this apparent deception, officials MUST comply.

Now we find out how much you actually want the truth.

[stannrodd]

It is alleged that 3,000 were killed and that a collapsing building was the cause.

It isn't simply alleged Chris .. it is a fact .. we don't need your theory !

If the truth movement simply looks reasonably at the evidence of a concrete core

..they would find Chris A Brown attempting a deception of moronic proportions ..!

..." and the above fact and unifies in a demand for an inquiry into this apparent deception, officials MUST comply.


So accordingly people/officials will bow down (= MUST comply) to Christopher A Brown = IMO = dung .. :eek:


Now we find out how much you actually want the truth.

Let's see it Chris .. some Truth

Stann

[dave52]

Allright, I see that as saying as that you cannot actually present a use for NPT in the "springboard" action you mention here.

That's okay, I didn't think you could.

Already did that - but as you insist in your attemps to decieve the casual observer...


When FEMA misrepresented the towers structural design to NIST, and NIST produced their analysis, the product was incompetent. It is ABSOLUTELY required in the case of a captal crime, in this case 3,000 of them, murders, everyone, to conduct as accurate as possible analysis of the cause of death.

It is alleged that 3,000 were killed and that a collapsing building was the cause. If the truth movement simply looks reasonably at the evidence of a concrete core and the above fact and unifies in a demand for an inquiry into this apparent deception, officials MUST comply.

Fair enough, that is a reasonable answer (although you appear to be suggesting that NIST is not complicit). Unfortunately the whole FEMA/NIST thing has been covered in the official 9/11 Commission Report. It is unlikely that we'll ever get another investigation in that way. What I'm suggesting is a more viral approach that will appeal to the masses. NPT, or at least TV Fakery is far easier to proove than your concrete core theory as all the photos and video are in the public domain and the Western World Masses understand TV.

[christophera]

Already did that - but as you insist in your attemps to decieve the casual observer...

You better explain that now

[dave52]

You better explain that now

You said that I couldn't present NPT as a means to springboard the truth movement forward. I already did it. Thus you prooved my point. You keep asking the same questions again and again and pretending that people aren't giving you answers. Re-read the last 2 or 3 pages of the thread. You will see I gave you a couple of different answers to the same question, yet you still insist that I didn't.

By means of a comparison, take a look at my response to your answer (when you finally gave it). I continued the conversation as opposed to alleging that you didn't answer.

It is tiresome Chris - really, really tiresome...

[christophera]

You said that I couldn't present NPT as a means to springboard the truth movement forward. I already did it.

No you failed.

There is a tonne of evidence for NPT - unlike you Chris I don't see the need to keep spamming over and over again. NPT = TV Fakery = Media Complicity = public distrust in the media = a start...

Oh my God Chris - you are unbelievable. This is my final answer...

Most people in the Western World watch TV and Movies. They understand how tv works and are familier with SFX. If it can be proven that the news they watch is created and faked to push an agenda and influence them - they just might be angry enough to demand a change.

There, a pretty concise and to the point answer. That's it. You have my various responses.

I have worked out what it is you do (I re-read a thread from ages ago where you did the same thing over and over with the B/I Seq). You ask the same question again and again in order to get people in a spin. At the same time you undermine them, chip away at their oppinions and generally exasperate the conversation. It is not helpful or constructive.

Now here is a question for you...

Bearing in mind that most of the people do little more than watch tv in their spare time, and given that most the people are not construction engineers. Could you explain to me how your concrete-core theory is going to make more of a change than the "media uses holywood fx to fool you" angle.

No - no more answers from me Chris - I told you. Now you answer my question please...

It is beginning to look like you are like stan, ...................... dave, working to keep secret, the methods of mass murder.

[dave52]

No you failed.

If you say so Chris...

[bryan]

I thought this thread was supposed to be about the relative merits of drones, holograms, missiles and cgi's. :confused:

[white horse]

That's exactly right, but five minutes later you seem to change your mind.



A plane that's not a Boeing is still a plane. The TV companies are not guilty again and aluminium cuts through steel again.

How will people who believe remote-controlled planes hit the towers feel about being labelled no-planers? :confused:

I suppose it's my reaction to the NPT label; when I say no-Boeings, that's what I mean.

It doens't matter what anybody positively puts forward, I negatively consider those flights were no where near the WTC. My starting point is 'No Boeings' most of us can agree on that. Then I move on a step or to to 'No PLanes' not everyone comes with me!

Trying to find some common ground, cos people reacte negatively to NPT without understanding what posters mean.

What is clear from the footage I have seen - no where in the footage of the second strike can I see any evidence of UA175.

However, I do beleive in a flying object of some kind; some people ascertain that it was just anopther Boeing type plane flown by remote control.

I just find that ridiculous.

If they went to all the bother of setting the whole show up, and then they swapped the real planes for planes like them, they why did they not look like real planes on telly!??! If they were substituted for likeplanes, then surely they would have at least painted them to look like the flights they were replacing?

Alternatively, were they black military planes that were black for a reason - so that the CGI could fill in teh image later? But then again why do that? IT doesn't make sense that they were large planes.

They, in my opinion, were either small drones (Cesna size) or missiles.

They were tracked/had transponders in them, and CGI layered on the top; additionally I have a lot of sympathy with holography theory, but only if that is used in conjunction with real objects and CGI.

I do flip-flop on this, you are right - it is vey confusing! :confused:

One thing I am sure of is UA175 did not hit WTC.

I also cannot understand why so many are ready to agree that there were no planes at the other sites, that the whole thing was a set up, and yet they scream and yell at anyone for saying tehre were no planes at NYC.

I suppose the reaction is becasue many people associate NPT with 'no physical objects at all' a 100% hologram or CGI.

I dubbed it No Boeing Theory as a point of agreement;

I got embroiled in furious debates with plane hugger, jw and mni, and yet, when I managed to pin jw down

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49589&page=10

after all the bile he had spouted at ANYONE who tried to suggest there was no evidence let alopne proof of UA175 hiotting WTC, he just comes out wiht 'probably another type of plane'!!! So biggest plane hugger of them all jw is in fact a closet no planer!!!

[white horse]

Okay, post how you prove that is what happened on 9-11 so John and Jane Doe will understand, just to show how the process starts.

OK Chris, never in any of my posts have I ever used the word proof... cos there is non, for either side of the story...

Words I use a lot are 'if'...

A good start is to show any brain-alive clear thinking person some videos of the 2nd plane strike.

MAte, I've shown it to a couple of people and they cannot beleive they ever believed that jerky black shadow was a real plane.

There is no magic bullet with 911 - different people react differnetly.

I have a frined who 'cannot see' the videos, he watches but does not see.

However, when it comes to the physics of the demolition and the evidence at the Pentagon - then yeah, he yells 'Inside Job'.

So many people at this board are 100% sure that it was an inside job, yet they get all flustered an angry when you try to show them 'no planes' - I've shown this vid to people and said - show me the plane. They got angry - there it is pointing to the screen. Errrm, that black blob I answer? In glorious sunshine that black blob is supposed ot be a plane?

The reasoning the give is that 'I can see it with my own eyes' - Like some posts above, we are conditioned and programmed from birth to believe whatever that tube beams out at us; we saw it on TV - ergo it must be real.

Others yell - there were thousands of witrnesses - but were there? , where are they all? There should be thousands of witnesses, there should be; cannot find them; two 'psuedo' witnesses have come to this board to claim that it was real, but they have not given one shred of evidence.

what they mean to say is 'I presume there would be thousands of witnesses therfore they could not get away with it.

I've seen less than a dozen witness statements from people who 'saw' a Boeing type plane fly into WTC with their own eyes; and less than half of them did not work for the media, or were actuallyless than about a fucking mile away!!

Still - despite the bile and vitriole, insults and accusations no one has presented me with more tha 0% actual evidecne of UA175 hitting WTC.

That is my startingpoint; with 0% evidence, it is my right and duty to look elsewhere and to develop and foster alternative theories.

What I find incredible is these so called intelligent people who have seen through the lies of the government and recognise an inside job, yet are so trusting and believe the fucking media presentation??

The MEDIA is the LAST thing I trust - that TV is teh most dangerous object in your home... :eek:

[bryan]

My starting point is 'No Boeings' most of us can agree on that. Then I move on a step or to to 'No PLanes' not everyone comes with me!

I got embroiled in furious debates with plane hugger, jw and mni, and yet, when I managed to pin jw down after all the bile he had spouted at ANYONE who tried to suggest there was no evidence let alopne proof of UA175 hiotting WTC, he just comes out wiht 'probably another type of plane'!!! So biggest plane hugger of them all jw is in fact a closet no planer!!!

Please note this is the first time I've ever felt like sticking up for JW and I don't expect to find myself in this position again for a very long time, if ever.

JW is not a closet no-planer.

It's you who's a closet planehugger.

No-planes is what it says on the tin, not a means of persuading everyone to go along with you. Your General Theory is so general it involves planes AND no planes. Don't you realize there are people who believe in hijackers who might be feeling left out?

(No offence, by the way. You did invite people to call you a loon, remember. :))

[christophera]

If you say so Chris...

No dave, I prove it and have proven it.

Already did that - but as you insist in your attemps to decieve the casual observer...
.

You said that I couldn't present NPT as a means to springboard the truth movement forward. I already did it. Thus you prooved my point. You keep asking the same questions again and again and pretending that people aren't giving you answers. Re-read the last 2 or 3 pages of the thread. You will see I gave you a couple of different answers to the same question, yet you still insist that I didn't.

By means of a comparison, take a look at my response to your answer (when you finally gave it). I continued the conversation as opposed to alleging that you didn't answer.

It is tiresome Chris - really, really tiresome...

Typical, you evaded answering again with a misleading post.

Here is what you posted and it does not provide a reasonable explanation.

There is a tonne of evidence for NPT - unlike you Chris I don't see the need to keep spamming over and over again. NPT = TV Fakery = Media Complicity = public distrust in the media = a start...

Oh my God Chris - you are unbelievable. This is my final answer...

Most people in the Western World watch TV and Movies. They understand how tv works and are familier with SFX. If it can be proven that the news they watch is created and faked to push an agenda and influence them - they just might be angry enough to demand a change.

There, a pretty concise and to the point answer. That's it. You have my various responses.

I have worked out what it is you do (I re-read a thread from ages ago where you did the same thing over and over with the B/I Seq). You ask the same question again and again in order to get people in a spin. At the same time you undermine them, chip away at their oppinions and generally exasperate the conversation. It is not helpful or constructive.

Now here is a question for you...

Bearing in mind that most of the people do little more than watch tv in their spare time, and given that most the people are not construction engineers. Could you explain to me how your concrete-core theory is going to make more of a change than the "media uses holywood fx to fool you" angle.

No - no more answers from me Chris - I told you. Now you answer my question please...

You said I was deceptive and that is a lie and it is proven with what I've just posted.

What is true is that NPT is absolutely useless information for anything but distracting and confusing the public search for truth.

[matrix911]

whats deceptive is any "truther" who tries to claim or insinuate an out of context assertion that the NPT is useless and lacks any merit or consideration.

No dave, I prove it and have proven it.
What is true is that NPT is absolutely useless information for anything but distracting and confusing the public search for truth.

[matrix911]

no proof of what? inside job? or fakery?

I disagree... there is proof... but not conventional proof perhaps.

and i've asked, what kind of proof is good enough or ENOUGH to be proof beyond a doubt?

thats the bigger issue and question to think about.

but then i've also said the nature of truth and understanding of it has to do with PERCEPTION and whats called THE LAW OF FREQUENCY.

If ones FREQUENCY is not high enough to resonate with the high frequencies the truth of 911 is on, most CAN'T SEE IT or won't until they're READY or their frequency/consciousness is RAISED.

eos


OK Chris, never in any of my posts have I ever used the word proof... cos there is non, for either side of the story...

Words I use a lot are 'if'...

A good start is to show any brain-alive clear thinking person some videos of the 2nd plane strike.

MAte, I've shown it to a couple of people and they cannot beleive they ever believed that jerky black shadow was a real plane.

There is no magic bullet with 911 - different people react differnetly.

I have a frined who 'cannot see' the videos, he watches but does not see.

However, when it comes to the physics of the demolition and the evidence at the Pentagon - then yeah, he yells 'Inside Job'.

So many people at this board are 100% sure that it was an inside job, yet they get all flustered an angry when you try to show them 'no planes' - I've shown this vid to people and said - show me the plane. They got angry - there it is pointing to the screen. Errrm, that black blob I answer? In glorious sunshine that black blob is supposed ot be a plane?

The reasoning the give is that 'I can see it with my own eyes' - Like some posts above, we are conditioned and programmed from birth to believe whatever that tube beams out at us; we saw it on TV - ergo it must be real.

Others yell - there were thousands of witrnesses - but were there? , where are they all? There should be thousands of witnesses, there should be; cannot find them; two 'psuedo' witnesses have come to this board to claim that it was real, but they have not given one shred of evidence.

what they mean to say is 'I presume there would be thousands of witnesses therfore they could not get away with it.

I've seen less than a dozen witness statements from people who 'saw' a Boeing type plane fly into WTC with their own eyes; and less than half of them did not work for the media, or were actuallyless than about a fucking mile away!!

Still - despite the bile and vitriole, insults and accusations no one has presented me with more tha 0% actual evidecne of UA175 hitting WTC.

That is my startingpoint; with 0% evidence, it is my right and duty to look elsewhere and to develop and foster alternative theories.

What I find incredible is these so called intelligent people who have seen through the lies of the government and recognise an inside job, yet are so trusting and believe the fucking media presentation??

The MEDIA is the LAST thing I trust - that TV is teh most dangerous object in your home... :eek:

[christophera]

whats deceptive is any "truther" who tries to claim or insinuate an out of context assertion that the NPT is useless and lacks any merit or consideration.

If NPT is not useless, explain how it is used to gain more truth. Step by step.

[bryan]

If NPT is not useless, explain how it is used to gain more truth. Step by step.

If NPT is true, you gain more truth just by knowing it.

[christophera]

If NPT is true, you gain more truth just by knowing it.

If NPT is not true it is useless and you waste every moment spent thinking about it, writing in support of it and everybody elses time who considers it and all of this is working against the actual truth.

Think about that and USE evidence and reason. #1 what is most useful to gain more truth. Focus on that, get other to focus on that. If we are successful in getting more truth, we will eventually get to exposing the NPT as truth or a psyops.

I already know and condem it and those that support it. Get more truth, then worry about it.

[matrix911]

If NPT is not useless, explain how it is used to gain more truth. Step by step.

answered and debunked

http://davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=736649&postcount=61
http://davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=741377&postcount=106

funny how you were conveniently absent in that thread

anyone with a brain who's done REAL RESEARCH and investigation understands that the true NPT isn't saying there were no planes.

whoever titled or created the NPT did so based on a false premise and misinformation.

or they were shills posing as truthers.

[christophera]

answered and debunked
funny how you were conveniently absent in that thread

I don't see an explanation of the process of using NPT there to get more truth. If such exists post it in the smoking gun thread.

Funny how the link does not tell me which thread that was. I DO NOT post in no plane threads, period.

[matrix911]

I don't see an explanation of the process of using NPT there to get more truth. If such exists post it in the smoking gun thread.


what PROCESS are you talking about. and Why don't you address what I explained, show exactly where its unreasonable or fallacious and then clarify or state specific links or examples that support what you claim is true or untrue.

hand-waiving doesn't count.


Funny how the link does not tell me which thread that was. I DO NOT post in no plane threads, period.

a REAL TRUTH SEEKER is willing to look at, consider, and research all evidence and BOTH sides of the argument in order to be OBJECTIVE.

clearly you have a BIAS which prevents you from being totally OBJECTIVE and therefore your OPINION has far less credibility and merit since you cherry pic whatever evidence or belief fits your agenda.

no doubt you'd have been among the type of ignorant know-nothings who would have laughed at the idea that the EARTH WAS ROUND.

http://davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49589&page=11

[christophera]

what PROCESS are you talking about.

The process of informing the public and gaining rapid support for demands upon responsive officials to conduct some compulsory lawful obligation and get more truth.

Explain how you would do that with NPT. Come on, ....... hurry dammit.

[stannrodd]

a REAL TRUTH SEEKER is willing to look at, consider, and research all evidence and BOTH sides of the argument in order to be OBJECTIVE.

clearly you have a BIAS which prevents you from being totally OBJECTIVE and therefore your OPINION has far less credibility and merit since you cherry pic whatever evidence or belief fits your agenda.

no doubt you'd have been among the type of ignorant know-nothings who would have laughed at the idea that the EARTH WAS ROUND.


Matrix,

Chris is a full time cherry picker .. makes idiot jam from it..

Stann

[christophera]

a REAL TRUTH SEEKER is willing to look at, consider, and research all evidence and BOTH sides of the argument in order to be OBJECTIVE.

I've objectively shown, with reason and evidence (that is what objective is in this case, you might not know) that the Towers has a steel reinforced cast concrete tubular core and that this core as presented by FEMA never existed.

http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif

And that the one shown here was essentially a engineered concrete container for high explosives, but the big piece of concrete seen toppling into the core didn't detonate because the rebar with the C4 coating was inadvertantly exposed to a harsh and early winter in 1969 then lost its explosive viability. BTW, just before the concrete wall appears you can see the concrete exploding in the zone over it.

http://i716.photobucket.com/albums/ww168/S_N_A_F_U/core_animation_75.gif

Explain why I should examine an argument at all that cannot explain anything and has a weak basis in evidence if I already have a fully feasible explanation for ALL of the profound phenomena associated with 9-11 at the WTC?

free fall
total pulverization
superfine, heated particulate
smooth, square cut column ends x the 1,000's
heavy steel assemblies heaved hundreds of feet (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11fivephenomena.html)

[adversarialreality]

Biggest smoking guns for no planes..

1) Nose out chopper 5 shot....the nose of the plane exits the building and it is identical to the 'nose' before it enters the building....simply impossible....claims that this 'nose out' is debris is ludicrous and deserves no response as it is just distractive nonsense....

2) Zoom clues: there are multiple HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS zoom ins and zoom outs that is proof of foreknowledge of where the 'plane' was supposed to hit the building...

In the chopper 5 shot there is an amazing 3 step zoom in that catches the 'entrance' of the plane EXACTLY.....even though the plane is not visible in the wide shot WHEN IT SHOULD BE...

Any suggestion that this 'zoom in' is anything other than 'planned' is ridiculous.....who does a three step zoom in DIRECTLY at the spot where the 'plane' impacts the building...when you cannot see the plane in the first place?

The Hezarkhani Zoom-Pan-Tilt is smoking gun....this man doesn't even turn around to catch the approaching plane with roaring jet engines...what he does is 'zoom out' 'pan left' and 'tilt' to catch the impact EXACTLY....the 'plane' swerves and hits the right side of the building and the camera does the same...
This is a staged shot...

Also in the Hezarkhani shot the guy doesn't even react to the plane impact until 7 seconds after it hits....this is incredibly suspicious...

Also when he does react he says in the most monotone cheap acting voice you could imagine, "Oh my god, a plane just hit the building, I CANNOT believe it."

Now this is the most obvious scripted line ever...If you just saw a plane crash into a building you would not wait 7 seconds and then use this ridiculous language...

Also the guy is Iranian, I guarantee if he actually witnessed this live and the plane was real he woulda been yelling in Iranian not speaking delayed monotone English, emphasizing "PLANE", and "i CANNOT believe it." Who talks like that?

[bryan]

Matrix,

Chris is a full time cherry picker .. makes idiot jam from it..

Stann

Notice how the concrete core Punch & Judy show has spilled over onto a no-planes thread.

A quick look at the list of thread titles for the 9/11 forum shows that 'The Infiltration Of The Truth Movement' and 'How Easily Are You Deceived and Mislead?' have notched up between them over 500 replies and 19,000 views. Both these threads were started by Christopher Brown, and neither of them has made the slightest contribution towards identifying the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks, except for the occasions when his arguments have backfired on him.

Recently two people appeared on the forum, claiming to be dedicated to exposing Christopher Brown and his concrete core theory. They are concerned we might allow ourselves to be led astray and diverted away from our search for the truth. Who are these two guardian angels who have our best interests at heart?


Gamolon is a JREFer who supports the OCT.

Now why would a conspiracy debunker differentiate between one 9/11 conspiracy theory and another? Why would he be sceptical of controlled demoliion but find NPT "interesting"? Why would he sign up to at least half a dozen forums just to debunk a 9/11 conspiracy theory that only has one supporter? If he thinks the concrete core theory is so barmy, why is he not happy for the truth movement to take it on board?


Stannrodd, on the other hand, believes the towers were hit by military planes and brought down using explosives. He also believes that no plane hit the Pentagon.

The trouble is, apart from debunking the concrete core theory, the only evidence of his five years of 9/11 research appears to be repeatedly posting the same image of a piece of plane wreckage photgraphed on the Pentagon lawn and asking if anyone can confirm it's from a Boeing 767. He then links to one of these threads whenever his credentials are called into question.


Since the mods here have to be impartial, there doesn't seem to be an easy way of stopping this kind of infililtration and sabotage of the forum. We really need to use the 'Report Post' button at the bottom left of each post to report off-topic posts, trolling and spamming as they happen. I've reported Chris today for posting yet again the same images of concrete cores he's been spamming the forum with for months.

[white horse]

Notice how the concrete core Punch & Judy show has spilled over onto a no-planes thread.

A quick look at the list of thread titles for the 9/11 forum shows that 'The Infiltration Of The Truth Movement' and 'How Easily Are You Deceived and Mislead?' have notched up between them over 500 replies and 19,000 views. Both these threads were started by Christopher Brown, and neither of them has made the slightest contribution towards identifying the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks, except for the occasions when his arguments have backfired on him.

Recently two people appeared on the forum, claiming to be dedicated to exposing Christopher Brown and his concrete core theory. They are concerned we might allow ourselves to be led astray and diverted away from our search for the truth. Who are these two guardian angels who have our best interests at heart?


Gamolon is a JREFer who supports the OCT.

Now why would a conspiracy debunker differentiate between one 9/11 conspiracy theory and another? Why would he be sceptical of controlled demoliion but find NPT "interesting"? Why would he sign up to at least half a dozen forums just to debunk a 9/11 conspiracy theory that only has one supporter? If he thinks the concrete core theory is so barmy, why is he not happy for the truth movement to take it on board?


Stannrodd, on the other hand, believes the towers were hit by military planes and brought down using explosives. He also believes that no plane hit the Pentagon.

The trouble is, apart from debunking the concrete core theory, the only evidence of his five years of 9/11 research appears to be repeatedly posting the same image of a piece of plane wreckage photgraphed on the Pentagon lawn and asking if anyone can confirm it's from a Boeing 767. He then links to one of these threads whenever his credentials are called into question.


Since the mods here have to be impartial, there doesn't seem to be an easy way of stopping this kind of infililtration and sabotage of the forum. We really need to use the 'Report Post' button at the bottom left of each post to report off-topic posts, trolling and spamming as they happen. I've reported Chris today for posting yet again the same images of concrete cores he's been spamming the forum with for months.

The 911 thread certainely have taken a turn for the surreal of late...

[christophera]

Biggest smoking guns for no planes..

1) Nose out chopper 5 shot....

Fake video is not a smoking gun. It is subterfuge and cannot gain any public support and so cannot be a smoking gun of any kind except one pointing at the psyops and disinformation campaign covertly directed at the American public trying to create a lawful government.

The witnesses that went home from watching planes hit the towers sat down and watched the event on TV and had NO PROBLEM with it for years. So an assertion of no planes now is ludicrious because it that were the case, the witnesses would have immediately started making big noises.

dave52 is already completely failing to produce anyway whatsoever to use the supposed smoking gun of NPT. Nobody can show a way to use information that has so much witness against it.

Perhaps another way to get official action could cause inquiry that gains more authority to investigate and then something of substance could possibly surface supporting NPT, but a reasonable person would seriously doubt that.

[dave52]

Biggest smoking guns for no planes..

That's a good list, I think the Nose Out is very important, as proven by the fact that Fox has already removed it from the official archive.

[white horse]

WTF!??!

Fake video is not a smoking gun. It is subterfuge and cannot gain any public support and so cannot be a smoking gun of any kind except one pointing at the psyops and disinformation campaign covertly directed at the American public trying to create a lawful government.


Of course it is - if the video is shown to be faked/fase, if it stands up to expert analysis as part of a major independant enquiry and is shown to be fake, waht else would you need to nail the perps?!?!

Find the fakers, find the perps...

The video the poster was talking about was the FOX Chopper 5 shot that was apparantly shown live on tv.

3 remarkable things about that video;

1 - The first is that it suddenly does a 3 stage zoom, the last stage ends with the towers absolutely central to the shot. NOT focused on the one tower on fire, but frames the two towers perfectly central. Measure it it is perfect (almost, maybe making a leap here, almost as if it was measured beforehand and the camera was zooming to a pre programmed setting.) Just as the camera has finished the perfect zoom (actually, notquite perfect) the second strike hits home.

2 - After the plane strikes, the nose of the plane appears to pefectly exit the other side of the tower entirely intact; as soon as this happens, the picture is lost for a second (to black) andthen regains as the fireball rises. The thning about this shot is that after the above process of the zoom, the pictue does creep a little due to the drift of the hellicopter. And you knwo what, it creeps by the same distance that the nose of the plane comes out the other side.

3 - If you revers the clip, as you zoom out from the last stage o the zoom, the plane is nowhere to be seen in the zoom outs!!! It should be there, but it is not.

It is as if the shot was preplanned to a certain zoom, to frame the towers to an exact program of events, the plane is then overlayed on top of this picture just as the zoom finishes. The drift caused the overlay to 'overshoot' and appear on the other side of the tower; noticing this the picture was killed momentarily, then the plane was removed. Back to picture all appears well again.

The plane IS NOT ther ein the zoom outs, and the nose of the plane clearly exits the building; the zoom in shot is done in such a theatrical way so obviously waiting for something.

The witnesses that went home from watching planes hit the towers sat down and watched the event on TV and had NO PROBLEM with it for years. So an assertion of no planes now is ludicrious because it that were the case, the witnesses would have immediately started making big noises.


You can find plenty of people who witnessed it but did not see a Boeing; there are reports of Cesnas, drones, small commercial planes, missiles.
[/QUOTE]

dave52 is already completely failing to produce anyway whatsoever to use the supposed smoking gun of NPT. Nobody can show a way to use information that has so much witness against it.


What witnesses?

In the shock and awe of the event we all saw what we were menat to, Islamicly hijacked passenger jets slamming the WTC and bringing them down.

The tv images were never meant to be replayed over and over and scutinised; they served their purpose int he weeks following 911, then were dropped. It was seared onto the public consciousness and there it remained. It has been a slow snowball process of bringing that information back up.

Most people haven't seen any footage sine the time of the attacks; show it to them now and watch tehir reaction to the fakery - some people I have shown it to cannot believe they ever saw real planes from that guff - they are in genuine shock.



Perhaps another way to get official action could cause inquiry that gains more authority to investigate and then something of substance could possibly surface supporting NPT, but a reasonable person would seriously doubt that.

WTF are you talking about??

[adversarialreality]

Fake video is not a smoking gun. It is subterfuge and cannot gain any public support and so cannot be a smoking gun of any kind except one pointing at the psyops and disinformation campaign covertly directed at the American public trying to create a lawful government.

So if the evidence points to no-planes tv fakery than it cannot be smoking gun, because it does not support your loosechange brainwashed theory?


The witnesses that went home from watching planes hit the towers sat down and watched the event on TV and had NO PROBLEM with it for years. So an assertion of no planes now is ludicrious because it that were the case, the witnesses would have immediately started making big noises.

Many people said they saw no plane whatsoever just an explosion. (ie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AfTyOyKEEQ)
It is ridiculous to assume that people who saw no plane then saw it on tv would be making big noises....people are easily persuaded to keep their mouth shut...and who would do that? they would be called a kook or a nut and be shunned by their peers....there is no reason to think anybody would come out with that....they probably would rather just forget the whole thing ever happened then cause a big controversy.


Perhaps another way to get official action could cause inquiry that gains more authority to investigate and then something of substance could possibly surface supporting NPT, but a reasonable person would seriously doubt that.

Something of substance? Watch September clues the soundtracks are forged and the planes are poorly made cgi composites that have dozens of errors, like overlapping textures when the planes is supposed to pass behind the towers, and 'black charcoal' blob in the place of a plane in 'direct sunlight'...'multiple flightpaths' which is unexplainable, unless the videos are fake....

Answer this why is the voice of 'Tina Cart' in multiple 'amateur' videos....this is 100% proven her 'scream' can be heard in 3 videos...

[christophera]

So if the evidence points to no-planes tv fakery than it cannot be smoking gun, because it does not support your loosechange brainwashed theory?

Loose change? Loose change? No dude. Those people support the official story of the structure, they have no explanations for anything that are feasible.

I can explain ALL of the phenomena that the truth movements terms "smoking gun" evidence.

free fall
total pulverization
superfine, heated particulate
smooth, square cut column ends x the 1,000's
heavy steel assemblies heaved hundreds of feet (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11fivephenomena.html)

My explanations are totally feasible and consistent with each other and all evidence.

A Ph.d in physics has publised a page on his web site that sums it up ver well.

http://libertycalling.com/cbrowndemomodel.htm

Do some research on who I am and what I stand for.

I entertain NO issue that is not useful in compelling official action. I discourage ALL PEOPLE from utilizin useless information for anything whatsoever.

Accordingly, if you can show exactly, step by step HOW the no plane theory can be used to get official action, you have my attention. Start with the first step which is getting the truth movement supporting it BECAUSE it has an element that WILL compel official action.

[adversarialreality]

Accordingly, if you can show exactly, step by step HOW the no plane theory can be used to get official action, you have my attention. Start with the first step which is getting the truth movement supporting it BECAUSE it has an element that WILL compel official action.

Well if the videos were analyzed by someone in a court of law showing the all the evidence that they are cgi planes....they could not rule that they are not.

The 'truth' movement u refer to is a fake movement...we were given our leaders by the gov't itself to cover up the real truth...because if we figure out exactly how they did 911 then they are in big trouble...

Tv Fakery is crucial because it implies criminal media involvement, and we know they will use this tactic in the future...so people need to know about it.

[bryan]

Accordingly, if you can show exactly, step by step HOW the no plane theory can be used to get official action, you have my attention. Start with the first step which is getting the truth movement supporting it BECAUSE it has an element that WILL compel official action.


The truth movement should support the truth.

That's what truth movements are for.

Who will people turn to when they find out the truth movement has been telling them lies?

[bryan]

Well if the videos were analyzed by someone in a court of law showing the all the evidence that they are cgi planes....they could not rule that they are not.

The 'truth' movement u refer to is a fake movement...we were given our leaders by the gov't itself to cover up the real truth...because if we figure out exactly how they did 911 then they are in big trouble...

Tv Fakery is crucial because it implies criminal media involvement, and we know they will use this tactic in the future...so people need to know about it.

Don't expect him to accept this as a valid argument. He'll just keep asking you to show STEP BY STEP how NPT can be used to get official action. No matter how logical your arguments are, he'll just ignore them and keep asking the same question over and over again. Eventually he'll start using language that doesn't make any sense at all, so you'll give up and not bother replying.

[christophera]

Accordingly, if you can show exactly, step by step HOW the no plane theory can be used to get official action, you have my attention. Start with the first step which is getting the truth movement supporting it BECAUSE it has an element that WILL compel official action.

The truth movement should support the truth.

That's what truth movements are for.

Who will people turn to when they find out the truth movement has been telling them lies?

They won't turn to anyone unless they can trust those that expose the lies, or that the information is useless to get more truth.

The perps who designed the disinformation psyops hopes that the truth movement will be fractured and cease any potential function. I'm working against that by establishing that NPT, DEW, nukes are useless information.,

Indeed, no one has posted ANYTHING delineating an actual method using those issues to get any closer to more truth.

[christophera]

Don't expect him to accept this as a valid argument. He'll just keep asking you to show STEP BY STEP how NPT can be used to get official action.

Is there something wrong with that?

Are you advocating that people spend time on information that is useless and working to distract them from information that can be used with uses defined here on this board?

[christophera]

Well if the videos were analyzed by someone in a court of law showing the all the evidence that they are cgi planes....they could not rule that they are not.


It would be nice if a case for getting that into court could be framed, but it cannot unless you are willing to sue the networks for violating public trust and falsifying information reagarding public information of mass murder.

If the courts will not recognize, follow and uphold freedom of information laws whic were invokde by the NYCLU in efforts to get the WTC documents that gulaini took from the NYC offices, not much chance of getting a civil action going.

There is no way to compel the investigative law enforcement agencies that have jurisdictioin to consider that video was faked and thousands of witnesses were fooled or wrong. So it is not going to happen.

The concrete core issue can be used to do that because FEMA decieved NIST meaning the due process investigation the government THINKS it has done, actually has not been done and we can prove it. Meaning an inquiry into the FEMA deception is first.

[adversarialreality]

The perps who designed the disinformation psyops hopes that the truth movement will be fractured and cease any potential function. I'm working against that by establishing that NPT, DEW, nukes are useless information.,


And what good has come out of this so called truth movement? What has happened since 9/11? Has anybody been criminally prosecuted? Has any of the perps been exposed? Have there been any further inquiries into 9/11 since the 9/11 whitewash commission?

No. Nothing has happened. JFK all over again.

Because the truth movement was set up by the perps in the first place to 'lead' away....if we don't know how they did 9/11 then you cannot prosecute them and that is exactly why nothing has happened....

[matrix911]

I'm working against that by establishing that NPT, DEW, nukes are useless information.,


and you've failed miserably.

the only thing you've established is that you've been unable to PROVE what you claim.

its really a waste to argue or debate with someone who deny's facts, ignores facts, and can't disprove facts or offer any intelligent line by line count-argument showing EXACTLY how and where what you claim is true or false.

now that we've established that, its useless and pointless to continue responding to anymore of your ill-conceived arguments, fantasies and logic.

[secondsun]

If you want to talk about the witnesses to the second plane, go ahead. I know who they are and exactly what they said.

....what about this lady in this video?

here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIiC7u266Hk&feature=related)

...`it was a HUGE plane!`....at about 4 minutes 12 seconds!.... save you watching it all!

...`came from the south`

...`flying so low`

...well you `know` who she is!... dont you!?

[bryan]

....what about this lady in this video?

here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIiC7u266Hk&feature=related)

...`it was a HUGE plane!`....at about 4 minutes 12 seconds!.... save you watching it all!

...`came from the south`

...`flying so low`

...well you `know` who she is!... dont you!?

Which Oscar shall we nominate her for?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01297/oscar_1297884c.jpg


Pity there's an edit just before the South Tower explodes. It might have been a valuable piece of evidence otherwise.

BTW, I was talking about the 10 eyewitnesses who were speaking to the newsdesks as it happened or rang in very soon afterwards.