The No Plane thoeory is a dead duck.

[stannrodd]

There is nothing to support this theory at all ..

Stann

[bryan]

There is nothing to support this theory at all ..

Stann

The quote below is from another thread, but I think it's entirely appropriate for this one too.

Sometimes I think
people start threads just for the sake of it, and to get some attention or something similar.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=905995

[white horse]

There is nothing to support this theory at all ..

Stann

In other posts you claim you are open to debate and ready to discuss 'far out' theories, and disagree with personal attacks;

Yet you seem to like nothing more than trying to bait people.

Youseem pretty smart, so I don't think you are a dumb ass, I think you must be doing it on purpose; either to get a rise out of people or to derail intelligent debate.

You're obviously not interested in discussing possibilities; why is it that you agree that ALL aspects of the OS are utter bullshit - yet you cling tight to the validity of the TV/Video footage as being totally genuine.

I can't take you seriously as you dont make sense.

There, you got a rise out of me.

[reversi]

There is nothing to support this theory at all ..

Stann

:eek:

[jahzel]

There is nothing to support this theory at all ..

Stann

Absolutely.

No Plane Theory is like saying Donald Duck was involved.

[dave52]

Ok,

Let's scale it back, as no-planes (or the lack of large passenger planes) is too hard to take.

What do we think of TV Fakery...?

Again, we don't need to go the whole hog, we don't need to say that the whole day's footage was faked. Are we able to discuss the possibility that some of the footage was manipulated or faked...?

[picha]

There is nothing to support this theory at all ..

Stann

If theres nothing to support it then please explain how a building can 'heal' itself after a plane wing has supposedly just sliced through it.

[kooskoets]

There is nothing to support this theory at all ..

Stann

Well well....

In the debate threads you had no reply to the raised points that prove it's impossible that real planes entered the buildings like we saw on tv.

So...you open just another thread saying 'it's all BS'....no arguments.

Please...don't be such a bad looser.

Planers have no real arguments to support their wild theory.
And this thread just makes it more obvious.

[bornagain]

There is nothing to support this theory at all ..

Stann

There isn't enough evidence to support anything in this world.


;)



~Born again

[goldengoose]

Ok,

Let's scale it back, as no-planes (or the lack of large passenger planes) is too hard to take.

What do we think of TV Fakery...?

Again, we don't need to go the whole hog, we don't need to say that the whole day's footage was faked. Are we able to discuss the possibility that some of the footage was manipulated or faked...?

I find your question so interesting that I am bringing video compositing expert Steven Wright back to 'Hardfire' next month to discuss just that. We KNOW that the Chopper 5 video was not faked, and we know that the sort of fakery posited by fantasists was not possible in 2001, but what is possible today? What will be possible in ten years?

[goldengoose]

Well well....

In the debate threads you had no reply to the raised points that prove it's impossible that real planes entered the buildings like we saw on tv.

So...you open just another thread saying 'it's all BS'....no arguments.

Please...don't be such a bad looser.

Planers have no real arguments to support their wild theory.
And this thread just makes it more obvious.


Have I entered a time-warp? All last week, I was discussing the three shows I hosted featuring NASA scientist Ryan Mackey lecturing on the physics of 9/11. He showed exactly why the planes entered the building as they did.

The second show is the most relevant:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8184528465256118271

Are you attempting parody? The no-planes fantasy is towering madness. It is beyond insane.

[bryan]

I find your question so interesting that I am bringing video compositing expert Steven Wright back to 'Hardfire' next month to discuss just that. We KNOW that the Chopper 5 video was not faked, and we know that the sort of fakery posited by fantasists was not possible in 2001, but what is possible today? What will be possible in ten years?

According to a video compositing expert who hasn't been paid off, Avid were advertising the necessary features in one of their products in 2001.

[dave52]

I find your question so interesting that I am bringing video compositing expert Steven Wright back to 'Hardfire' next month to discuss just that. We KNOW that the Chopper 5 video was not faked, and we know that the sort of fakery posited by fantasists was not possible in 2001, but what is possible today? What will be possible in ten years?

Er... are you Ronald Wieck...?

[bryan]

Er... are you Ronald Wieck...?

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57981&page=5

(post #43)

[dave52]

(post #43)

Damn, I've debated goldengoose on a number of occasions, what a waste of my fucking life. I can never get that time back you know...

[bryan]

Damn, I've debated goldengoose on a number of occasions, what a waste of my fucking life. I can never get that time back you know...

If you add it to the time you spent debating Chris, you'll have to live till you're 100 just to make up for it!

[goldengoose]

According to a video compositing expert who hasn't been paid off, Avid were advertising the necessary features in one of their products in 2001.


Isn't your chin getting sore by now? No, delusional egomaniac Ace Baker is, as usual, wrong. Wright's friends at Avid are in complete agreement with him. The sort of real time compositing conspiracy liars babble about is not possible.

[goldengoose]

Damn, I've debated goldengoose on a number of occasions, what a waste of my fucking life. I can never get that time back you know...

Look at the bright side. You didn't learn a thing! Your record is unblemished.

God keep you safe from anything as dangerous as knowledge.

[goldengoose]

According to a video compositing expert who hasn't been paid off, Avid were advertising the necessary features in one of their products in 2001.



Of course you are prepared to tell us what your slanderous falsehood about Steven Wright is based on. No? You've been caught lying again? How humiliating for you.

[stannrodd]

It's still a dead duck .. !

Stann

[helloperator]

goldenshower, you're a travesty of a joke

[goldengoose]

goldenshower, you're a travesty of a joke

Thanks for pointing out all my errors. Amazing, you managed to include every mistake I've made and all the actual evidence the fantasy movement has uncovered in one pithy, worthless post.

[secondsun]

...no plane theory is not a dead duck!... its an imaginary duck!.... that never existed in the first place!

[white horse]

We KNOW that the Chopper 5 video was not faked,

Do we? I must have missed that one...

Do you have anby thread links or vids that show absolutely that the chopper 5 video is totally genuine?

What about the chopper 4 video?

[john white]

Ok,

Let's scale it back, as no-planes (or the lack of large passenger planes) is too hard to take.

What do we think of TV Fakery...?

Again, we don't need to go the whole hog, we don't need to say that the whole day's footage was faked. Are we able to discuss the possibility that some of the footage was manipulated or faked...?

Dave, we have been here before

You HAVE to say ALL the footage is faked: not SOME: ALL

So what's the point in you saying "hey lets assume only some of the footage is faked"

You see, the actual evidence of Planes is so strong it could quite happily survive some footage being shown to be fake (although this of course, has NEVER happened)... even 99.9% of footage being faked (although, also of course, it is not)

But NPT cannot survive even 0.1% of footage being genuine

Time to give it up Dave, you've been conned, and increasingly, I believe you know inside yourself that is the case

Bad luck, could happen to anyone, but it happened to you, time to ask yourself where you went wrong and learn not to be fooled next time

By the way, Killtown and other NPT pushing fraudsters are compounding Treason against the United States and are complicit in protecting the murderers of 3000 Americans, the crime that led to the war on terror and the murder of Millions more

[stannrodd]

If theres nothing to support it then please explain how a building can 'heal' itself after a plane wing has supposedly just sliced through it.

Not sure what you mean by this ..

This is the result of whatever happened at the South Tower .. it doesn't look "healed" as you assert .. at least in my opinion.

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/wtc2gash0jh.jpg

This what the North Tower looked like just 15 seconds after impact .. it doesn't look healed either ..

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/nt_15sec.jpg

Stann

[dave52]

You HAVE to say ALL the footage is faked: not SOME: ALL

Not at all, I'm quite happy with a mix of real and faked footage.


Time to give it up Dave, you've been conned, and increasingly, I believe you know inside yourself that is the case

If you say so John... if you say so. It must be awesome to know what's happening in other people's minds. You're so good at it - you know what I'm thinking, deep down inside myself, before I even know it.

Brilliant.

[stannrodd]

Sometimes being humble is a powerful tool..

Stann

[bryan]

Not sure what you mean by this ..

This is the result of whatever happened at the South Tower .. it doesn't look "healed" as you assert .. at least in my opinion.


You're not sure what it means because you make a point of only looking at the result of the impacts, not the process or the sequence of events.

I can't say I blame you - it's the only way your con trick can work.

[john white]

Not at all, I'm quite happy with a mix of real and faked footage.

Byyyyeeeeeeeeeee NPT

You'll face up to it Dave

Even worse than the time you have "wasted" debating Goldengoose if the time you've wasted on the NPT Canard

And you know what?

Look at the time I've wasted too if you really don't "get it" and arn't just carrying on with this foolishness out of habit

Tragic isnt it?

You see any traitors brought to justice while we have been wasting our time?

Perhaps that makes us BOTH fools, huh?

[dave52]

Byyyyeeeeeeeeeee NPT

I'm not sure why a mix of real footage and fake footage sounds the death knell for NPT. I've never said that all the footage was fake.


the time you have "wasted" debating Goldengoose

Yeah, that was pretty annoying - I won't be doing that again.

[stannrodd]

You're not sure what it means because you make a point of only looking at the result of the impacts, not the process or the sequence of events.

I can't say I blame you - it's the only way your con trick can work.

I didn't see the sequence of events bryan .. did you ?

I'm not sure why you would want to accuse me of doing some con trick which you allege would imply

it's the only way your con trick can work.


.. are you implying something here bryan.. I think so..

It would be good if you could just discuss the topic .. which is about a certain dead duck !!http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/rofll.gif

If you don't agree that the ** ***** ****** is not a dead duck .. then feel free to post your doctrine here ..

Stann

[john white]

real footage

Real footage = there were planes= planes hit the towers

It doesn't matter how much you think is fake Dave, IF its fake its proof of nothing, not proof there was nothing

C'mon you know that

[dave52]

Real footage = there were planes= planes hit the towers

There is footage that doesn't show planes. There's a chance that that was real. I'm not debating this with you John, it's pointless.

[john white]

There is footage that doesn't show planes. There's a chance that that was real. I'm not debating this with you John, it's pointless.

Ah so it IS "anything that looks even slightly planey is fake, but New York I DO accept as real"

You see Dave, there really is no point you floating the hypothetical "some" of the footage faked, is there?

I'm just saying lets be honest, one single FRAME with a Plane in it that is NOT faked, and NPT falls apart

You know it and I know it, and yeah, it's pointless, isn't it?

And yes, despite your scepticism about my instincts relating to yourself, yes I do think you know that, and that your floating towards "some" footage is fake is actually you trying to move away from what you do know isn't true

Good news is that if you are able to keep wondering within yourself, then at least for you it isn't pointless and you will one day be able to accept you got yourself conned by fruadsters. Believing that you do place a value on truth, ultimately that realisation will be worthwhile

[dave52]

Ah so it IS "anything that looks even slightly planey is fake, but New York I DO accept as real"

You see this is why it's pointless...

You say, "NPT is dead".
I say, "What about the manipulated footage".
You say, "NPT is dead".
I say, "What about the manipulated footage".
You say, "NPT is dead".
I say, "What about the manipulated footage".
You say, "NPT is dead".
I say, "What about the manipulated footage".
You say, "NPT is dead".
I say, "What about the manipulated footage".

Until we eventually die. Then, when our souls meet up in the great cosmic collective self, we'll have a bit of a laugh about it, then I'll go off and be a Chaffinch, because they're rather sweet, and you'll go and be a Baluga Whale or something for a while...

http://web.me.com/daveware/Sues_News/Blog/Entries/2009/4/4_Stomp_around_Lakes_files/DSCF1274.jpg

http://www.solarnavigator.net/animal_kingdom/animal_images/whale_beluga_submerged.jpg

[stannrodd]

There is footage that doesn't show planes.

Correct.

Stann :)

[john white]

You see this is why it's pointless...

You say, "NPT is dead".
I say, "What about the manipulated footage".
You say, "NPT is dead".
I say, "What about the manipulated footage".
You say, "NPT is dead".
I say, "What about the manipulated footage".
You say, "NPT is dead".
I say, "What about the manipulated footage".
You say, "NPT is dead".
I say, "What about the manipulated footage".

Until we eventually die. Then, when our souls meet up in the great cosmic collective self, we'll have a bit of a laugh about it, then I'll go off and be a Chaffinch, because they're rather sweet, and you'll go and be a Baluga Whale or something for a while...

http://web.me.com/daveware/Sues_News/Blog/Entries/2009/4/4_Stomp_around_Lakes_files/DSCF1274.jpg

http://www.solarnavigator.net/animal_kingdom/animal_images/whale_beluga_submerged.jpg

Whale sounds good

Now manipulated footage.....

Manipulated by shack, webfairy, BS registration etc etc etc....lots of that

Manipulated at source?

Don't think you've ever found any Dave

I think you know that too

[dave52]

Manipulated at source?

Don't think you've ever found any Dave

I think you know that too

Missing frames from Naudet second strike.

[john white]

Missing frames from Naudet second strike.

"Missing" isn't "fake" Dave: its an old canard that one anyway. It still has a Plane in it. Also it wasn't broadcast footage, so is meaningless for NPT

Anything else?

[dave52]

Also it wasn't broadcast footage, so is meaningless for NPT

Er... I think NPT goes further than the few "live" shots broadcast that morning. The Naudets are the official 9/11 biographers, if their footage has been manipulated, it is manipulated 9/11 footage. I agree, it shows a plane, but it's still had frames removed.

Ok, moving on, why was the Park Foreman footage originally aired as stills, and yes there is a plane in that footage too...

[qasrose]

There is nothing to support this theory at all ..

Stann

Now this I agree with..

No Planers = Attention Seekers...

[white horse]

"Missing" isn't "fake" Dave: its an old canard that one anyway. It still has a Plane in it. Also it wasn't broadcast footage, so is meaningless for NPT

Anything else?

OK John what you need to do, in all seriousness, for the benefit of us hopeless souls who still cling to what our eyes do and dont see in the regurgitated footage is to create a new thread and explain the ins and outs of the TV and video footage and why non of it is faked or manipulated. I gather you are quite an expert and respected authoritarian of the 911 truth movement arounbd at other forums, but please remmeber not all of us here hang out at other 911 forums, (and some of us may have come here after hanging out at the mighty morphing space lizards threads, so we may be a little kooky by the time we get to 911 threads), so if the TV/Video question has been resolved fully and finally in the 911 truth movement it hasn't filtered through to DI yet, so we need to be put straight and enlightened.

You seem to be so sure that it is a complete and accurate record of the events of the day, nothing tampered, nothing dodgy.

You also seem to be claiming that any fakery is the result of those researchers who highlighted the fakery in the early days, manipulated the images themselves. (For what gain? To nail the MSM? For notoriaety? For some obscure pathalogical reason?)

If that is the case then at the source there should be a body of evidence of clean unadulterated 911 footage. Could you pelase highlight where we should be looking and what exactly is the pure footage.

You do seem to be the fountain and the oracle of all that is related to the planes and the TV/video footage, what makes you so absilutley certain? What footage have you seen, what do you know that we are not privvy to? Why do you seem to have all the answers? HAve you stopped asking questions of the OS?

I am perfectly happy to join a debate; I am perfectly happy to accept there were Boeing passenger planes full of manifested passengers. Give me the evidence and lets roll. What I will not do is go toe-to-toe with you in some stupid idiotic personal slanging match about how dumbass I am to even contemplate that non of the footage has been faked or doctored; I am going by my own eyes and my own judgement. I see extemely dodgy TV footage from the archives - I gotta ask why brother! - therefore I am seeking a solution as to why that might be. Sure there might have been planes; sure there might not have been. That is irrelevant really to the central question on judging the footage; I find it wanting very badly.

Why are you so utterly certain that you are able to be so condescending towards others? This is not one of your precious 911 forums... it is DI forums, and most people I have met here have approached things with an open mind, not necessarily in agreement granted.

Forget about holograms or DEW. Concentrate solely on the video and TV footage. Forget NPT. (That has finally been proven by Stannrodd to be a dead duck, so that can now be forgotten and laid to rest. Lets now delve into the dodgy TV and video footage.)

If it was faked by 911 'truthers' (ie Killtown, Webfairy, Wood etc) then where is the original unfettered fotage? How have they been able to undermine the source footage and seemingly completely alter the archives?

I agree, one frame of missing planes does not prove there were no planes, just as one frame that shows a plane does not prove there was a plane. The NPT debate is unresolvable and can go round and round.

NPT is a dead duck.

Let's discuss the footage.

THIS IS ABOUT TV/VIDEO FAKERY - NOT NPT

So OK - let us for the sake of argument (quote me ad infinitum to act as a get down to other NPT posters if you like) -


let us say that it has now been proven that the scars of the building were definitley caused by a Boeing.

Let us also say that it has been proven that wreckage found on the roof of other buildings was definitley ripped from a passenger Boeing

Let us also say that it has been proved 100% that a passenger Boeing can fly at 500+mph at just above sea level.


Why o why is the TV/vidoe footage so damned kooky looking? It is the dodgiest thing I ever saw! I'm not just being awkward here, you gotta help open my eyes John - are you 100% happy with the footage you have seen?

Cos I'm not.

And I saw the footage to analyse for an article on the psychological impact of 911 on America and the world BEFORE I even 'knew' it was an inside job (I was still green and thinking it was box cutting Saudi/Afghans what done it), before I had even heard of Killtown, Social Service, Ozzi or Webfairy.

I made my own mind up that I was unhappy with the footage... THEN I tried ot find answers and theories; Only then did I enter the whacky world of DEW and NPT. What a mental mind fuck THAT turned out to be!

I understand your hatred of NPT - but for the sake of friendly debate - give me your thought on the footage and how that proves the UAL175 hit the WTC?

Peace,
WH

[john white]

Why are you so utterly certain that you are able to be so condescending towards others? This is not one of your precious 911 forums... it is DI forums, and most people I have met here have approached things with an open mind, not necessarily in agreement granted.

I quite understand I'm going to be seen as condescending. That's a shame, but its a trade off against the alternative: pandering

Sorry after 3 years of seeing the same garbage pumped out and jacked up, why should I take a "softly" approach? Subtle simply doesn't do it

So I call fraudsters fraudsters and compounding treason compounding treason

Now perhaps you feel you would like to be talked to softly and nicely and have things dressed up in "benefits of the doubt". I'd say that's your issue to work with, as is your notion the Icke forum should be some kind of love in for any kind of foolishness. I can tell you straight, that's hardly Icke's style, and when one does have ones eyes open to the kind of scum pushing NPT, what kind of person would let others be wilfully deceived and manipulated and say nothing about it? True those lost in deception don't like it, and I wouldnt expect them too, its pushing their comfort zones and stressing them out: but again: that is THEIR issue, I certainly recognise people can't be saved from themselves... but speaking frankly may at least give them a chance

[john white]

Er... I think NPT goes further than the few "live" shots broadcast that morning. The Naudets are the official 9/11 biographers, if their footage has been manipulated, it is manipulated 9/11 footage. I agree, it shows a plane, but it's still had frames removed.


I think you meant to say EVERY live shot with even a wiff of planeyness about it Dave, not a few

What apprently is it "missing" from the Naudet footage (obviously what is not there counts for more than what is)

"A Flash of Light"

That's it

What's that mean?

Of course Pod Theory used that footage to try to claim missiles were fired out from under the wings of the plane

Heaven forfend a shiney aircraft with the sun on the upper half of it should cause a reflection in the GLASS of the towers just before impact, or something as mundane as that

Gosh I wonder, did the Naudets put the edit in precisely becuase loons were trying to claim all sorts of stuff becuase of a momentary reflection?

You may not like it, but it was their footage, and EDITS are what film makers do

Obviouslty, believing in what isn't there does make it convenient to ignore what is there

Ok, moving on, why was the Park Foreman footage originally aired as stills, and yes there is a plane in that footage too...

Becuase it was? What does that mean Dave, is the still not real? Oh hang on none of its real... Another of Killtown's clutched straws no doubt

Well spotted about the Plane though, that's a clue about what is true and what is not

[goldengoose]

OK John what you need to do, in all seriousness, for the benefit of us hopeless souls who still cling to what our eyes do and dont see in the regurgitated footage is to create a new thread and explain the ins and outs of the TV and video footage and why non of it is faked or manipulated. I gather you are quite an expert and respected authoritarian of the 911 truth movement arounbd at other forums, but please remmeber not all of us here hang out at other 911 forums, (and some of us may have come here after hanging out at the mighty morphing space lizards threads, so we may be a little kooky by the time we get to 911 threads), so if the TV/Video question has been resolved fully and finally in the 911 truth movement it hasn't filtered through to DI yet, so we need to be put straight and enlightened.

You seem to be so sure that it is a complete and accurate record of the events of the day, nothing tampered, nothing dodgy.

You also seem to be claiming that any fakery is the result of those researchers who highlighted the fakery in the early days, manipulated the images themselves. (For what gain? To nail the MSM? For notoriaety? For some obscure pathalogical reason?)

If that is the case then at the source there should be a body of evidence of clean unadulterated 911 footage. Could you pelase highlight where we should be looking and what exactly is the pure footage.

You do seem to be the fountain and the oracle of all that is related to the planes and the TV/video footage, what makes you so absilutley certain? What footage have you seen, what do you know that we are not privvy to? Why do you seem to have all the answers? HAve you stopped asking questions of the OS?

I am perfectly happy to join a debate; I am perfectly happy to accept there were Boeing passenger planes full of manifested passengers. Give me the evidence and lets roll. What I will not do is go toe-to-toe with you in some stupid idiotic personal slanging match about how dumbass I am to even contemplate that non of the footage has been faked or doctored; I am going by my own eyes and my own judgement. I see extemely dodgy TV footage from the archives - I gotta ask why brother! - therefore I am seeking a solution as to why that might be. Sure there might have been planes; sure there might not have been. That is irrelevant really to the central question on judging the footage; I find it wanting very badly.

Why are you so utterly certain that you are able to be so condescending towards others? This is not one of your precious 911 forums... it is DI forums, and most people I have met here have approached things with an open mind, not necessarily in agreement granted.

Forget about holograms or DEW. Concentrate solely on the video and TV footage. Forget NPT. (That has finally been proven by Stannrodd to be a dead duck, so that can now be forgotten and laid to rest. Lets now delve into the dodgy TV and video footage.)

If it was faked by 911 'truthers' (ie Killtown, Webfairy, Wood etc) then where is the original unfettered fotage? How have they been able to undermine the source footage and seemingly completely alter the archives?

I agree, one frame of missing planes does not prove there were no planes, just as one frame that shows a plane does not prove there was a plane. The NPT debate is unresolvable and can go round and round.

NPT is a dead duck.

Let's discuss the footage.

THIS IS ABOUT TV/VIDEO FAKERY - NOT NPT

So OK - let us for the sake of argument (quote me ad infinitum to act as a get down to other NPT posters if you like) -


let us say that it has now been proven that the scars of the building were definitley caused by a Boeing.

Let us also say that it has been proven that wreckage found on the roof of other buildings was definitley ripped from a passenger Boeing

Let us also say that it has been proved 100% that a passenger Boeing can fly at 500+mph at just above sea level.


Why o why is the TV/vidoe footage so damned kooky looking? It is the dodgiest thing I ever saw! I'm not just being awkward here, you gotta help open my eyes John - are you 100% happy with the footage you have seen?

Cos I'm not.

And I saw the footage to analyse for an article on the psychological impact of 911 on America and the world BEFORE I even 'knew' it was an inside job (I was still green and thinking it was box cutting Saudi/Afghans what done it), before I had even heard of Killtown, Social Service, Ozzi or Webfairy.

I made my own mind up that I was unhappy with the footage... THEN I tried ot find answers and theories; Only then did I enter the whacky world of DEW and NPT. What a mental mind fuck THAT turned out to be!

I understand your hatred of NPT - but for the sake of friendly debate - give me your thought on the footage and how that proves the UAL175 hit the WTC?

Peace,
WH



You might try watching the debates between studio musician Ace Baker and video compositing expert Steven Wright. Baker failed rather badly in his attempt to show that the Chopper 5 video was faked.

[guntherznads]

You might try watching the debates between studio musician Ace Baker and video compositing expert Steven Wright. Baker failed rather badly in his attempt to show that the Chopper 5 video was faked.

I never did hear Steven's answer to as why we don't see the iris self adjust when flight 175 enters the chopper 5 footage. I thought AB did well to press that question and I recall Wright needing a moment to think about it, but I can't recall if he had ever came up with anything.

[dave52]

You may not like it, but it was their footage, and EDITS are what film makers do

I agree, but why John? Why edit the money shot, the one important scene in that god-aweful soap opera presentation. The one shot that shows the impact and there are two, maybe three cuts. I wonder why.


Becuase it was? What does that mean Dave, is the still not real? Oh hang on none of its real... Another of Killtown's clutched straws no doubt

Well spotted about the Plane though, that's a clue about what is true and what is not

Again, why? Why would a news channel, having been given that video (where the plane, held steady in the centre of the shot, hurtles towards and strikes the tower), why would the director of that live news presentation decide to show five or six still frames from the video. It's a very dramatic piece of film, why choose to only show a few stills?

Just saying - er... um... 'cause they did, is a rubbish response. I'm sorry you don't place any importance on it John, but video fakery interests me.

[guntherznads]

I agree, but why John? Why edit the money shot, the one important scene in that god-aweful soap opera presentation. The one shot that shows the impact and there are two, maybe three cuts. I wonder why.




Again, why? Why would a news channel, having been given that video (where the plane, held steady in the centre of the shot, hurtles towards and strikes the tower), why would the director of that live news presentation decide to show five or six still frames from the video. It's a very dramatic piece of film, why choose to only show a few stills?

Just saying - er... um... 'cause they did, is a rubbish response. I'm sorry you don't place any importance on it John, but video fakery interests me.

How dare you take that tone with a " real " 9-11 truther !



thanks
Gunth

[qasrose]

All these no plnaers are trying to make something out of nothing...

Notice the fact that every single piece of video broadcast all show planes

I guess the no planers don't see that though. All
you guy's see are blank spots..

[dave52]

Notice the fact that every single piece of video broadcast all show planes

With respect qasrose, that just isn't true.


All these no plnaers are trying to make something out of nothing...

To be fair, most of the No-Plane threads on this forum are started by planers attempting to get a rise out of the no-planers. Since Christophera and Mynameis have disappeared stannrodd and goldengoose have picked up the mantel...

[stannrodd]

Since Christophera and Mynameis have disappeared stannrodd and goldengoose have picked up the mantel...

heh heh !!

Stann:D

[bryan]

I never did hear Steven's answer to as why we don't see the iris self adjust when flight 175 enters the chopper 5 footage. I thought AB did well to press that question and I recall Wright needing a moment to think about it, but I can't recall if he had ever came up with anything.

And I recall Ron Wieck trying to change the subject, but Steve Wright knew he's been caught out and said: "No, Ace has a point".

Steve Wright never came up with an answer, because his automatic gain control theory is a joke. The only two people desperate enough to support it are Ron and mynameis.

[guntherznads]

And I recall Ron Wieck trying to change the subject, but Steve Wright knew he's been caught out and said: "No, Ace has a point".

Steve Wright never came up with an answer, because his automatic gain control theory is a joke. The only two people desperate enough to support it are Ron and mynameis.

Well I think we deserve an answer.

[queenofleon]

By the way, Killtown and other NPT pushing fraudsters are compounding Treason against the United States and are complicit in protecting the murderers of 3000 Americans, the crime that led to the war on terror and the murder of Millions more


So anyone who doesnt swallow the official lie is guilty of the above?

I actually had to delete my expletives there.

What a thing to say. SHAME ON YOU!

[guntherznads]

All these no plnaers are trying to make something out of nothing...

Notice the fact that every single piece of video broadcast all show planes

I guess the no planers don't see that though. All
you guy's see are blank spots..

What areyou spouting off about? If your talking about the LIVE broadcasts then there were only two stations that aired images of planes ...the chopper 5...and the CNN shot. All the others either cut away, went black briefly, or were looking away before during and after.

You don't have pick sides ya know....go figure it out on your own.

[john white]

So anyone who doesnt swallow the official lie is guilty of the above?

I actually had to delete my expletives there.

What a thing to say. SHAME ON YOU!

Shame on, I can take it, I'm under no contract to act pretty with those who in my good conscience are deliberately spreading untrue stories about 9/11 to PREVENT 9/11 Truth being successful. And yes that IS compounding treason, because 9/11 being an inside job MAKES 9/11 an act of treason

Stop being offended and start thinking

[john white]

Again, why? Why would a news channel, having been given that video (where the plane, held steady in the centre of the shot, hurtles towards and strikes the tower), why would the director of that live news presentation decide to show five or six still frames from the video. It's a very dramatic piece of film, why choose to only show a few stills?

Just saying - er... um... 'cause they did, is a rubbish response. I'm sorry you don't place any importance on it John, but video fakery interests me.

It's "rubbish", in your view, to make the only response we can truthly make unless we have evidence to weigh the facts towards a conclusion

Just speculating on what something might be means nothing at all

What have you got to back up you view that using a few stills and not showing live footage was sinister in motive?

None!

Why not say "using stills was considered by the editorial team just as effective at communicating the information than showing the footage of a real event that everyone accepts was real, especially those in New York who saw it whether they had a camera trained on it or not": its just as valid

To claim the use of stills = proof of fakery is simply suggestion, its meme, its mythology, unless there are facts

To define it:

Smoke and Mirrors

[dave52]

Just speculating on what something might be means nothing at all

Er...

You may not like it, but it was their footage, and EDITS are what film makers do

Mmmkay...

[john white]

C'mon Dave, dont wimp out, try harder

Again, why? Why would a news channel, having been given that video (where the plane, held steady in the centre of the shot, hurtles towards and strikes the tower), why would the director of that live news presentation decide to show five or six still frames from the video. It's a very dramatic piece of film, why choose to only show a few stills?

Just saying - er... um... 'cause they did, is a rubbish response. I'm sorry you don't place any importance on it John, but video fakery interests me.
It's "rubbish", in your view, to make the only response we can truthly make unless we have evidence to weigh the facts towards a conclusion

Just speculating on what something might be means nothing at all

What have you got to back up you view that using a few stills and not showing live footage was sinister in motive?

None!

Why not say "using stills was considered by the editorial team just as effective at communicating the information than showing the footage of a real event that everyone accepts was real, especially those in New York who saw it whether they had a camera trained on it or not": its just as valid

To claim the use of stills = proof of fakery is simply suggestion, its meme, its mythology, unless there are facts

To define it:

Smoke and Mirrors

What have you got to show the use of stills over footage is sinister?

I say nothing, show me, show me something that is anything else than a no planer saying "I believe this because it backs up what I choose to believe"

In other words: show evidence

[queenofleon]

Shame on, I can take it, I'm under no contract to act pretty with those who in my good conscience are deliberately spreading untrue stories about 9/11 to PREVENT 9/11 Truth being successful. And yes that IS compounding treason, because 9/11 being an inside job MAKES 9/11 an act of treason

Stop being offended and start thinking

Don't condescend me please.

I am a no planer and a truth seeker at the same time, and what? you do not believe that is possible because it doesnt fit in with your paradigm and your opinion? The meer fact I am sat here, knowing in mind body and soul that I am in no way spreading disinfo, and this is something that I believe to be true, that blows your theory out of the water.

So get off your soap box and stop judging people.

[john white]

Don't condescend me you pen*s.

I am a no planer and a truth seeker at the same time, and what? you do not believe that is possible because it doesnt fit in with your paradigm and your opinion? The meer fact I am sat here, knowing in mind body and soul that I am in no way spreading disinfo, and this is something that I believe to be true, that blows your theory out of the water.

So get off your soap box and stop judging people.

LOL

Mirror

So get off your soap box and stop judging people.

You just don't like my opinion, not my problem

[queenofleon]

what you said is utter nonsense.

I was just pulling you up on it.

Because I am allowed to...for the minute at least.

[john white]

what you said is utter nonsense.

I was just pulling you up on it.

Because I am allowed to...for the minute at least.

Doesn't bother me

[goldengoose]

And I recall Ron Wieck trying to change the subject, but Steve Wright knew he's been caught out and said: "No, Ace has a point".

Steve Wright never came up with an answer, because his automatic gain control theory is a joke. The only two people desperate enough to support it are Ron and mynameis.


Sorry, you've been caught lying again. Wright feels that Chopper 5 cameraman Kai Simonsen provided a better answer than the engineer Wright consulted. A lengthy discussion on the JREF, with several video experts participating, concluded that the impact caused a signal interruption, but the exact cause may never by established with certainty. What is certain is that the entire fade-to-black business is another red herring. The issue is trivial; Ace had no idea of what he was trying to argue. No rationalist is "desperate" about anything. Desperation is for conspriacy liars whose stupid fantasy get demolished at every turn.

[3stepsahead]

I find your question so interesting that I am bringing video compositing expert Steven Wright back to 'Hardfire' next month to discuss just that. We KNOW that the Chopper 5 video was not faked, and we know that the sort of fakery posited by fantasists was not possible in 2001, but what is possible today? What will be possible in ten years?


please have a look at mark 7.30 in that video
and maybe use your imagination as to what that is youre seeing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vShMwukaGc&feature=related

[goldengoose]

Okay, I'm seeing nothing remotely relevant to the issue we are discussing. The sort of real time compsoiting posited by fantasists remains impossible. Find a video compositing expert you can con and get back to us.

[3stepsahead]

seems you just see whatever you want to see

obviously amateurs have no problem at all faking a city area, in this case for live tv, so why should the big dogs not be able?

and i hope you know that dogs eat their own.

[white horse]

I quite understand I'm going to be seen as condescending. That's a shame, but its a trade off against the alternative: pandering



There's a land in between called respect.



Sorry after 3 years of seeing the same garbage pumped out and jacked up, why should I take a "softly" approach? Subtle simply doesn't do it


Then why are you still hanging around this looser topic? Are you a self appointed oracle of 911 'truth'? There are many who are still wandering in here who are fairly new to all this, many of them can make up their own minds; many ask questions, they get a whole rainbow of answers, some crazier than others. You seem to be on a self-crusade to nip any NPT TV Fakery discussions in the bud as a waste of time. They may be a waste of your time, but not mine. I'm still researching and analysing.



So I call fraudsters fraudsters and compounding treason compounding treason


You didn't answer this question:

If it was faked by 911 'truthers' (ie Killtown, Webfairy, Wood etc) then where is the original unfettered fotage? How have they been able to undermine the source footage and seemingly completely alter the archives?


I am intrigued that you claim the fakery does exist but has been created by those who exposed it early on; Killtown, Webfairy, Social Science, Ozzi, etc

I've asked you a couple of times to point out some details of this fraud.

How have the fraudsters managed to mess with the archive footage?

Do you have any evidence or a working theory?


By the way, Killtown and other NPT pushing fraudsters are compounding Treason against the United States and are complicit in protecting the murderers of 3000 Americans, the crime that led to the war on terror and the murder of Millions more


I asked you to justify that but you have failed to. That is quite a scoop there John, you shoudl share your evidence.



Now perhaps you feel you would like to be talked to softly and nicely and have things dressed up in "benefits of the doubt". I'd say that's your issue to work with, as is your notion the Icke forum should be some kind of love in for any kind of foolishness. I can tell you straight, that's hardly Icke's style, and when one does have ones eyes open to the kind of scum pushing NPT, what kind of person would let others be wilfully deceived and manipulated and say nothing about it? True those lost in deception don't like it, and I wouldnt expect them too, its pushing their comfort zones and stressing them out: but again: that is THEIR issue, I certainly recognise people can't be saved from themselves... but speaking frankly may at least give them a chance

Tell me straight what?

I thought Icke had always allowed people to take what resonates personally and leave the rest. NPT/TV fakery does not resonate with you clearly, but it does with a lot of other people. They don't seem to me to be idiots, rather quite astute and con fused researchers who have got their teeth into something non of us understand. Nothing has been proven either way so for me alone, there is still a case to answer.

You've not actually answered any of my questions;


I agree, one frame of missing planes does not prove there were no planes, just as one frame that shows a plane does not prove there was a plane. The NPT debate is unresolvable and can go round and round.

NPT is a dead duck.

Let's discuss the footage.



NPT or no NPT - focus on the footage; it is clearly very dodgy; why the discrepencies in the live feeds? Why the awful black planes in the video footage? These questions HAVE NEVER been resolved.

I made my own mind on this, independantly.

If you don't want to discuss the footage, then leave us in peace to do so or contribute to the debate, cos some of here are quite prepared to waste our sorry worthless lives analysing every pixel of every frame of every piece of video.

There are two debates going on here, which you don't seem able to engage in;

1 - NPT - granted, it is far out, I know it riles you . Fine. Then let it lie John... If it is that idiotic, then anyone who isn't an idiot wont be taken in by it.

2 - Video/TV fakery. here is something clearly dodgy with the TV/video archives relating to UAL175 especially. This is totally differnet. None of the TV/video footage shows Flight UA175 hitting the WTC - FACT. Prove me wrong. THAT is why I am still here.

I grant you that 2 does not prove 1; but it sure does not slam the door on it either. If the footage clearly showed flight 175 hitting hte tower, then yeah, NPT would be a dead laughable duck. AS it is it is still in the realms of POSSIBLE theory, while TV fakery is in the realms of possible-to-probable theory.

[john white]

How have the fraudsters managed to mess with the archive footage?

Altering and removing frames, reducing resolution, making claims like "See! See! See!" when there is nothing there to see and some outright forgery, such as Shacks "perfect match" claim which was merely him putting the same frame in twice and claiming it was a different one that "matched".

All adds up to fraud, essentially taking genuine footage and tampering with it to provide just enough uncertainty to claim (not prove! (as if) just claim, that's enough to drag enough unwary people along to provide the bandwagon) the original is fake with a whole lot of illusionary claim and castle building in the air on top

Your question is a very easy one to answer, I wouldn't want you to think it was in any way difficult, because it is not

Oh this:

Then why are you still hanging around this looser topic?

Because I care about well meaning people being deceived and criminals going unpunished: that enough reason to oppose the OCT and the NPT

[goldengoose]

seems you just see whatever you want to see

obviously amateurs have no problem at all faking a city area, in this case for live tv, so why should the big dogs not be able?

and i hope you know that dogs eat their own.



Steven Wright is a video compositing expert with 27 years experience on feature films. He can make dinosaurs come to life. When he says that the sort of real time compositing fantasists prattle about is impossible, you must know something he doesn't. What do you know, and how did you learn it?

[goldengoose]

There's a land in between called respect.



Then why are you still hanging around this looser topic? Are you a self appointed oracle of 911 'truth'? There are many who are still wandering in here who are fairly new to all this, many of them can make up their own minds; many ask questions, they get a whole rainbow of answers, some crazier than others. You seem to be on a self-crusade to nip any NPT TV Fakery discussions in the bud as a waste of time. They may be a waste of your time, but not mine. I'm still researching and analysing.




You didn't answer this question:


I am intrigued that you claim the fakery does exist but has been created by those who exposed it early on; Killtown, Webfairy, Social Science, Ozzi, etc

I've asked you a couple of times to point out some details of this fraud.

How have the fraudsters managed to mess with the archive footage?

Do you have any evidence or a working theory?



I asked you to justify that but you have failed to. That is quite a scoop there John, you shoudl share your evidence.



Tell me straight what?

I thought Icke had always allowed people to take what resonates personally and leave the rest. NPT/TV fakery does not resonate with you clearly, but it does with a lot of other people. They don't seem to me to be idiots, rather quite astute and con fused researchers who have got their teeth into something non of us understand. Nothing has been proven either way so for me alone, there is still a case to answer.

You've not actually answered any of my questions;



NPT or no NPT - focus on the footage; it is clearly very dodgy; why the discrepencies in the live feeds? Why the awful black planes in the video footage? These questions HAVE NEVER been resolved.

I made my own mind on this, independantly.

If you don't want to discuss the footage, then leave us in peace to do so or contribute to the debate, cos some of here are quite prepared to waste our sorry worthless lives analysing every pixel of every frame of every piece of video.

There are two debates going on here, which you don't seem able to engage in;

1 - NPT - granted, it is far out, I know it riles you . Fine. Then let it lie John... If it is that idiotic, then anyone who isn't an idiot wont be taken in by it.

2 - Video/TV fakery. here is something clearly dodgy with the TV/video archives relating to UAL175 especially. This is totally differnet. None of the TV/video footage shows Flight UA175 hitting the WTC - FACT. Prove me wrong. THAT is why I am still here.

I grant you that 2 does not prove 1; but it sure does not slam the door on it either. If the footage clearly showed flight 175 hitting hte tower, then yeah, NPT would be a dead laughable duck. AS it is it is still in the realms of POSSIBLE theory, while TV fakery is in the realms of possible-to-probable theory.


Instead of all this blather, why don't you simply find a video compositing expert who swallows the snake oil?

[white horse]

please have a look at mark 7.30 in that video
and maybe use your imagination as to what that is youre seeing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vShMwukaGc&feature=related

OK I'm seeing something very centrally relevant to the issues we are discussing!

Well spotted, good post.

[3stepsahead]

Steven Wright is a video compositing expert with 27 years experience on feature films. He can make dinosaurs come to life. When he says that the sort of real time compositing fantasists prattle about is impossible, you must know something he doesn't. What do you know, and how did you learn it?

hey show him that video and let him tell you if he thinks faking a live shot is impossible.
i can forsee already that he will say, like you, without a secound of thought. No.

:D

[white horse]

Altering and removing frames, reducing resolution, making claims like "See! See! See!" when there is nothing there to see and some outright forgery, such as Shacks "perfect match" claim which was merely him putting the same frame in twice and claiming it was a different one that "matched".

All adds up to fraud, essentially taking genuine footage and tampering with it


I am talking about the so called original footage., not Youtube mashups or Ace Baker or Simon Shack. I'm talking about viewing the 'original' footage (if there is such a thing anymore) not home made vids posted on Youtube. They are good for illustrative purposes but you don't think I would take them seriously do you!! Lol!

The original footage is self-contradictory. I don't need someone to point that out to me.

So are you saying that everyone who thinks that there is a case to answer for TV fakery has ONLY watched the YOUtube home made vids?

What about the Fox and CNN archives that have been altered? Has Webfairy altered them, or was it FOX/CNN themselves?

I'm looking for as pure as possible real archive footage; I still don't see Flight UA175 in ANY of them.

Do you have an expose of which ones have been tampered with?

Which ones are the real ones?

Have they been able to tamper with the archives?

How have they been able to fool us all into thinking that the video was dodgy?

Were all the Chopper 5 and Chopper 4 videos on the internet faked by Killtown and his evil kronies?

Do you have any evidence or theory beyond your own assertions at all?

For those of us who are in a serious study of the video archives these are serious points and they need resolving. If you know somehting please spell it out.

What about the body of evidence at Camera Planet archives? Are they all faked by psuedo-truthers?

Have you only watched hte Youtube vids?!! :D:eek:

I'm a serious historian; you make a serious point. Follow it up.

[bryan]

Sorry, you've been caught lying again. Wright feels that Chopper 5 cameraman Kai Simonsen provided a better answer than the engineer Wright consulted.

I see. After Ace Baker pointed out that the automatic gain control theory was not credible, Wright went out and found a slightly more plausible (but still laughable) way to explain the fade to black. It's a pity your video compositing expert didn't have the brains to realize on his own that he was promoting a ludicrously far-fetched theory.

[3stepsahead]

its hard not to play along lol


by the way, nyc seismic readings was removed from the net, spesifically from that day of 911
i think that was in 04 or something i saw that.

[kooskoets]

Steven Wright is a video compositing expert with 27 years experience on feature films. He can make dinosaurs come to life. When he says that the sort of real time compositing fantasists prattle about is impossible, you must know something he doesn't. What do you know, and how did you learn it?

Wright also exposed himself as a boldfaced liar.

What's 27 yeas of experience when he tells lies ?
Just worth nill i guess.

[stannrodd]

Wright also exposed himself as a boldfaced liar.

And pray tell us how he did that .. was it this that he said .. ??

The No Plane thoeory is a dead duck.

If he did .. then he's right on track and telling the truth.

Stann ;)

[bryan]

And pray tell us how he did that .. was it this that he said .. ??

If he did .. then he's right on track and telling the truth.


Keep trying, Stann. If you can get it banned on this forum, they might let you retire with a nice pension. ;)

[stannrodd]

Why would they bann the subject bryan ??

I imagine they are more likely to bann the members who are consistently abusive and rude . and though I don't include you in that group .. you barely but cleverly, manage to control your postings and rants.

How's your egg throwing going ??

Stann

[kooskoets]

Why did you leave class, Stann ?
We just came to an interesting point.

There were some very educational questions for you, just to trigger
the process called 'thinking'.

It's fun !

And pray tell us how he did that .. was it this that he said .. ??

Well..he told a lie ( or two...).



If he did .. then he's right on track and telling the truth.

Stann ;)

Hmm..i missed that one then.
Just one more or less lie isn't interesting.

What is, is the fact that he ( and Mackey and Wieck ) don't tell truth !
And that's been proven more than once.

I think that lying with a serious face on a tv program that's supposed
to be serious is also a form of tv-fakery.

The whole setting and facial expressions are fake to make the viewer
consume the lies as facts.

They're clowns.

[stannrodd]

kooskoets,

Do you have anything useful to contribute to the actual discussion ??

You say he told a lie (or two).

Would you like to point out to the members here .. what the lies were .. and show us why you make that claim. You must have evidence to support your belief otherwise it's libelous. Insinuations are not facts.

So far it's just your "say so" .. therefore it is .. and that sort of logic is simply BS and you are probably breaking the law unless you can prove your case.

If you want to convince people of something you need a bit more than .. just saying something.

There were some very educational questions for you, just to trigger
the process called 'thinking'.

I didn't notice you asking any questions .. ??

Please read this post

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=914888#post914888

Stann

[bryan]

Why would they bann the subject bryan ??


Problem-Reaction-Solution. Your colleagues, John White and mynameis, tried it on earlier this year, when they suggested closing down the 9/11 forum altogether or starting a members-only section for NPT. Needless to say, they were the ones causing the problem in the first place.



I imagine they are more likely to bann the members who are consistently abusive and rude . and though I don't include you in that group .. you barely but cleverly, manage to control your postings and rants.


Do you have a method of distinguishing between somebody who is cleverly managing to control the tone of their posts and somebody who just don't see any point in being abusive and rude?



The No Plane thoeory is a dead duck.


If it flies like a cartoon and crashes like a cartoon, it probably IS a cartoon.

[queenofleon]

You see this is why it's pointless...

You say, "NPT is dead".
I say, "What about the manipulated footage".
You say, "NPT is dead".
I say, "What about the manipulated footage".
You say, "NPT is dead".
I say, "What about the manipulated footage".
You say, "NPT is dead".
I say, "What about the manipulated footage".
You say, "NPT is dead".
I say, "What about the manipulated footage".

Until we eventually die. Then, when our souls meet up in the great cosmic collective self, we'll have a bit of a laugh about it, then I'll go off and be a Chaffinch, because they're rather sweet, and you'll go and be a Baluga Whale or something for a while...

http://web.me.com/daveware/Sues_News/Blog/Entries/2009/4/4_Stomp_around_Lakes_files/DSCF1274.jpg

http://www.solarnavigator.net/animal_kingdom/animal_images/whale_beluga_submerged.jpg

This is exactly why I like you Dave. You are a dude. Even though I know it is an illusion, I still get caught up in the emotion of it. You are a wise soul, and that was very nicely put indeed.

:D

[dave52]

This is exactly why I like you Dave. You are a dude. Even though I know it is an illusion, I still get caught up in the emotion of it. You are a wise soul, and that was very nicely put indeed.

:D

:o 'Twas a rare moment of clarity... I suspect John'll get me all angry again a little later... :D

[queenofleon]

:o 'Twas a rare moment of clarity... I suspect John'll get me all angry again a little later... :D

I called him a pen*s.

Sheesh, I am going to hell!! :(:o:rolleyes:


p.s I checked your's and your wifes blog out, you seem like quality people!

:cool:

[dave52]

I called him a pen*s.

Sheesh, I am going to hell!! :(:o:rolleyes:

Nah... it doesn't exist - no worries... Besides, I've called John far worse things in the past, he can take it.


p.s I checked your's and your wifes blog out, you seem like quality people!

:cool:

Ahh... Sue's Bird Walk blog is really cool, I've not added anything to my new web page yet - I'll get motivated soon enough, thanks for the kind words...

[queenofleon]

Nah... it doesn't exist - no worries... Besides, I've called John far worse things in the past, he can take it.




Ahh... Sue's Bird Walk blog is really cool, I've not added anything to my new web page yet - I'll get motivated soon enough, thanks for the kind words...

No worries :) You are welcome!!

I like the way we have boycotted this thread! :);)

[stannrodd]

Do you have a method of distinguishing between somebody who is cleverly managing to control the tone of their posts and somebody who just don't see any point in being abusive and rude?

You're not making sense just like the comment below .. seems typical of the level of IQ required to believe the NPT .. I bet you read comics .. sorry .. look at the pictures !!!

If it flies like a cartoon and crashes like a cartoon, it probably IS a cartoon.

Should have stayed at school mate .. you could have benefited from a physics lesson or two.

NO PLANE THEORY IS A DEAD CARTOON DUCK !! :D

Stann

[white horse]

Yo yo yo is this a pro-Dave love in!

Dude - that avatar mug shot does calm ye down somewhat - reminds me of da Freak brothers like cool man! :cool:

[stannrodd]

White horse,
It's fairly obvious that you don't care too much for the topic here .. how about you start a thread for Dave's love in crowd where you can all sit around and admire each other.

Stann :rolleyes:

[john white]

I don't object to a Dave Love In if we are all agreed NPT is a dead duck

Loving Dave is far better than supporting fraud

[stannrodd]

I don't object to a Dave Love In if we are all agreed NPT is a dead duck

Loving Dave is far better than supporting fraud

I'll go with that

NPT is a dead duck = We love Dave !!

Thanks Dave.

Solved that problem John !!

Stann

[stannrodd]

Bump ..

?? = we love Dave because the NPT is a dead duck and its Easter and ducks are good..

Stann

[dave52]

Can you ever love an NPTer...?
;)

[goldengoose]

Why did you leave class, Stann ?
We just came to an interesting point.

There were some very educational questions for you, just to trigger
the process called 'thinking'.

It's fun !



Well..he told a lie ( or two...).




Hmm..i missed that one then.
Just one more or less lie isn't interesting.

What is, is the fact that he ( and Mackey and Wieck ) don't tell truth !
And that's been proven more than once.

I think that lying with a serious face on a tv program that's supposed
to be serious is also a form of tv-fakery.

The whole setting and facial expressions are fake to make the viewer
consume the lies as facts.

They're clowns.


You've been caught lying. Mackey and I DO tell the truth. NOBODY has ever come close to showing anything either of us has lied about.

[killtown]

You've been caught lying. Mackey and I DO tell the truth.
Are you Ron Wieck?

[goldengoose]

Are you Ron Wieck?


Ask anyone who posts here. You still haven't told us what you DON'T like about the Nazis.

[white horse]

Ask anyone who posts here. You still haven't told us what you DON'T like about the Nazis.

WTF fuvk does that reply mean?

I've spotted this kind of thing before. Do you two have history at othr forums?

I tell ya - I am wasting my time with GG - NEVER anwers a direct question ever. Total Antwerp.

[white horse]

[edit]

[goldengoose]

WTF fuvk does that reply mean?

I've spotted this kind of thing before. Do you two have history at othr forums?

I tell ya - I am wasting my time with GG - NEVER anwers a direct question ever. Total Antwerp.


Killtown has smeared me as a Nazi. I hate Nazis. I can't think of anything about the Nazis that he disapproves of.

[white horse]

Killclown has smeared me as a Nazi. I hate Nazis. I can't think of anything about the Nazis that he disapproves of.

[I was very drunk when I originally posted that responce - have since edited it]

But you are a card carrying Republican who beleives the orignal hijakcers story? Is that true?

Why won't you engage any questions that are asked directly of you?

Why brin the Nazis into it?

Are you Ron Wieck?

Do you believe the official hijack story?

[john white]

Are you Ron Wieck?

Do you believe the official hijack story?

He is and he does

Why bring the Nazis into it?


I think that goldengoose keeps bringing it up in an effort to confront "Killtown" to get him to answer that very question, being as "Killtown" did

[qasrose]

Oh guess what, I'm back :).

Can I just say after being away from this part of the forum for quite some time, I am not going to be scared away. Because we know the truth.

Let me make it plain and simple..

The No Plain theory is indeed a dead duck
These guy's, Killtown, Dave, and others are all
just trying to brainwash us with this crap.

And why do you keep telling us to watch September Poos
It's a load of crap. Attention folks this September Clues
doesn't proof a thing. Two planes smashed into the World
Trade Center, It's not fake it happened. Just admit to your selfs.

Stop trying to make something out of nothing.
Every video footage on the net shows PLANE's.

Ask your selfs this, Show me some REAL EVIDENCE.
that no planes happened on 9/11, Show me anything
apart from the September Clues crap video...

And then mabey, just mabey I will shut up.

[dave52]

Every video footage on the net shows PLANE's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fexsGtYGRw

[goldengoose]

[I was very drunk when I originally posted that responce - have since edited it]

But you are a card carrying Republican who beleives the orignal hijakcers story? Is that true?

Why won't you engage any questions that are asked directly of you?

Why brin the Nazis into it?

Are you Ron Wieck?

Do you believe the official hijack story?


I have never heard of a "card-carrying" Republican. What does the imaginary card say? I loathe the Democrats; I dislike the Republicans somewhat less. Does that make me a Republican?

I doubt that you can think of a question I haven't answered.



There is no such animal as the "official" story. All serious investigations dovetail into a set of rock-solid conclusions: the jihadists who continue to express pride in their victory really do exist and intend to continue attacking the West. The science behind the building collapses has not been challenged by researchers anywhere in the world. The assortment of America-hating cranks who fall under the broad heading of the fantasy movement have produced NOTHING that supports their preposterous claims.

I am Ron Wieck.

[shodan]

ok can people keep the mud slinging out of this thread and stay on topic

[secondsun]

...not only is no plane theory a dead duck!... looks like a certain goose just snuffed it too!... :)

[stannrodd]

...not only is no plane theory a dead duck!... looks like a certain goose just snuffed it too!... :)

I guess the goose roasted his welcome .. though I enjoyed his input..

Stann

[jubal_harshaw]

...not only is no plane theory a dead duck!... looks like a certain goose just snuffed it too!... :)

Well, it was completely inevitable as it seemed as though goldengoose was on a suicide mission just like the """imaginary""" highjackers.

[bryan]

Are you Ron Wieck?

Do you believe the official hijack story?


He is and he does


He is and he says he does.

[white horse]

He is and he says he does.

Bryan... why didn't you tell me sooner? :mad:

All those minutes... gone... forever...!

Oops - we seem to be trolling this thread... :D

Although with a title like that honestly it's hard to take this one seriously.

[bryan]

Bryan... why didn't you tell me sooner? :mad:

I thought everybody knew! Now you mention it, though, I kept wondering why some people seemed to think they could reason with him.

I was 99% sure it was him after his first three posts, then he confirmed it in his fourth, when he called Ace Baker 'deranged'. The two people he hates most are Ace Baker and Heiwa, because their arguments are undebunkable.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57981&page=4