No Plane Theory pushes the Official Line ??

[stannrodd]

The result of this theory is that people tend to see the official Main Stream Media Story as being more reasonable and logical than the load of cobblers espoused as the NPT.

Is this the agenda of NP theorists?

To promote the Official Story by using skulduggery ??

Your comments ..

Stann

[secondsun]

...its to encourage anyone new that might be in a state of awakening... to go back to sleep and watch Ramsey`s Kitchen Nightmares!...;)

[stannrodd]

:D:D:D

I love that show anyway ... nice one secondsun.

I feel like swearing like Ramsey a lot of the time.. good for the spleens of others !! He's often shown to be right !!

But don't you think there is a reluctance to go the NPT way .. once you have gotten some basic understanding of the dynamics of what you think happened that day ??

Then balance that with what seems more acceptable .. like planes.

I don't want to get out of the range of the topic though..

It seems for me that the longer I look at NPT .. the more I am inclined to look elsewhere..

Stann

[secondsun]

But don't you think there is a reluctance to go the NPT way .. once you have gotten some basic understanding of the dynamics of what you think happened that day ??

...i don't think `reluctance` has anything to do with it!... i just think that most cant be bothered to challenge the average no planer w$nker!...mainly because they would view them as some lesser mindset but not realizing that most were paid professionals anyway!.... imo`!

[bryan]

Your argument is illogical.

[oddblock]

What I don't understand is why wouldn't they use planes? Surely it would be easier with much less chance of errors being noticed in the future?

I don't think it makes sense for them not to use real planes.

[john white]

The result of this theory is that people tend to see the official Main Stream Media Story as being more reasonable and logical than the load of cobblers espoused as the NPT.

Is this the agenda of NP theorists?

To promote the Official Story by using skulduggery ??

Your comments ..

Stann

It's framing the argument

By seeking to force 9/11 Truth to be defined by fantasy bollocks and not the real issues (the complete denial of the significance of NORAD in the Truth of 9/11, for example) NPT 100% supports the official story by presenting a false choice of "your either with the tin foil hats or with the government"

Of course, this can only support the official story, which is why those deliberately crafting the fraudulent claims of NPT (not the punters who don't know better than to believe it) are compounding treason

[qasrose]

Let's make a new theory. And state that

They where Transformers :D....... we can call it

The Transformer Plane Theory

[bryan]

By seeking to force 9/11 Truth to be defined by fantasy bollocks and not the real issues (the complete denial of the significance of NORAD in the Truth of 9/11, for example) NPT 100% supports the official story by presenting a false choice of "your either with the tin foil hats or with the government"

John, I don't know how to break the news to you.

According to people like George Galloway, Bill O'Reilly and Ronald Wieck, YOU wear a tin foil hat for believing that NORAD were ordered to stand down and let it happen on purpose!

Maybe you should join the anti-war movement if you want respect from the mainstream media.

[john white]

John, I don't know how to break the news to you.

According to people like George Galloway, Bill O'Reilly and Ronald Wieck, YOU wear a tin foil hat for believing that NORAD were ordered to stand down and let it happen on purpose!

Maybe you should join the anti-war movement if you want respect from the mainstream media.

I'm sorry to break news on top of your breaking news Bryan, but your point PROVES mine by showing how tin Foil hat theories help smear 9/11 Truth and delay justice

IN FACT the Galloway's and forces of scepticism NEED theories like beam weapons and NPT, they are gatekeeper theories and vital to the defence of the OCT in the Info War

[sidlittle]

Oh look, another utterly useless thread.. :rolleyes:

Oddblock, perhaps you might find some new ideas in the thread below, conveniently titled ' Why they didn't use planes to hit the WTC'
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=61460

Secondsun, you're an embarrassment to your county...and that's saying something ;)

(i may or may not originate from the same county)

[qasrose]

I'm sorry to break news on top of your breaking news Bryan, but your point PROVES mine by showing how tin Foil hat theories help smear 9/11 Truth and delay justice

IN FACT the Galloway's and forces of scepticism NEED theories like beam weapons and NPT, they are gatekeeper theories and vital to the defence of the OCT in the Info War

Notice how Bryan insults on you, because he can not think
of a logic discussion. Basicly all No Planers start the arugments
because they know there theory is a pile of crap.

I've said it before and I shall say it again

Ever video and picture shows PLANES.

Planes hit the towers, please get over your self.

[sidlittle]

Notice how Bryan insults on you, because he can not think
of a logic discussion. Basicly all No Planers start the arugments
because they know there theory is a pile of crap.




Seriously, are you about 12?

You don't even make any sense. Time and again in the face of juvenile name-calling, Bryan shows you all up with logic, reason and humility. You don't like him because he sticks around and debates without losing his cool.
It must be very frustrating for you.

Talking of insults, wasn't this your last post ?

And mabey, you should join a mental hospital
for believing in such a crap theory... :P

I didn't correct your spelling.

[bryan]

I'm sorry to break news on top of your breaking news Bryan, but your point PROVES mine by showing how tin Foil hat theories help smear 9/11 Truth and delay justice

My point proves that 'Inside Job' in itself is a tin foil hat theory and no sub-theory is going to make it any more tin foil hat than it already is.



IN FACT the Galloway's and forces of scepticism NEED theories like beam weapons and NPT, they are gatekeeper theories and vital to the defence of the OCT in the Info War


I haven't noticed George Monbiot ranting about September Clues like he did with Loose Change. He seems to think he has enough material with 'controlled demolition', 'no plane hit the Pentagon', and 'no plane crashed at Shanksville'. We'd better tell David Ray Griffin not to mention these outrageous tin foil hat theories in future!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/feb/06/comment.film


Notice how Bryan insults on you, because he can not think of a logic discussion.


See the above comments. It WAS a logical argument. The trouble is you don't know what one looks like.



Basicly all No Planers start the arugments because they know there theory is a pile of crap.


Why did a real planer start this thread? As far as I can see, it's nothing more than an excuse for an argument.


Oh look, another utterly useless thread.. :rolleyes:

I love these threads, Sid. It's like playing a team with no goalkeeper!

[dave52]

Notice how Bryan insults on you, because he can not think
of a logic discussion. Basicly all No Planers start the arugments
because they know there theory is a pile of crap.

I've said it before and I shall say it again

Ever video and picture shows PLANES.

Planes hit the towers, please get over your self.

Really qasrose, it's embarrassing. The only input you ever have is to wade in with an insult and then you repeat the line (yet again) "every video shows planes".

Well, I called you on this twice, will you also ignore this...? I bet you fucking do.

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

[stannrodd]

Why did a real planer start this thread? As far as I can see, it's nothing more than an excuse for an argument.

What's a real planer bryan?

Some one who doesn't believe in no planes perhaps ??

The point is that NPT puts people off thinking anything other than the easy to understand official story ... it makes more common sense to them.

That is a dangerous thing don't you think bryan .. when people are safe and secure in their thinking.. it's the sheeple mentality we all abhor .. yet you guys openly assist it .. IMHO.

Stann

[mynameis]

Really qasrose, it's embarrassing. The only input you ever have is to wade in with an insult and then you repeat the line (yet again) "every video shows planes".

Well, I called you on this twice, will you also ignore this...? I bet you fucking do.

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

The plane is there. It dives in. On your video, the resolution is too poor to see the plane as it closes in, and the video is doctored. Your footage is posted by a liar. Anyone who makes this elementary mistake is to believe that most obvious of disinformation that is garbage is a hindrance on this whole forum and the truth movement. NPT=disgrace to intelligence and intellect everywhere.

Second plane hit, NBC, 9/11, 09:02 - YouTube

[thirdwave]

What I don't understand is why wouldn't they use planes? Surely it would be easier with much less chance of errors being noticed in the future?

I don't think it makes sense for them not to use real planes.

I don't believe useing a real plane to crash into a building twice is easier than useing missiles and then inserting graphics into the news feeds... it would just need pre preparation ... much less to go wrong

I am very interested in much of the NPT info.... although I will admit there are a few things that do need answering... like the first plane footage caught by the firemen doc... so on... but regarding the footage stuff they certainly have a strong case.

[thirdwave]

The plane is there. It dives in. On your video, the resolution is too poor to see the plane as it closes in, and the video is doctored. Your footage is posted by a liar. Anyone who makes this elementary mistake is to believe that most obvious of disinformation that is garbage is a hindrance on this whole forum and the truth movement. NPT=disgrace to intelligence and intellect everywhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3JYkZXxsfk

have you got proof that this video is doctored?... in some footage I have seen you do see an object come in but it looks nothing like a plane, it is a small thin object.. lets face it, there are really not allot of images of the planes hitting and many that have come were introduced much later....

[sidlittle]

I am very interested in much of the NPT info.... although I will admit there are a few things that do need answering... like the first plane footage caught by the firemen doc.

The naudet brothers. See 911 amateur part 2. Pay attention to what goes on from 2:10/4:00 mins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjQmxS-DpyM&feature=PlayList&p=A409DEB6561EDC95&index=1

[thirdwave]

The naudet brothers. See 911 amateur part 2. Pay attention to what goes on from 2:10/4:00 mins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjQmxS-DpyM&feature=PlayList&p=A409DEB6561EDC95&index=1

thanks, that to me is very interesting footage indeed.

I am very open minded about the NPT thing...

What I don't get is why there is so much arguing and why people give the NPT thing such a hard time... as it clearly raises many blatant things with a "?" ..rather than take them in and address them some seem to want to ignore them and brush them off... I don't understand this.

we allready know there was no plane at the pentagon and it was a missile... so why not the twin towers...?

[stannrodd]

Oh look, another utterly useless thread.. :rolleyes:


Why bother posting here then ? Curious behaviour don't you think sid !!

How about posting some still photos which show the real result. There are many to choose from and some incredibly hi resolution ones too.

Perhaps the painted in gash isn't painted in at all.. oh that's right all footage and photos are fake ..... right !!

Sorry forget that .. but it would be good if you could stay on topic and not simply use every thread in the 9/11 forum for pushing NPT.

It's called hijacking ..!!

You can always start your very own thread if you like.

Stann

[secondsun]

Oh look, another utterly useless thread.. :rolleyes:

Secondsun, you're an embarrassment to your county...and that's saying something ;)


...what did i say that made you cringe Sid?

[stannrodd]

Perhaps the painted in gash isn't painted in at all.. oh that's right all footage and photos are fake ..... right !!

hmmm doesn't look much like a frame from the photo shopped video sidlittle posted .. mind you the copy I have of that video, doesn't look like the one sid posted either ..

This "still pic" seems to be more representative of the archive than the NPT version.. :):)

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/wtc1hole.jpg

OK back on topic please people.

NPT pushes the official line ??

Stann

[secondsun]

Stann!... would that be 3 gashes from the right wing tip i see!?

...wonder what could have caused those?

[ronisron]

Again, why is the NPT so important? It doesn't add anything to the argument that 9/11 was an inside job, it takes the whole thing off course. It focuses on something sideways to the more important picture.

If they intended to use scalar weapons, and they wanted the best results, why not do it at night? Why do it in broad daylight, where depending on the view someone had, the light refraction would obscure a hologram? I believe that they used planes at the WTC, to have a great big, very visible cover story for the controlled demo to follow. It's much easier to just use payload equipped planes and run them into the buildings, providing the visual for people who were actually outside that day, looking skyward. It takes more than TV fakery to fool the people who were looking at the live event as it occurred.

A lot of this "evidence" of no planes comes from pixellated video footage, and or footage shot from obscured views. Keep in mind, these were buildings that were meant to absorb the impact of an airliner. The more telling evidence here is how the planes exploded upon impact, and left gaping holes in the side of the building. Why did they explode like that?? The No Plane Theory never takes into account that a lot of New Yorkers were outside looking at the smoking first tower when a second plane flew in and hit the second building.... it's a simple fact. People downtown, in apartment buildings on balconies, across the water in NJ....all saw a plane hit.

To be honest though, no one can say for certainty what hit the first tower, because there isn't any footage that I'm aware of. It may well have been a Global Hawk with a payload, much like whatever it was that hit the Pentagon. Understand that this Op needed something very visibly hitting the tower so that the rest of the cover story could fall into place. There is just too much left to chance with light and shadow to attempt a hologram that covers all angles of view.

Besides, Morgan Reynolds, former Dubya advisor, is one of the men behind NPT.... that alone should have set off alarm bells in a hurry as to the validity of this theory. It is interesting, but it's not the main crux of any argument that 9/11 was an inside job.

[secondsun]

....it takes the whole thing off course. It focuses on something sideways to the more important picture.

...exactly!... thats why they, the NPT`ers, persist with it!... dont you see?

[ronisron]

...exactly!... thats why they, the NPT`ers, persist with it!... dont you see?

I think some of them are just being "disinformationalist" on purpose, absolutely, but some really do believe it.
There was a gent on here before, a few months ago, and when I dared to suggest that many New York residents were outside looking at the smoking first tower when the second plane hit, he just couldn't wrap his mind around that. He said there was "no proof New Yorkers were looking skyward when the second plane hit", that I was "spreading disinfo" and "probably CIA".:D

I mean, who in New York wasn't looking at the first tower when the second plane flew in?

[dave52]

...exactly!... thats why they, the NPT`ers, persist with it!... dont you see?

Er...

No Fade To Black In This Video - started by Stannrodd
The No Plane Theory is a Dead Duck - started by StannRodd
No Plane Theory Pushses the Official Line - started by StannRodd
Request to No Planers Only - started by Secondsun

It's not just NPTers who persist...

[stannrodd]

It's not just NPTers who persist...

Hello Dave ( said like HAL !! )

How about you quote some of the threads you have authored recently, AND involved yourself with .. THAT you gave commitment to the topic you posed.

Get off your potato and do something other than being the couch !

At least .. I have posed a few thinking threads to those who still have functioning minds ..AND .. got a bit of feed back Dave !!

Even from your good self ..:p

The love inn

Stann

[mr_pixie]

thanks, that to me is very interesting footage indeed.

I am very open minded about the NPT thing...

What I don't get is why there is so much arguing and why people give the NPT thing such a hard time... as it clearly raises many blatant things with a "?" ..rather than take them in and address them some seem to want to ignore them and brush them off... I don't understand this.

we allready know there was no plane at the pentagon and it was a missile... so why not the twin towers...?

Because it must be a cover up mate of the no planes and DEW last one you might not of looked into. It also beyond most people imagination to think there wasnt any planes on 9/11 we all seen the footage it must be real! when there just imagies on a screen, when the truth is the global elette group have created and massive conspiracy and even biggger cover up which they have sold us our concessuss reaitly. To capitalise on out blind spot. to futher there agenda.

[mr_pixie]

No Plane Theory pushes the Official Line ?? LOL!

No Plane Theory proves there wasnt any Muslium Hi-Jackers

But many still within the 9/11 Truth Movement still think Musliums were involed.

[dave52]

At least .. I have posed a few thinking threads to those who still have functioning minds ..AND .. got a bit of feed back Dave !!


Yes you have - and I have no problem with that. I do get a bit narked when when people have a pop, when most of the NPT threads are started by rpt-ers just attempting to get a rise out of the npters.

[mr_pixie]

The naudet brothers. See 911 amateur part 2. Pay attention to what goes on from 2:10/4:00 mins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjQmxS-DpyM&feature=PlayList&p=A409DEB6561EDC95&index=1

I duno about this somethings wrong?

The naudet footage is clearly fake Ive watch that first hit loads of times and can safely say it not a real jumbo jet.

Theres someting strange going on?

[fanoftruth]

Of course the NPT doesn't push the official line but it turns a lot of people away from further 9/11 research because on face value the idea of no planes crashing into the twin towers is nigh on ludicrous. I personally believe this to be the exact reason we spend so much time on the topic too! Think about it ;

2006 was a major year for 9/11 truth. I think this was the year that truth started to break mainstream and over the internet with films like Loose Change and the like being the most watched pieces of media out there. I think a sane person watched the towers fall (plus WTC7) and knows they're brought down in some sort of controlled manner. People didn't know exactly how but were convinced of demolition none the less. It was that sort of analysis that was opening peoples' eyes and bringing them together. In 2005/6/7 there was very little mention on what we now refer to as the 'no plane theory'. You of course had a few brief flirtations with this theory as you went rummaging through website upon website but at best it was a fringe theory. Fast forward a few years and we have to admit it is the NPT that is holding 9/11 back. In 2007 I was done with 9/11 research but it had started become a perpetual bicker-fest regarding wether or not planes hit the towers. I come back to 9/11 some twelve months later and websites like this are saturated with NPT. Youtube has become a haven for viral like spreading of videos claiming planes weren't used. Nothing has changed. 9/11 truth has been stuck in a funk for 2 years.

90% of 'no plane' videos are tosh. Complete gibberish. I've always wondered why so many of these videos produced regarding the NPT contain next to no narration in them, and simply whizz through crash footage on loop whilst pumping out overly nauseating dance/techno music. Has anyone else noticed this? Almost the entire NPT media library is produced in this exact fashion. Repeated crash clips - inserted cartoon animations - silly sound affects - and deeply hypnotic trance tunes. I am of course taking liberties with the word 'tune' here. I believe all these visual and audio dennotations are an indication of what the entire NPT has set out to do from the very beginning ; seduce people into believing it.

I think the theory was planned in advance of the attacks as Co-intelpro and put at stand-by in case 9/11 truth really managed to gather significant ground. As I said before I truly believe 2006/7 to be when 9/11 truth stood at its strongest and I do not think it a coincidence that this almost perfectly coincided with the 'rise' of the NPT. Enter a smorgasboard of hypnotically produced videos which appeal to the critical thinkers that are almost too open minded for their own good - and the people who yearn to uncover a conspiracy so far removed from what they like to believe most people are able to comprehend.

I do however, in what may seem a contradiction of mammoth proportion, believe most of the second hit footage is doctored or fake. I suppose you could say I am a believer in video fakery. I believe we have been offered footage which has been doctored carefully by those whos task it was to infiltrate the movement with the NPT to begin with. If you are to push the agenda of no planes in New York then of course you must give the researcher something to analyze and find fault with. Enter fake videos and doctored footage.

Millions of people watched footage of planes on 9/11. Hundreds of eye-witnesses called into shows both on television and radio within the immediate few hours of the attack with their reports. Planes hit the towers. They may not have been AA11 and UA175 but I am positive they hit. Do most of the hit videos looke fake though? Yes. What better way to make a truth movement look stupid than to have a significant number of them claim something which outrightly opposes the reality of what happened that day...

[thirdwave]

Because it must be a cover up mate of the no planes and DEW last one you might not of looked into. It also beyond most people imagination to think there wasnt any planes on 9/11 we all seen the footage it must be real! when there just imagies on a screen, when the truth is the global elette group have created and massive conspiracy and even biggger cover up which they have sold us our concessuss reaitly. To capitalise on out blind spot. to futher there agenda.

well I have always thought that if people were not ready for an attack.... how many times do you see a 500 mph jet fly low into a building? .. not many ...so if you saw a missile go in there and someone later said it was a plane, I don't think many would have argued especially when seeing the news footage after... as on the moment you are distracted by adrenaline and fear..


although you might get the odd person who pops up with "you know what, they kind of looked and sounded like missiles" ..which of course people have...

the missiles could also explain the noise on the day...

for me the biggest question, and this is for the whole thing is what happened to the Planes the passengers got on... and was there really passengers!?

[thirdwave]

we know that there were explosives smothering both buildings.... and we see these go off and various points throughout the attack...

what gets me is how some seem to act like the NPT is far fetched?

have you any idea how corrupt and full of shit the MSM is?

you can hear when they lie... like that guy who claimed to see a plane hit the pentagon and was later found out as working for the News... all this ..."eeerr yeah ... i was here and i saw a... PLANE..... yes a PLANE hit the building" ... and you get a load of people who lap it up when they could not sound more fake....

I %100 think that the woman who was saying "oh my I have just seen another PLANE hit... a PLANE hit the building... when the second plane hit the WTC, was bullshitting In the same way as the Penatagon "whitness" and in the same way a "whitness bullshitted to cover up the mendez underground shooting who was actualy exposed in doing so when the real story came out ...

listen and see how she very much emphasise the word plane as per instruction... as if that is going to be what you would focus on? like she was letting people know what time the late game was going to kick off..... No, you would say... another one has just hit and you would not be in such a sufficient descriptive tone .... its bullshit and they are fake whores paid to lie.... and I see them as the scum of the earth... again she was proven to be bullshitting by not being close enough to be so sure what hit.

but my point is... it would have been easy to plant the bombs (which would have had to have been done even with planes hitting) .... and simpley fire state of the art %100 precision missiles into the buildings, with other bombes set to go off to create a wider hole... with pre prepared news camera's ready to insert planes into the footage going out to people... this would also explain why some of the graphics was not water tight.... we already know there were a number of coincidental events going on that morning!.. very handy.

you have to take into account the power of knowing what was going to happen that day to people having no idea... the control you have over those moments... they teach people that in secret services how you manipulate and control through the element of surprise...

I am personally surprised how some seem to view this theory as impossible and any more far fetched than the plane thing.

another thing we know is that the people who were meant to fly the jets into the buildings could barely fly a tiny jet used for practice let alone manoeuvre the planes in a way top pilots would not have confidence in.

I mean really, do you think its all that far fetched?

[mynameis]

have you got proof that this video is doctored?... in some footage I have seen you do see an object come in but it looks nothing like a plane, it is a small thin object.. lets face it, there are really not allot of images of the planes hitting and many that have come were introduced much later....

What I can tell is the difference between how the archive footage looks, the differences between broadcast quality and how the copy has been compressed to dissolve the resolution on purpose is obvious.

[thirdwave]

What I can tell is the difference between how the archive footage looks, the differences between broadcast quality and how the copy has been compressed to dissolve the resolution on purpose is obvious.

but is that not the same with any youtube vid?

[bryan]

but is that not the same with any youtube vid?

Good quality videos are not necessary to prove the second plane was faked. The proof is in the positioning of the TV cameras just before the South Tower exploded. The odds against all the cameras being on the north side of the WTC, and the two choppers which filmed the plane live being perfectly placed for inserting a cgi into the live footage, are too great to be a coincidence.

[sidlittle]

I duno about this somethings wrong?

The naudet footage is clearly fake Ive watch that first hit loads of times and can safely say it not a real jumbo jet.

Theres someting strange going on?

well, yes, it's always going to be a little strange when an impact hole doesn't start to form until six seconds after impact

[ronisron]

Ultimately, the NPT doesn't allow for the fact that thousands of New Yorkers were looking skyward at the first tower when the second plane hit, no TV fakery can explain that simple fact away.

[sidlittle]

Of course the NPT doesn't push the official line but it turns a lot of people away from further 9/11 research because on face value the idea of no planes crashing into the twin towers is nigh on ludicrous. I personally believe this to be the exact reason we spend so much time on the topic too! Think about it ;

2006 was a major year for 9/11 truth. I think this was the year that truth started to break mainstream and over the internet with films like Loose Change and the like being the most watched pieces of media out there. I think a sane person watched the towers fall (plus WTC7) and knows they're brought down in some sort of controlled manner. People didn't know exactly how but were convinced of demolition none the less. It was that sort of analysis that was opening peoples' eyes and bringing them together. In 2005/6/7 there was very little mention on what we now refer to as the 'no plane theory'. You of course had a few brief flirtations with this theory as you went rummaging through website upon website but at best it was a fringe theory. Fast forward a few years and we have to admit it is the NPT that is holding 9/11 back. In 2007 I was done with 9/11 research but it had started become a perpetual bicker-fest regarding wether or not planes hit the towers. I come back to 9/11 some twelve months later and websites like this are saturated with NPT. Youtube has become a haven for viral like spreading of videos claiming planes weren't used. Nothing has changed. 9/11 truth has been stuck in a funk for 2 years.

90% of 'no plane' videos are tosh. Complete gibberish. I've always wondered why so many of these videos produced regarding the NPT contain next to no narration in them, and simply whizz through crash footage on loop whilst pumping out overly nauseating dance/techno music. Has anyone else noticed this? Almost the entire NPT media library is produced in this exact fashion. Repeated crash clips - inserted cartoon animations - silly sound affects - and deeply hypnotic trance tunes. I am of course taking liberties with the word 'tune' here. I believe all these visual and audio dennotations are an indication of what the entire NPT has set out to do from the very beginning ; seduce people into believing it.

I think the theory was planned in advance of the attacks as Co-intelpro and put at stand-by in case 9/11 truth really managed to gather significant ground. As I said before I truly believe 2006/7 to be when 9/11 truth stood at its strongest and I do not think it a coincidence that this almost perfectly coincided with the 'rise' of the NPT. Enter a smorgasboard of hypnotically produced videos which appeal to the critical thinkers that are almost too open minded for their own good - and the people who yearn to uncover a conspiracy so far removed from what they like to believe most people are able to comprehend.

I do however, in what may seem a contradiction of mammoth proportion, believe most of the second hit footage is doctored or fake. I suppose you could say I am a believer in video fakery. I believe we have been offered footage which has been doctored carefully by those whos task it was to infiltrate the movement with the NPT to begin with. If you are to push the agenda of no planes in New York then of course you must give the researcher something to analyze and find fault with. Enter fake videos and doctored footage.

Millions of people watched footage of planes on 9/11. Hundreds of eye-witnesses called into shows both on television and radio within the immediate few hours of the attack with their reports. Planes hit the towers. They may not have been AA11 and UA175 but I am positive they hit. Do most of the hit videos looke fake though? Yes. What better way to make a truth movement look stupid than to have a significant number of them claim something which outrightly opposes the reality of what happened that day...

what a bizarre post

[sidlittle]

Ultimately, the NPT doesn't allow for the fact that thousands of New Yorkers were looking skyward at the first tower when the second plane hit, no TV fakery can explain that simple fact away.

Ultimately, your logic is circular

[ronisron]

Ultimately, your logic is circular

LOL!! They weren't watching TV or video when they were standing outside, looking at the tower that had just been hit, and a plane came roaring in and smoked the second tower.

Circular.... yes, it ultimately always comes back to the truth.

[sidlittle]

LOL!! They weren't watching TV or video when they were standing outside, looking at the tower that had just been hit, and a plane came roaring in and smoked the second tower.

Circular.... yes, it ultimately always comes back to the truth.

You're assuming people witnessed a plane because you're assuming there were planes - that couldn't be anymore circular.

Shall we just ignore the initial witness reports of small planes and missiles ?

[ronisron]

You're assuming people witnessed a plane because you're assuming there were planes - that couldn't be anymore circular.

Shall we just ignore the initial witness reports of small planes and missiles ?

I'm assuming people saw a plane because there were thousands of New Yorkers outside looking at the first tower when the second plane hit.

You don't have to ignore anything, it's what you believe. I just don't have the same view. Pentagon eye witnesses saw
-a jumbo jet
-a 20 seater passenger plane
-a helicopter
-2 planes, a passenger and a small plane -- the passenger jet flew low, then took off, while the second smaller "plane" flew in and exploded...

Take your pick. Obviously a plane did not crash at the Pentagon, but I believe 2 payload equipped planes crashed into the WTC's, and exploded like that to make a big boom, so folks would but the official story easier.

Did you know about the NY Yankees pitcher who crashed his small plane into an apartment building??

http://nyc.metblogs.com/archives/images/2007/05/cory%20lidle%20plane%20crash.jpg

Now, this was a Cessna, and half of it somehow wound up in the living room, destroying brick, cement and steel to do so, while the other half broke off and fell to the street. Keep in mind this wasn't a large plane crashing into a building that was built to absorb the impact of an airliner, and it wasn't a plane equipped with an explosive payload either.

By all means, carry on with the NPT as though it is the most important aspect of 9/11. It obviously means a lot to you.

[thirdwave]

Ultimately, the NPT doesn't allow for the fact that thousands of New Yorkers were looking skyward at the first tower when the second plane hit, no TV fakery can explain that simple fact away.

So?

have you interviewed them all... we know what the mainstream media say... and we all know how many sheep will quite happily support what the mainstream media say... even if someone saw would could have quite easily been a missile out of fear they would be quite happy to say it was a plane and ware their Obama T shirt...

anyone who is aware at how unaware some are and how they cat ... would have an understanding of this...

[fanoftruth]

sidlittle, could you elaborate a bit as to why my post was bizarre please.

[sidlittle]

I'm assuming people saw a plane because there were thousands of New Yorkers outside looking at the first tower when the second plane hit.
That's still circular!!

You don't have to ignore anything, it's what you believe. I just don't have the same view. Pentagon eye witnesses saw
-a jumbo jet
-a 20 seater passenger plane
-a helicopter
-2 planes, a passenger and a small plane -- the passenger jet flew low, then took off, while the second smaller "plane" flew in and exploded...

Take your pick. Obviously a plane did not crash at the Pentagon

Of course a plane hit the pentagon. There were hundreds of people who saw a plane hit the Pentagon.......
Do you see what I did there? ;)

...So we have established that witness testimony is contradictory. Why cling onto the 'thousands of witnesses to planes at the wtc' myth then?

Did you know about the NY Yankees pitcher who crashed his small plane into an apartment building??

Now, this was a Cessna, and half of it somehow wound up in the living room, destroying brick, cement and steel to do so, while the other half broke off and fell to the street.


Once collision was inevitable, surely a pilot, savvy in 911 sponsored nouveau physics, would have had the presence of mind to hit the building as fast as possible , thus giving him a far better chance of fully penetrating the building intact and saving his life [/sarcasm]


By all means, carry on with the NPT as though it is the most important aspect of 9/11. It obviously means a lot to you.
Yes, thanks :)

[sidlittle]

sidlittle, could you elaborate a bit as to why my post was bizarre please.

I can't work it out. Are you saying that all the video evidence put forward by npt researchers is faked by themselves? or planes were used but the original footage was faked at source by the perps to lead genuine researchers a merry dance?

[sidlittle]

So?

have you interviewed them all... we know what the mainstream media say... and we all know how many sheep will quite happily support what the mainstream media say... even if someone saw would could have quite easily been a missile out of fear they would be quite happy to say it was a plane and ware their Obama T shirt...
.

absolutely and consider this


False memories of July 7 cast doubt on court evidence

Memories of highly charged events such as the July 7 bombings can be totally inaccurate and too unreliable to use in court, a psychologist has found.


He told the BA Festival of Science in Liverpool many people can be persuaded they have seen things which never happened.

Of the British respondents, 40 per cent claimed to have seen non-existent CCTV footage of the bus explode and 28 per cent claimed to have seen a non-existent computerised reconstruction of the bombing.

Some went much further when asked to describe what happened at the moment the bus exploded - which none of them could have seen.

Some answers revealed a high degree of skill in fabricating imaginary memories including:
One wrote: "The bus has stopped at a traffic light. There was a bright light and a loud bang and the top of the bus flew off and lots of screaming and then everything seemed still."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2775467/False-memories-of-July-7-cast-doubt-on-court-evidence.html

[secondsun]

..Sid`!... i still want to know why i am an embarrassment to my county!

[fanoftruth]

"I can't work it out. Are you saying that all the video evidence put forward by npt researchers is faked by themselves? or planes were used but the original footage was faked at source by the perps to lead genuine researchers a merry dance?" - sidlittle

The latter. If I was a perp I would have something waiting up my sleeve incase 9/11 truth gained momentum. I have next to no doubt that planes slammed into the towers that day but I also believe most of the second hit footage has been doctored or tampered with. I believe this was done so that, like you say, genuine researchers would pick up on these video inconsistancies and start to run with the idea that the reason we have fake videos is because there were no planes used at all.

For Joe Public there is little else more bizarre than hearing a relatively substantial number of 9/11 truthers believe that planes did not hit the twin towers. It directly opposes the reality of what happened - thus painting the thruth movement to be nothing short of out of their minds.

NB. Yes, I had a dig at NPT researchers in my original post but I'm sure most of them are genuine people, though I just feel they're being easily seduced into this theory and taken for fools.

[stannrodd]

For Joe Public there is little else more bizarre than hearing a relatively substantial number of 9/11 truthers believe that planes did not hit the twin towers. It directly opposes the reality of what happened - thus painting the thruth movement to be nothing short of out of their minds.

NB. Yes, I had a dig at NPT researchers in my original post but I'm sure most of them are genuine people, though I just feel they're being easily seduced into this theory and taken for fools.

I'd go as far and say that Joe Public couldn't give a damn and if someone told them that "No Planes hit them tharr towrers .." they'd probably punch their lights out !! Like .. how can a No Plane hit anything .. at all ??

But this thread isn't Joe Public territory .. it's about questioning whether the NP Theory asisists in pushing the Official Line .. sort of by default.

And at the same time it becomes a carbuncle on the arse of a "Truth Movement" .. by Joe Public's observed association.

It's an honest thread and asks honest questions..

Stann

[bryan]

The latter. If I was a perp I would have something waiting up my sleeve incase 9/11 truth gained momentum.


You've just undermined ALL 9/11 research. ANY evidence could have been planted to throw researchers off the scent.

Since the perps already had their hands full during the attacks, they might have prefered to wait till after the event and establish their own truth movement that could be persuaded never to question whether the planes were real or not.



I have next to no doubt that planes slammed into the towers that day but I also believe most of the second hit footage has been doctored or tampered with. I believe this was done so that, like you say, genuine researchers would pick up on these video inconsistancies and start to run with the idea that the reason we have fake videos is because there were no planes used at all.


Could you take one piece of video footage used by no planers, and tell us in what way you think it was altered? Are you suggesting they took the real planes out of the videos and replaced them with cgi versions? How would they have edited out the wings and tail section breaking off and falling to the ground? What about all the 9/11 researchers who say there's nothing suspicious about the videos at all? Would they not be even more gullible than the no planers who fell for the disinfo?



For Joe Public there is little else more bizarre than hearing a relatively substantial number of 9/11 truthers believe that planes did not hit the twin towers. It directly opposes the reality of what happened - thus painting the thruth movement to be nothing short of out of their minds.


This is one of the biggest myths of 9/11. Everybody I know who has seen Ace Baker's 'Theory of Ghostplane' video is fascinated by the suggestion that the planes could have been cartoons. Some of these people know that Building 7 was demolished, but they couldn't give a toss.

NPT-haters will never know how easy it is for the public to accept the information, because they're so desperate to prevent people from seeing that kind of video, that they'll never be in a position to witness the reactions.

[mr_pixie]

I'm assuming people saw a plane because there were thousands of New Yorkers outside looking at the first tower when the second plane hit.

You don't have to ignore anything, it's what you believe. I just don't have the same view. Pentagon eye witnesses saw
-a jumbo jet
-a 20 seater passenger plane
-a helicopter
-2 planes, a passenger and a small plane -- the passenger jet flew low, then took off, while the second smaller "plane" flew in and exploded...

Take your pick. Obviously a plane did not crash at the Pentagon, but I believe 2 payload equipped planes crashed into the WTC's, and exploded like that to make a big boom, so folks would but the official story easier.

Did you know about the NY Yankees pitcher who crashed his small plane into an apartment building??

http://nyc.metblogs.com/archives/images/2007/05/cory%20lidle%20plane%20crash.jpg

Now, this was a Cessna, and half of it somehow wound up in the living room, destroying brick, cement and steel to do so, while the other half broke off and fell to the street. Keep in mind this wasn't a large plane crashing into a building that was built to absorb the impact of an airliner, and it wasn't a plane equipped with an explosive payload either.

By all means, carry on with the NPT as though it is the most important aspect of 9/11. It obviously means a lot to you.

Again this could well be a doctered photo.

[thirdwave]

Again this could well be a doctered photo.

also what does it prove?.. for all we know there could br a ton of wreckage laying on the ground.... and we have not been able to see the nature of the impacted..

[mr_pixie]

I think that baseball guy could of been talkin out mysef i said this on the uk 9//11 forum when it happened.


Allso there quiet a lot of media fakery going around reports have been made of explosions beeing tampered with when the last zionist invassion of the Leboinon in 2006 and fake fireworks at the end of olympics last year.

[fanoftruth]

"You've just undermined ALL 9/11 research. ANY evidence could have been planted to throw researchers off the scent. Since the perps already had their hands full during the attacks, they might have prefered to wait till after the event and establish their own truth movement that could be persuaded never to question whether the planes were real or not." - bryan

Of course I haven't undermined all 9/11 research, I've merely stated the logical course of action would have been to create a counter intelligence programme. Your second sentence in the above paragraph states that exact same thing. You may not agree with me that the perps used the same CoIntelPro agenda but it's clearly plausible in your mind.


"Could you take one piece of video footage used by no planers, and tell us in what way you think it was altered? Are you suggesting they took the real planes out of the videos and replaced them with cgi versions?"

I won't single out a particular piece of footage but I don't think there is one single shot which shows a high resolution 767 clearly marked in United Airlines colours. Blinking wings, see through planes, black blobs, you've seen them all as often as I have. No-planers believe these videos exist to cover up the fact there were no 767s in New York whereas I'm inclined to believe they exist as part of a carefully planned infiltration agenda.

"What about all the 9/11 researchers who say there's nothing suspicious about the videos at all? Would they not be even more gullible than the no planers who fell for the disinfo" - bryan

Maybe there is nothing suspicious about the crash videos. I am only offering my opinion that most look doctored but I cannot claim to know this as a fact of course. I think most 9/11 researchers know that to spend time scrutinising each video and subsequently claim they are frauds is a frankly quite poor way to turn people onto the subject of 9/11 truth. Everyone saw 3 towers disintagrate on television therefore it isn't too difficult a task to convince someone they were demolished. It is of course an entirely different task on your hands to convince someone that the planes they saw on every channel, on every news show for weeks after 9/11 were fake.


"NPT-haters will never know how easy it is for the public to accept the information, because they're so desperate to prevent people from seeing that kind of video, that they'll never be in a position to witness the reactions."

Of course people will be more open to the possibility than they were a few years ago as we wake up to what's happening in the world around us. I live in the UK and all my immediate friends, family and work collegues are awake to 9/11 but if ever discussed the NPT is ridiculed. Not on analysis of video evidence but simply on logic that after the North Tower was hit there is no way the perps would even consider having anything other than a 767 hitting the South Tower with the hundreds, if not thousands, of eyes and cameras trained up on them.


I can understand a No-planer becoming annoyed at what I say because I am essentially saying that they've been strung along from the beginning. I try not to insult anyone whos research is honest and who contuct themselves online in a mature manner, so I hope there aren't any hard feelings. Besides it's just my personal theory and though it makes sense to me it's still only a theory. :)

[mr_pixie]

No Plane Theory pushes the Official Line ??

Dont you think this is a bit silly?

[fanoftruth]

No Plane Theory pushes the Official Line ??

"Dont you think this is a bit silly" - mr pixie

Of course it's silly. It's psychology. Some people get so annoyed at no-planers that in a desperate attempt to make NP researchers feel bad they'll insinuate that they are somehow backing up the official story.

[thirdwave]

ok, lets get this streight....

there are people who think that saying there where no planes used and it was missiles used to hit the buildings that where filled with bombs which also created the controlled demolition.... before they used graphics to create the images for news coverage which also aired lying witness's live.

is, ssssssome how promoting a the official line which is...

Muslim terrorists hijacked the planes with box cutters... flew the commercial air liner jets into the buildings which ended up collapsing on their feet due the the steel melting.

Well If people really think that, then I think we are seeing today that insanity is taking control of planet earth.

[bryan]

Well If people really think that, then I think we are seeing today that insanity is taking control of planet earth.

What we are seeing on this forum at the moment is a lot of upside-down logic emanating from the Southern Hemisphere.

[mr_pixie]

No Planes means no Musluim hi-jackers

[ronisron]

No Planes means no Musluim hi-jackers

So does the fact that none of these guys had tickets, or appeared on any passenger manifests.... The main "proof" of Muslim hijackers comes from cell phone calls that were impossible to make from planes in 2001. Air-to-ground cell transmission wasn't successful until 2004 when Qualicomm and American Airlines introduced the first technology to enable this. The planes must have aerials, fore and aft, and a special transponder on the plane. No planes in 2001 had this technology -- at least no passenger planes. The cell phone calls were faked, and are a huge smoking gun once they were debunked.

Flight 93 was seen flying very low over PA that day, or at least a very large passenger plane was. It had some smaller planes following it, and many eye witnesses described it as an A10 after being shown photographs. Some said they heard a sound like a missile, then an explosion. All of this was echoed last week by K Butler, who says that a plane was shot down over PA on the morning of 9/11/01, after going too close to Section R1, an underground military base.

As for eyewitnesses... the point I was trying to make, is that a very small portion of people looking skyward that morning saw something other than a plane hit the second tower. A much larger portion saw a plane impact the second tower, and explode. With the Pentagon, there is no evidence of a plane crash, whatsoever. A grainy video which doesn't show a plane hitting, and news spin is all there is. There is however a ton of amateur shot video from varying angles available to you on youtube, that is outside the boundaries of a TV station, or news outlet trying to sell a story, that shows a plane hitting the towers.

I believe they flew remote flown, payload equipped drones, into the top 3rd of each tower, to provide the cover necessary to sell the story, to provide the images that made people say "Well, it must have been a plane crash at Shanksville too... Well, it must have been a plane at the Pentagon too...." in a very hazy "1+1 must =3" kind of way. They'd have been smart to use this fakery at the Pentagon too, wouldn't they? There should be thousands of videos of the "plane" hitting the Pentagon too. There isn't. They took two of the biggest buildings in the world, during morning rush hour in Manhattan (one of the biggest Metropolitan centers in the world), and made a big show of flying two drones into them, at a very visible, very high height -- hence why all those special camera angles were ready to go. They needed this precise "proof" to mask the demo that was to follow, and to neatly explain all the other impossibilities that occurred that day. Just too many people in New York to chance that no one would recognize a missile strike. They needed to mask that payload in the form of a plane......

As for how the building absorbed the airliner, I can't explain it any better than Frank De Martini, who along with leslie Robertson, designed the WTC's. He conveniently died on 9/11 too.

Frank A. DeMartini - YouTube

"Like a pencil puncturing the screen netting..."

Was 9/11 an inside job? Sure. No plane at the Pentagon or Shanksville? I'm on board, there's no proof of either. But NPT at the WTC's is a really tough thing to prove, and is not important to the big picture, when there are already a great deal of smoking guns surrounding how the buildings fell. Why did they hire Controlled Demolition Inc to clean up? Because it was a controlled demo. NPT has to fill in the blanks in a hurry for any questions that don't jibe, and must use a lot of maybe's and even more far fetched possibilities as "explanation" to do this. There's no stopping point with it, and it reaches the realms of the fantastic quick.

I want to think some of you guys really believe it, and that's fine. But at the core of this "movement" lies charlatans like Morgan Reynolds, and it seems to do nothing except make good folks argue about something that is not really significant. Hey I don't believe they were the planes in question hitting the WTC's, but they were planes.

The biggest question about them is what actually happened to the real planes and passengers?

[stannrodd]

I believe they flew remote flown, payload equipped drones, into the top 3rd of each tower, to provide the cover necessary to sell the story, to provide the images that made people say "Well, it must have been a plane crash at Shanksville too... Well, it must have been a plane at the Pentagon too...." in a very hazy "1+1 must =3" kind of way. They'd have been smart to use this fakery at the Pentagon too, wouldn't they? There should be thousands of videos of the "plane" hitting the Pentagon too. There isn't. They took two of the biggest buildings in the world, during morning rush hour in Manhattan (one of the biggest Metropolitan centers in the world), and made a big show of flying two drones into them, at a very visible, very high height -- hence why all those special camera angles were ready to go. They needed this precise "proof" to mask the demo that was to follow, and to neatly explain all the other impossibilities that occurred that day. Just too many people in New York to chance that no one would recognize a missile strike. They needed to mask that payload in the form of a plane......

I totally agree..!

And this is why the NPT ends up pushing the Official Line .. by default.

Stann