Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > 9/11 & 7/7

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 17-05-2009, 03:48 AM   #1
noewhan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,036
Likes: 18 (14 Posts)
Default NPT is it worth it?

I'm watching 'Press for 911 truth' again right now.

One of the Jersey girls said 'It's apart of the healing process to learn exactly what happened that day.'

Do any family members of the victims believe that the NTP is the case?

Could it be 'easier', to catch those involved with 911 & false terrorism, through their own story of what happened (911 commission)?

So we have, 'hijacked aircraft' (*with bombs attached) as apposed to just missiles with a fake image of a airliner?

Btw, 'Press for 911 truth' is amazing.
noewhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2009, 01:18 PM   #2
ronisron
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,108
Likes: 2,842 (1,323 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noewhan View Post
Could it be 'easier', to catch those involved with 911 & false terrorism, through their own story of what happened (911 commission)?

So we have, 'hijacked aircraft' (*with bombs attached) as apposed to just missiles with a fake image of a airliner?
That's what I've been saying as well. Besides, those planes were de facto missiles, rigged to explode on contact, set up a huge distraction, and provided the cover story for the controlled demo -- the ruse being that the planes hit, the structural integrity of the towers was compromised, global collpase of buildings ensues.

With all of this excessive fakery, you think they would have done a much better job with holographing or video morphing something at the Pentagon too. They had one video they released which doesn't show anything but an explosion, with the WTC's, they had tons of footage to work with -- because they actually flew planes into them.

Last edited by ronisron; 17-05-2009 at 01:19 PM.
ronisron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2009, 01:38 PM   #3
bryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,098
Likes: 121 (70 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronisron View Post
With all of this excessive fakery, you think they would have done a much better job with holographing or video morphing something at the Pentagon too.
You're implying that you think the Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane. Why fake it when they could have just flown a plane into the Pentagon? Unlike the WTC, they didn't need an excuse to bring the building down. It wouldn't matter if the plane didn't cause much damage. It was just symbolic. Logically, there'd be more reason to use a real plane at the Pentagon than at the WTC.
bryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2009, 04:52 PM   #4
ronisron
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,108
Likes: 2,842 (1,323 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan View Post
You're implying that you think the Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane. Why fake it when they could have just flown a plane into the Pentagon? Unlike the WTC, they didn't need an excuse to bring the building down. It wouldn't matter if the plane didn't cause much damage. It was just symbolic. Logically, there'd be more reason to use a real plane at the Pentagon than at the WTC.
I'm not implying a thing; I'm saying they didn't use a plane at the Pentagon. That's why they have no footage of anything hitting it, and why EVERY security camera tape in the radius of the Pentagon was seized by police and FBI. Otherwise, the "plane hitting the Pentagon footage" would be everywhere just like the WTC footage is. With the WTC's the planes were used as the reason that the buildings came down -- planes hit, fire from explosion, as well as the impact weakened the structural steel, caused global collapse of the buildings. Tons of footage. Lots of eyewitnesses.

Logically, they needed the planes at the WTC's AND at the Pentagon. They handled the WTC's easy enough, they should've slammed a plane into the Pentagon and dropped one at Shanksville too, they just didn't. They were hoping the planes WTC's would be enough "proof" to make the spin of planes at the other locations plausible.

Once again, they have tons of footage of planes hitting the WTC's, none of the Pentagon or Shanksville. NP at the Penatgon or Shanksville? Sure. Lots of good, sound arguments to back those ideas up. The other is ridiculous, IMO. Hey, at least you know it was an inside job....
ronisron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2009, 05:24 PM   #5
bryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,098
Likes: 121 (70 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronisron View Post
Logically, they needed the planes at the WTC's AND at the Pentagon. They handled the WTC's easy enough, they should've slammed a plane into the Pentagon and dropped one at Shanksville too, they just didn't. They were hoping the planes WTC's would be enough "proof" to make the spin of planes at the other locations plausible.

Once again, they have tons of footage of planes hitting the WTC's, none of the Pentagon or Shanksville. NP at the Penatgon or Shanksville? Sure. Lots of good, sound arguments to back those ideas up.
Your argument's shaky. They had the choice of whether to fly a plane into the Pentagon or fake it. How did they benefit by faking it? An obvious benefit of using a real plane would be that parts would be everywhere and nobody would question whether there was a plane crash. So why did they risk giving the game away?
bryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2009, 12:14 AM   #6
lord tsukasa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 407
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan View Post
Your argument's shaky. They had the choice of whether to fly a plane into the Pentagon or fake it. How did they benefit by faking it? An obvious benefit of using a real plane would be that parts would be everywhere and nobody would question whether there was a plane crash. So why did they risk giving the game away?
Perhaps because there were certain documents/people inside that building that were targeted. Bombs are more reliable than a jumbo jet when you want to assassinate people or destroy documents. It's the more sensible military option, and the planting of these explosives would certainly be possible, since that area was being 'renovated'.
lord tsukasa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2009, 12:25 AM   #7
white horse
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK PLC
Posts: 3,621
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lord tsukasa View Post
Perhaps because there were certain documents/people inside that building that were targeted. Bombs are more reliable than a jumbo jet when you want to assassinate people or destroy documents. It's the more sensible military option, and the planting of these explosives would certainly be possible, since that area was being 'renovated'.
The Pentagon was never intended to be telivised, the floor show was in NY, the other 'two flights' had secondary rolls to the main event, bringing down the WTC and creating a shock and awe effect on teh American Psyche to gain a popular mandate to carry out their wars of conquest abroad and creeping fascism at home.

So was the purpose of the Pentagon flight to get Rumsfeld the excuse to get his office totally renovated?

Last edited by white horse; 18-05-2009 at 12:27 AM.
white horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2009, 10:03 AM   #8
bryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,098
Likes: 121 (70 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lord tsukasa View Post
Perhaps because there were certain documents/people inside that building that were targeted. Bombs are more reliable than a jumbo jet when you want to assassinate people or destroy documents. It's the more sensible military option, and the planting of these explosives would certainly be possible, since that area was being 'renovated'.
At the WTC the planes had to APPEAR to cause enough structural damage to justify the collapse of three buildings.

A frequent argument against NPT is that a large passenger jet had never flown into a construction like the twin towers before, so we can't know what the videos should show as the plane hits the side of the building.

But that also applies to the planners of 9/11. They had no means of knowing whether planes would have gone right inside the buildings and caused enough damage to provide a cover story for the demolitions. Like at the Pentagon, bombs or missiles would have been more reliable than a jumbo jet.
bryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2009, 12:50 PM   #9
noewhan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,036
Likes: 18 (14 Posts)
Default

I may have missed the answer to this in another thread, but for the NPers I'll repeat the question:

Do any family members of the victims believe that the NTP is the case?
noewhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2009, 01:09 PM   #10
dave52
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,141
Likes: 985 (411 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noewhan View Post
I may have missed the answer to this in another thread, but for the NPers I'll repeat the question:

Do any family members of the victims believe that the NTP is the case?
Does it matter...?
__________________
Dave.

www.DaveWare.co.uk
Are You Listening...?
dave52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2009, 01:56 PM   #11
ronisron
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,108
Likes: 2,842 (1,323 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan View Post
At the WTC the planes had to APPEAR to cause enough structural damage to justify the collapse of three buildings.
You said it.... the planes had to appear to be the reason for the total collapse, that's why they were used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan View Post
A frequent argument against NPT is that a large passenger jet had never flown into a construction like the twin towers before, so we can't know what the videos should show as the plane hits the side of the building.
In theory they were supposed to do what they did. A bomber hit the Empire State Building in the 1940's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan View Post
But that also applies to the planners of 9/11. They had no means of knowing whether planes would have gone right inside the buildings and caused enough damage to provide a cover story for the demolitions. Like at the Pentagon, bombs or missiles would have been more reliable than a jumbo jet.
Once again, as a matter of fact, in theory, the planes did exactly as it was hoped they would, just as Frank De Martini eloquently explained; "A plane hitting the steel would be like poking a pencil through screen netting..." in so many words. That's exactly what happened, and that's why they used planes there.... a missile would not have induced a huge fireball like that on impact, and might have punched right through both buildings, and kept on going. What would have hit and produced a huge fireball on impact?? A dummy military plane loaded with a detonation charge and JET FUEL. A big fireball that burns off right away.

They used dummy planes, remote flown, explosive charges on board, the planes entered as De Martini theorized, as the grid around the buildings were designed, and the jet fuel exploded producing a huge fireball. It was supposed to mask the controlled demo. That's why they were comfortable using planes at the WTC.

What they used at the Pentagon was never shown, anywhere, but it did punch a 12' in diameter hole through all 5 rings on the side that it hit, which just so happened to be being "renovated" at the time.

At least you think it was an inside job.
ronisron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2009, 03:38 AM   #12
matrix911
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,591
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronisron View Post
With all of this excessive fakery, you think they would have done a much better job with holographing or video morphing something at the Pentagon too. They had one video they released which doesn't show anything but an explosion, with the WTC's, they had tons of footage to work with -- because they actually flew planes into them.
A better JOB??? huh?

whatta ya mean?

The job they did was MORE THAN ENOUGH AS LAME AS IT WAS, TO CONVINCE BLIND IGNORANT AND ARROGANT AMERICANS TO GO TO WAR.

thats how STUPID people in general are these days... It doesn't take too much to fool americans.

The majority took the bait hook line and sinker.... and still even after overwhelmingly evidence of fakery, MOST still refuse to even consider it, or worse, continue to deny it and don't bother doing even the most basic research or investigation to have any educated opinion of it.

Last edited by matrix911; 19-05-2009 at 05:29 AM.
matrix911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2009, 12:04 PM   #13
noewhan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,036
Likes: 18 (14 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave52 View Post
Does it matter...?
I think it does.

Have you seen Truth Rising?
noewhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2009, 01:09 PM   #14
dave52
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,141
Likes: 985 (411 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noewhan View Post
I think it does.
So... in that case the official story should be the only one we consider because the majority of the victims families believe the Government line.
__________________
Dave.

www.DaveWare.co.uk
Are You Listening...?
dave52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2009, 02:23 PM   #15
ronisron
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,108
Likes: 2,842 (1,323 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix911 View Post
A better JOB??? huh?

whatta ya mean?

The job they did was MORE THAN ENOUGH AS LAME AS IT WAS, TO CONVINCE BLIND IGNORANT AND ARROGANT AMERICANS TO GO TO WAR.

thats how STUPID people in general are these days... It doesn't take too much to fool americans.

The majority took the bait hook line and sinker.... and still even after overwhelmingly evidence of fakery, MOST still refuse to even consider it, or worse, continue to deny it and don't bother doing even the most basic research or investigation to have any educated opinion of it.
No one convinced Americans it was OK to go to war after 9/11, the plan was ready to go, and it went ahead without approval from the Senate or the Congress. The lie was "Osama and Al CIA Duh" and the genuine Taliban in Afghanistan, and WMD's in Iraq. Remember? Painting all Americans with the same brush isn't fair. Ignorance and arrogance obviously isn't something that only Americans suffer with....

In any case, what I was suggesting in my post was that if there was excessive fakery and holograms etc used at the WTC's, the planners of 9/11 would have been better served by also employing the same technique at the Pentagon. Where there is a lot of video images concerning the WTC's, there is next to nothing at the Pentagon "crash site". That is where the media said "this is where a plane crashed" yet couldn't produce a single bit of video footage except for this


Which doesn't show a plane at all.

There are thousands of videos showing planes approaching and crashing into the WTC's, and all they have for the Pentagon is the above tripe. It's because they actually used planes as decoys at the WTC's, they didn't do the same at the Pentagon. What they say happened at the Pentagon was that the plane disintegrated on impact. Unfortunately for "them", the disintegrating plane somehow punched a 12' in diameter hole through all 5 walls of that side of the structure, deposited the wheels of a Global Hawk in the courtyard, and left a strong smell of cordite lingering in the air.
ronisron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2009, 09:02 PM   #16
bryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,098
Likes: 121 (70 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronisron View Post
You said it.... the planes had to appear to be the reason for the total collapse, that's why they were used.
A leap of logic if ever I saw one.

If the planes were to be the cause of the collapse, the perps would have to use planes.

If the planes only needed to appear to be the cause of the collapse, the perps could either use planes or fake them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ronisron View Post
In theory they were supposed to do what they did.
You're begging the question by assuming your conclusion and using it as one of your arguments.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ronisron View Post
A bomber hit the Empire State Building in the 1940's.
There are some suspicious similarities between the South Tower plane crash and the ESB plane crash. For example, in both cases one engine went straight through the building and the other lodged itself in the elevator shaft. It's as if the perps used facts from the earlier event as inspiration to invent a story for the later one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ronisron View Post
Once again, as a matter of fact, in theory, the planes did exactly as it was hoped they would, just as Frank De Martini eloquently explained; "A plane hitting the steel would be like poking a pencil through screen netting..." in so many words. That's exactly what happened, and that's why they used planes there....
As well as begging the question, you're misrepresenting what Frank de Martini said. He was saying that the buildings wouldn't collapse if planes flew into them. He didn't say that if large passenger jets flew into the towers they'd completely disappear inside without any plane parts breaking off.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ronisron View Post
a missile would not have induced a huge fireball like that on impact, and might have punched right through both buildings, and kept on going. What would have hit and produced a huge fireball on impact?? A dummy military plane loaded with a detonation charge and JET FUEL. A big fireball that burns off right away.
You just made an excellent case for pre-planted explosives and no missiles or planes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ronisron View Post
In any case, what I was suggesting in my post was that if there was excessive fakery and holograms etc used at the WTC's, the planners of 9/11 would have been better served by also employing the same technique at the Pentagon. Where there is a lot of video images concerning the WTC's, there is next to nothing at the Pentagon "crash site". That is where the media said "this is where a plane crashed" yet couldn't produce a single bit of video footage except for this
For all we know, they might have tried to fake videos at the Pentagon but decided they weren't good enough to put out.

In any case, suppose they'd faked videos of a plane at the Pentagon. What difference would it have made? How would things have been different on 9/12. How would things have been different now?

If there were reasonably convincing videos of a 757 flying into the Pentagon, would you accept them as genuine in spite of the size of the hole in the wall and the lack of wreckage?
bryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2009, 12:49 AM   #17
ronisron
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,108
Likes: 2,842 (1,323 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan View Post
A leap of logic if ever I saw one.

If the planes were to be the cause of the collapse, the perps would have to use planes.

If the planes only needed to appear to be the cause of the collapse, the perps could either use planes or fake them.
The planes weren't the reason for the collapse. Controlled demo was. The planes were used as a ruse, and they ultimately used them as the reason that the buildings came down. They lied. The planes were just a very visible decoy to use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan View Post
You're begging the question by assuming your conclusion and using it as one of your arguments.
We're all assuming conclusions and motives here bryan, hence the forum and any debate that goes on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan View Post
There are some suspicious similarities between the South Tower plane crash and the ESB plane crash. For example, in both cases one engine went straight through the building and the other lodged itself in the elevator shaft. It's as if the perps used facts from the earlier event as inspiration to invent a story for the later one.
The example of possibility that they used when designing the grid for the WTC towers was the crash at the ESB, according to De Martini. If they quoted the MO of the previous crash at the ESB, it's not really surprising. It was using precedent as "proof".

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan View Post
As well as begging the question, you're misrepresenting what Frank de Martini said. He was saying that the buildings wouldn't collapse if planes flew into them. He didn't say that if large passenger jets flew into the towers they'd completely disappear inside without any plane parts breaking off.
He said planes hitting would be like a pencil poking through screen netting. That's self explanatory IMO, nothing to misinterpret. BTW, the pencil doesn't break apart in this instance either. He also said he felt the tower could withstand multiple impacts of a jetliner without compromising structural integrity of the buildings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan View Post
You just made an excellent case for pre-planted explosives and no missiles or planes.
Well, I do believe explosives were pre-planted before the event, they facilitated the controlled demolition. The planes were just for show.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan View Post
For all we know, they might have tried to fake videos at the Pentagon but decided they weren't good enough to put out.
I'm thinking if they bothered to make them, they would have released them. They seized all surveillance camera footage from around the Pentagon -- I guess they just didn't find anything they could work with. All they had was that sad bit I posted above. It doesn't show a plane. They could've done much better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan View Post
In any case, suppose they'd faked videos of a plane at the Pentagon. What difference would it have made? How would things have been different on 9/12. How would things have been different now?
No diofferent, IMO. Ultimately, folks would still be asking "Where's the plane???" "Why is the lawn pristine??" "Where are the bodies???" Etc. The 9/11 planning committee did a lousy job. It's why folks can see through it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan View Post
If there were reasonably convincing videos of a 757 flying into the Pentagon, would you accept them as genuine in spite of the size of the hole in the wall and the lack of wreckage?
Heck no.

They should've just crashed a plane at the Pentagon and at Shanksville.... do you know what I mean?? Big steaming piles of wreckage..... They didn't. They just hoped all the videos from the WTC would be enough to convince everyone that there were planes crashing everywhere. Not to mention the "cell phone calls", and Passports in the rubble, and the "terrorists" checked luggage..... The fact 9/11 was so poorly executed always makes me think that they didn't care if anyone figured it out.
ronisron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2009, 01:17 AM   #18
noewhan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,036
Likes: 18 (14 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave52 View Post
So... in that case the official story should be the only one we consider because the majority of the victims families believe the Government line.
I see it like this...

The majority of the victims families (MVF) helped start the truth movement in a big way. They don't believe the government, that's why they wanted a new investigation. And even when that happened it was a sham.

MVF wants closure and truth, and has evidence for insider trading to the ISI through the CIA, along with prior warnings & other lies. You all know how that goes.

So should they just change their evidence & initial story? Maybe they could... I just don't see any VFs supporting the NPT... At the moment.

I bet that even if George 1&2, Jeb Bush, Cheany and all of the others involved were in prison, the NPT would still be in debate. Only now there's this nano-thermite 'breakthrough'.

But hey, if scientists from France, Germany, Japan & other places come out and say that there was NPs... Well done NPers.
noewhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2009, 05:22 AM   #19
dave52
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,141
Likes: 985 (411 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noewhan View Post
The majority of the victims families (MVF) helped start the truth movement in a big way. They don't believe the government, that's why they wanted a new investigation. And even when that happened it was a sham.
I'm not sure that this is true. Do you have some numbers...? Apart from the 4 Jersey Girls (part of the 12 member family steering committee), how many members of the victim's families are involved in the truth movement...?
__________________
Dave.

www.DaveWare.co.uk
Are You Listening...?
dave52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-05-2009, 02:52 PM   #20
noewhan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,036
Likes: 18 (14 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave52 View Post
I'm not sure that this is true. Do you have some numbers...? Apart from the 4 Jersey Girls (part of the 12 member family steering committee), how many members of the victim's families are involved in the truth movement...?
Good question.
noewhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:07 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.