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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 21-09-2011, 06:38 AM   #21
wispy
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,968
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Part of the problem is that there are no so many comments and theories out there posted by truthers, as well as videos explaining their theories, taking issue with the OS as well as truther videos claiming to debunk the real videos that it has created a sort of 'virtual alternative reality'.

'Truthers' feed off this and confuse it with fact and claim it as proof.

The 'no planer' theory is one of a few of these.
wispy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-09-2011, 09:08 AM   #22
anthonyc31
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 89
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wispy View Post
Thanks for the evidence of super armour plated steel columns bent inwards by a plane hitting them.
LOL!

No, no, no, no ... it's not a "plane" fuckball ... it was a giant WASP!!!!

Don't you see it?!!?

See that giant missing TAILWING ... ya, that one, the GIANT WASP is right there.

Case closed. It was a wasp, not a plane. We both got it wrong.

LOL ... moooooooooooooo rrrr oooo nnnn.
anthonyc31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-09-2011, 09:21 AM   #23
mishy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,323
Likes: 54 (42 Posts)
Default

I'm with the no planers. Still yet to see conclusive proof of planes used that day, while there is much evidence that shows that no planes were used also much evidence that actually shows that many of the victims were faked to.

And in reply to any planers that will no doubt quote this and post some smart remark. It's those very same smart remarks that make your arguments even weaker in my eyes.
__________________

Last edited by mishy; 21-09-2011 at 09:21 AM.
mishy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-09-2011, 09:43 AM   #24
free mind me
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 43
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Planers or no Planers ,the s..t was done.
free mind me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-09-2011, 09:56 AM   #25
mishy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,323
Likes: 54 (42 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by free mind me View Post
Planers or no Planers ,the s..t was done.
Yup, theres no denying that. What the burning issue is for me is how much the media were complicit in it with cgi planes & fake reporting. TPTB need the media to control people, thats why there is such a heated debate over it imo.

I posted this video in another thread, but it gives you some idea of how much of the news could be faked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot4jg...ature=youtu.be
__________________
mishy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-09-2011, 11:12 AM   #26
free mind me
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 43
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Yes.The mind maybe foolish,but guess what?We are not mind.
free mind me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-09-2011, 11:19 AM   #27
fanoftruth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 444
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

planes vs no planes - the number 1 debate causing in-fighting within the truth movement, thus stalling so much progress since 2007, and it's this that leads me to believe 'no planes' is almost certainly the biggest pieced of pre-arranged co-intel-pro in the movement.

Also, and this is a serious question here, why do so many no-planers have disgusting, childish and condescending attitudes? It's a common theme with them.
fanoftruth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-09-2011, 11:35 AM   #28
mishy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,323
Likes: 54 (42 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fanoftruth View Post
planes vs no planes - the number 1 debate causing in-fighting within the truth movement, thus stalling so much progress since 2007, and it's this that leads me to believe 'no planes' is almost certainly the biggest pieced of pre-arranged co-intel-pro in the movement.

Also, and this is a serious question here, why do so many no-planers have disgusting, childish and condescending attitudes? It's a common theme with them.
Has it ever occured to you that the 'truth' movement might have been put in place ready to go after the event (and even be part of the planning to have all angles covered)? The perps must have known that there would be people that wouldn't believe the official story and would try to do their own investigations, so the perps wanted to control this.

Why does Alex Jones NEVER talk about TV Fakery when there is plenty of evidence that points to it? He won't even discuss it!! Why won't the Loose Change forums even discuss the no planes theory, mention it and you get banned! I don't think that no planers/TV Fakery researchers are disinfo, quite the opposite infact.
__________________
mishy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-09-2011, 11:47 AM   #29
fanoftruth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 444
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mishy View Post
Has it ever occured to you that the 'truth' movement might have been put in place ready to go after the event (and even be part of the planning to have all angles covered)? The perps must have known that there would be people that wouldn't believe the official story and would try to do their own investigations, so the perps wanted to control this.

Why does Alex Jones NEVER talk about TV Fakery when there is plenty of evidence that points to it? He won't even discuss it!! Why won't the Loose Change forums even discuss the no planes theory, mention it and you get banned! I don't think that no planers/TV Fakery researchers are disinfo, quite the opposite infact.
The could be any number of reason why people like Alex Jones don't talk about video fakery but I would imagine that it boils down to 2 main reasons. Firstly so much of the evidence is incredibly weak that's brought forward, therefore why bother discussing it? You still have people to this very day bring up the Fox 'nose out' clip as evidence the CGI nose glitches through the opposite facade of the south tower...even though the nose shape does not match up. I mean that is one example of how poor the arguements for video fakery can get. The 'nose out' clip appeared around '07, was shown to not match the shape of the plane's nose though some 4 years later you still have no-planers use this clip in their work.

Secondly 9/11 truth is probably the biggest issue of our time and the single most important thing we have to do is to open up as many eyes as possible to the attacks being an inside job. When that is proven publicly (if ever) then you get down to the nitty-gritty concerning just how it was done. To get as many people to realise 9/11 was an iside job it's important to leave aside some of the more outlandish or far-fetched ideas - as so many people will simply not be open to even looking at them. No planes is one such argument. Getting your average joe to re-consider 9/11 is one thing...and it can prove very difficult...so when people start harping on about planes not actually hitting the twin towers people will simply switch off and think you crazy. People like Alex Jones understand this but no-planers do not.
fanoftruth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-09-2011, 12:09 PM   #30
7forever
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,182
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mishy View Post
Has it ever occured to you that the 'truth' movement might have been put in place ready to go after the event (and even be part of the planning to have all angles covered)? The perps must have known that there would be people that wouldn't believe the official story and would try to do their own investigations, so the perps wanted to control this.

Why does Alex Jones NEVER talk about TV Fakery when there is plenty of evidence that points to it? He won't even discuss it!! Why won't the Loose Change forums even discuss the no planes theory, mention it and you get banned! I don't think that no planers/TV Fakery researchers are disinfo, quite the opposite infact.
When you get to close to the truth, people get mad. Jesse Ventura is a huge tool for making fun of skeptics. Discovery Communications used him to ridicule skeptics and of course to always dismiss the correct truths like Greer shooting jfk and no planes.
7forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-09-2011, 12:41 PM   #31
mishy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,323
Likes: 54 (42 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fanoftruth View Post
The could be any number of reason why people like Alex Jones don't talk about video fakery but I would imagine that it boils down to 2 main reasons. Firstly so much of the evidence is incredibly weak that's brought forward, therefore why bother discussing it? You still have people to this very day bring up the Fox 'nose out' clip as evidence the CGI nose glitches through the opposite facade of the south tower...even though the nose shape does not match up. I mean that is one example of how poor the arguements for video fakery can get. The 'nose out' clip appeared around '07, was shown to not match the shape of the plane's nose though some 4 years later you still have no-planers use this clip in their work.

Lets have a look at the 'poor argument' of the nosed out clip. Please provide links proving it has been debunked, and to save you time, don't bother with the Andrew Lawson one. It doesn't debunk it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by fanoftruth View Post
Secondly 9/11 truth is probably the biggest issue of our time and the single most important thing we have to do is to open up as many eyes as possible to the attacks being an inside job. When that is proven publicly (if ever) then you get down to the nitty-gritty concerning just how it was done. To get as many people to realise 9/11 was an iside job it's important to leave aside some of the more outlandish or far-fetched ideas - as so many people will simply not be open to even looking at them. No planes is one such argument. Getting your average joe to re-consider 9/11 is one thing...and it can prove very difficult...so when people start harping on about planes not actually hitting the twin towers people will simply switch off and think you crazy. People like Alex Jones understand this but no-planers do not.
I agree that people need to realise that 9/11 didn't happen as the media told us it happened. Thing is, to many people even the idea of it being an inside job is far fetched, regardless of what evidence you show them. No truth will ever come out on the MSM. Never. You might get some sensationalist news that the US govt did indeed know about it/let it happen/did it themselves and there will be uproar and a media frenzy to get the people that knew/did it arrested and charged. The thing is though, the brainwashing media will still be there...brain washing people.

9/11 Truth is just another money making scam imo. Alex Jones needs half a million quid for a new studio, send us your money!!


http://www.cluesforum.info
__________________

Last edited by mishy; 21-09-2011 at 12:42 PM.
mishy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-09-2011, 01:26 PM   #32
fanoftruth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 444
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mishy View Post
Lets have a look at the 'poor argument' of the nosed out clip. Please provide links proving it has been debunked, and to save you time, don't bother with the Andrew Lawson one. It doesn't debunk it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ



I agree that people need to realise that 9/11 didn't happen as the media told us it happened. Thing is, to many people even the idea of it being an inside job is far fetched, regardless of what evidence you show them. No truth will ever come out on the MSM. Never. You might get some sensationalist news that the US govt did indeed know about it/let it happen/did it themselves and there will be uproar and a media frenzy to get the people that knew/did it arrested and charged. The thing is though, the brainwashing media will still be there...brain washing people.

9/11 Truth is just another money making scam imo. Alex Jones needs half a million quid for a new studio, send us your money!!


http://www.cluesforum.info
Look, I really mean no offence here but I don't feel it's necessary to post anything that debunks the nose-out theory as the very video you've posted above is unable to make a match between the nose-in and the nose-out on the 2 or 3 occasions it tries. If a video that claims to prove the nose glitching out is unable to match it each time it tries then it doesnt really need debunking.

I am fully open to the idea of video fakery though. I don't go out of my way to try and argue against it, in fact I've always found this piece of footage to look somewhat fraudulant ;


I think people have to realise that video fakery does not have to equate to no planes being used on 9/11. There could be many reasons why fake or tampered footage exists.
fanoftruth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-09-2011, 04:42 PM   #33
gamolon
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,866
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyc31 View Post
There is a problem with the scaling in the first photo with the yellow border.


The area I circled in red in the photo above are the mechanical floors, 75, 76, and 77.

The 76 floor had a finished floor elevation that was 437' below the roofline. The first mistake is that the towers were not 210' feet wide, but 208' wide. I scaled the green arrow and used 208' and got 2.4 feet per pixel. I then scaled from the green roofline to the middle of the dark area I circled (the 76th floor) and got 156 pixels. 156 pixels x 2.4 feet gives us 374'. That's 63' less than where the 76th floor should be from the roofline.

I then measured from the green roofline to the tip of the yellow arrowhead pointing at the planes fuselage and got 132 pixels.

132 pixels x 2.4 feet gives us 316 feet. Where is the 355' coming from?

I then scaled the second picture. I used 208' across and measured the green line and got 2.4 feet per pixel again. I then measured from the green roofline to the tip of the red arrowhead pointing at the plane and got 94 pixels.

94 pixels x 2.4 feet gives us 225 feet. Where is 279' coming from?

Why so many mistakes?
gamolon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-09-2011, 04:58 PM   #34
anyhoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stannrodd View Post
This was taken 15 seconds after the first plane impact at WTC1.

Clearly debris has fallen while smoke has risen. The wind has carried the debris dust to the left. The Naudet footage shows the debris shower and the movement of dust. Possible vortex phenomena there too.

What I meant was debris falling where the plane(s) entered the building. Does anyone contend that debris fell down where the plane(s) entered, and if so, do you have a video to show that?
__________________
Lies are weapons that they use against us. Belief in those lies are the chains they use to bind us. This includes Fear. Knowledge is the key to unlocking those chains and is also a shield that makes their weapons useless.
anyhoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-09-2011, 05:01 PM   #35
anyhoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wispy View Post
Thanks for the evidence of super armour plated steel columns bent inwards by a plane hitting them.
The steel columns bent inward suggests:

1. There were real planes.
2. The columns were not as thick as some lead us to believe as they were pierced by the planes.

Do no-planers have an explanation for why the columns would be bent inward?
__________________
Lies are weapons that they use against us. Belief in those lies are the chains they use to bind us. This includes Fear. Knowledge is the key to unlocking those chains and is also a shield that makes their weapons useless.

Last edited by anyhoo; 21-09-2011 at 05:01 PM.
anyhoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-09-2011, 05:05 PM   #36
bobster
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,672
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anyhoo View Post
What I meant was debris falling where the plane(s) entered the building. Does anyone contend that debris fell down where the plane(s) entered, and if so, do you have a video to show that?


wasnt there a part of plane landed in somebodys garden after it had came through the other side? i remember seing that ages ago
bobster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-09-2011, 05:21 PM   #37
wispy
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,968
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyc31 View Post
LOL!

No, no, no, no ... it's not a "plane" fuckball ... it was a giant WASP!!!!

Don't you see it?!!?

See that giant missing TAILWING ... ya, that one, the GIANT WASP is right there.

Case closed. It was a wasp, not a plane. We both got it wrong.

LOL ... moooooooooooooo rrrr oooo nnnn.
Deluded, I do believe you're losing it.

I can almost imagine the spittle coming off your lips as you type.
wispy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-09-2011, 05:35 PM   #38
wispy
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,968
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anyhoo View Post
The steel columns bent inward suggests:

1. There were real planes.
2. The columns were not as thick as some lead us to believe as they were pierced by the planes.

Do no-planers have an explanation for why the columns would be bent inward?
I've read it somewhere (but could be false memory) that some state the inward bent steel was caused by planted explosives.

It then begs the question as to how on earth and when they could have been planted?

I of course am a 'planer' and the steels were obviously bent in by the force of the plane crashing into it.

I think it was one of Stanrod's posts where he pointed out that the steel columns at the upper levels were thinner than those at lower levels.
wispy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-09-2011, 05:40 PM   #39
gamolon
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,866
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wispy View Post
I've read it somewhere (but could be false memory) that some state the inward bent steel was caused by planted explosives.

It then begs the question as to how on earth and when they could have been planted?

I of course am a 'planer' and the steels were obviously bent in by the force of the plane crashing into it.

I think it was one of Stanrod's posts where he pointed out that the steel columns at the upper levels were thinner than those at lower levels.
The upper perimeter columns used 1/4" plate.
gamolon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-09-2011, 05:50 PM   #40
gamolon
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,866
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wispy View Post
I've read it somewhere (but could be false memory) that some state the inward bent steel was caused by planted explosives.

It then begs the question as to how on earth and when they could have been planted?

I of course am a 'planer' and the steels were obviously bent in by the force of the plane crashing into it.

I think it was one of Stanrod's posts where he pointed out that the steel columns at the upper levels were thinner than those at lower levels.
The lower perimeter columns used 2.5" thick plate on either side. Photo and drawing with matching components circled in red.

gamolon 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 08:08 AM.


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