A Challenge To Nico and All "No-Planers"
Dear Nico and all proponents of the "no-planes" theory:
I challenge you, once and for all, to show clear, concise proof of your claims. NOT diverse, disjointed links, NOT obscure, unproven claims about particular videos, but an easy to read and understand presentation. EVERYTHING I've seen posted on this subject has been vague, disjointed, headache producing... in a word, DISTRACTING.
I propose that, if none of you can meet this challenge to the satisfaction of the majority of the members of 911Blogger, that you be prevented from continuing to make what I believe are divisive and ultimately, destructive claims at 911Blogger. I further propose that the above challenge be met within the next 7 days.
Perhaps a poll could be created for this purpose. If members agree with the above proposal, please reply (additional suggestions are welcome).
- Alex's blog
- Login to post comments
Sounds more than fair to me
7 days is more than these jokers deserve, imo.
Just look at all the WTC crash videos
When I was on the fence about TV fakery, one way to help me resolve the matter was to collect all the crash videos and analysis them (basically watch them over and over again). After doing that, there is NO DOUBT in my mind that at least a good majority of the video are fake and that logically leads me to believe ALL are fake...
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html
Now if the crash videos are fake, does that prove nothing hit the towers? Not neccessarily, but again, logic suggests that nothing hitting the towers is more likely than a 767 hitting there if they took the time to fake all of the videos.
Spooked at Humint Events also proved with Flight Simulator (scroll down) that a lot of the planes in the 2nd crash video don't line up, proving those planes are either CGI or a fly-by plane.
"Not neccessarily, but
"Not neccessarily, but again, logic suggests that nothing hitting the towers is more likely than a 767 hitting there if they took the time to fake all of the videos."
^ Yea, twisted logic perhaps. THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN NY CITY SAW THE PLANES STRIKE THE TOWERS! What part of that isn’t getting through to you?
Well if there was a fly-by of a 767
wouldn't that be the plane the "thousands of people" saw?
Plausible, but again, speculation...
Why waste time on highly speculative theories when you can present simple facts that blow the OV out of the water?
You will never, ever, be able to convince people of the NPT unless you can come up with more than this. So until you can come up with a reasonable and convincing explanation as to why real planes were NOT used, I suggest you pack it in. 'Nuf said, until then, you're wasting everyone's time.
video manipulation doesn't necessarily mean no planes
Another theory for the use of WESCAM equiptment [ http://total411.info/wes2cam.wmv ]would be for damage control - in case something didn't work out as planned for the demolition, then portions of the footage could be removed or edited and re-broadcast as the original. Editing in non-existant planes, though, seems to me to be the least likely theory.
I have just 2 questions...
(1) How do you explain the momentum of the fireball and debris exiting the other side of the tower in a forward motion? Keep in mind that a giant cannon firing a napalm projectile would be difficult to conceal inside the tower.
(2) How were the explosives used to cut out a silhouette of an airplane on the side of the building - especially the detail of the wing tips? Keep in mind explosives needed to be positioned on the shell of the building in the detailed shape of an airplane.
If you can explain these two points to me, then I may be able to accept the possibility that no planes were used.
Knock yourself out.
Why should I respond to people
who have an insulting tone to their post? To me, people who have an insulting tone just tells me they are too closed-minded to even bother attempting to change their minds.
Hi Killtown
I would like to consider myself open minded, and I think those are good arguments against the NPT which seem difficult to explain away. I am interested in hearing ideas/answers to those questions if you have them.
So open minded..I am
So Killtown why don't you just go and answer Mediapuppets 2nd question without sounding like Davon from Popular Mechanics?
No insults intended...
I'm just asking two fundamental questions in a, yeah I admit, a little pompous tone. However, I have spent some time looking into this theory, and these are the questions I would like to hear explained before I waste anymore time on this.
So, can you point me towards some good discussion that can help to address my questions?
K, I'll try to answer your questions
First, your questions are good ones and ones I ask myself. I do NOT claim to have all the answers. I'm just questioning things like you are.
2nd and most importantly, my main concern is that the videos are fake. to me, anything else is just a side note.
(1) How do you explain the momentum of the fireball and debris exiting the other side of the tower in a forward motion? Keep in mind that a giant cannon firing a napalm projectile would be difficult to conceal inside the tower.
An impossible question for me to answer. I could only speculate. Some NPT's think a missile hit there and that's what helped caused it. I just can't answer that question.
Here is something interesting though:
"But Braford, who lives on a quiet street in Princeton, also had another job in 1973 that gives him a connection with the World Trade Center.
That was the year the twin towers of the World Trade Center were completed and Braford was the construction superintendent for the electrical end of the project in the south tower. He said he supervised the installation of three generators on the 88th floor of the south tower.
Braford was familiar with many details of the building, telling how there were water tanks for keeping the generators cool and diesel fuel tanks there to run the generators." - Princeton Union-Eagle
http://killtown.911review.org/oddities/911.html#WTC2_diesel_tanks
(2) How were the explosives used to cut out a silhouette of an airplane on the side of the building - especially the detail of the wing tips? Keep in mind explosives needed to be positioned on the shell of the building in the detailed shape of an airplane.
Another good question I could only speculate about. My thoughts about this is not what caused it, but what COULDN'T. I just can't believe a 767 could cause such a "Wiley Coyote" hole:
See: 767's Wing Tips Made Of Pentanium Steel?
I hope you are not too dissappointed in my answers, but these questions is like asking "how did they manage to wire the towers without anybody noticing?" They are just impossible to answer.
Thanks for the response...
FWIW, I posted my last comment before I read this one.
The last thing I want to do is waste time fighting amongst truthers who happen to believe dislike theories. If you honestly believe the NPT is the most likely scenario, that is your choice. However, I am still at the point where it is more reasonable for me to believe that something else may be going on here.
Cheers.
Well I can only tell you
that I'm only investigating NPT/TV Fakery because I believe it has merit and not for "sinister" reasons. I do believe the WTC crash videos are fake, so why wouldn't I proceed to investigate this angle?
So I can only give you my word that I'm not a "shill" trying to spread disinfo with things like NPT, but of course I can only give people my word and it's up the you/them as to whether you/they want to believe me on my word or not.
Killtown,
what do you make of the decceleration analysis of Jones, and the Moire analysis showing a kinetic energy transfer to the building and consequent oscillatory motion (Q&A Slides 171 - ~175). Also, if you feel the MSM videos are fake, how do you feel about the lack of amateur footage which should (IMO) show both the explosion and no plane in the trajectory (or any other anomolous object in it's place). These are the pieces of evidence which give me the most difficulty in entertaining a NPT. What is it that has convinced you personally to give NPT a more serious look in light of these things. I respect your analysis of the "End of Serenity" photo, so I'd like to understand better where you are coming from... Thanks...
JT
You can see the questions/analysis I've raised/done about NPT/TV Fakery at LC Forum. (Look for threads I started and roll back the dates to see them all.)
Also look at the WTC crash videos I've collected and read my comments made on each one...
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html
This should give you your answers as to why I think the way I do about NPT.
Will do.. Thanks.
Will do.. Thanks.
The Only Solution
Why wait 7 days for nico & co. to present the exact same looney nonsense that they already have thusfar? that most people here (including myself) don't even focus on -- or bother reading -- when nico & co. should already have been banned from 911Blogger quite some time ago for this old, already defeated "no plane(s) at the WTC" disinformation.
Issuing challenges like this only feeds further debate, when it's already abundantly clear that NO further debate is needed on this subject. nico & co. are promoting, supporting, and propagating blatant disinformation -- ultimately, as a form of destruction -- on purpose and/or because they're certifiably insane.
Furthermore, I for one, already vote that nico & co. be prevented from continuing with their lunacy at 911Blogger; I don't need to quickly scroll past anything else that they would say in reply, to reach the same correct conclusion about them and their "evidence" that I have already decided upon, before ever visiting 911Blogger -- the "no plane(s) at the WTC" disinformation is NOT new. And even if nico & co. were to accept the 7 day challenge, I wouldn't read their asinine bullshit response(s) anyway.
So my vote is the same regardless: 911BLOGGER, BAN nico & co. NOW!
But Alex, you do offer one great idea. A poll should be set up at 911Blogger, post haste, that is one of two simple choices:
[X] Ban nico & co. who are pushing "no planes" at the WTC
[_] Let nico & co. continue pushing "no planes" at the WTC
It should be posted prominently at the top of the main 911Blogger page, perhaps in Action Items, or below as its own temporary section. And it should be a 7 day poll. After 7 days, the tally decides the outcome. And the tally is final. Democratic and everyone's IP is only allowed 1 vote.
dz and sbg, we are counting on you guys. Make this happen. And if the tally is in favor of "Ban nico & co.", please attend to it immediately.
My Intention...
...was not to start another discussion regarding no planes, pro and con. It was to give what I think is a more than fair opportunity to the no-planer advocates to present a clear, decisive case for their stance.
If no-plane advocates are unable to meet the above challenge to the satisfaction of most members, THEN I believe the proper course of action is to take a voting poll regarding a proposed banning of same.
Yours is a good idea dude,
Yours is a good idea dude, but they've all had their chance to make their "case" here;
http://911blogger.com/node/2285
And predictably, they failed. So we should just go straight to the poll, I'm not to concerned about Nico calling all his shill friends to vote, because there's like five of them. But we need to make sure the votes are good, so one vote per ip is a necessity. One of the blogger's new features is making polls, so Dz lets get this on!
Dem continues to
Dem continues to lie.
Nothing was debunked. What Dem tried to do was a distraction with the analysis of the fireball, which has zero to do with the analysis of the CGI fakery itself.
Dem furthermore
-failed to present a URL for "1000s of witnesses"
-regarding the planted plane parts he didn't respond to the point, that Church/Murray Street was already locked for a renovation of the Emigrants Bank
-couldn't explain, why the "nose" reappeared out of the building in at least 3 cases.
-didn't respond at all on the 'white' aircraft, which passed the crime scene
-tried to censor and ban me but this wouldn't stop the debate at all, not only supported by me anyway and already ongoing since 3-5 years, though sabotaged and confused in between.
-continues to insult with 4-letter words which doesn't make his argument stronger
-continues to ignore several violations of physical law as seen in non live footage, among them this:
Walls which do not crumble as seen here in a loop from another non-live footage:
http://911closeup.com/nico/secondhit_nocrumble_loop
Slowing down the video frames furthermore reveals that the alleged real nose should have compressed the rest of the airplane's structure as it hit. Yet we see the aircraft go into the building as if the structure is immune to the laws of physics. Jones also tried to cover-up this in his response to the Reynolds/Wood article
-ignores Professor Jones suspicious background regarding DoD weapons (Sonoluminescence + Co.)
http://www.veronicachapman.com/nyc911/Jones-Kubiak.htm
LOL Truly amazing
Nico you said internal explosives are what caused the explosion when the plane hit. And I provided solid reason as to why that's frankly nuts. Here's another opportunity for you to answer;
(Click on the pic if its cut of by the page)
Finally, if you look at the initial impact area for both buildings you will see that what’s produced is initially a greyish cloud that eventually gives way to an orange fireball;
The greyish colouration can only be caused by smashed building/smashed plane mixing with the explosion of the jet fuel. The rest of the explosion doesn’t have this appearance because the fuel hasn’t got as much smashed concrete etc to mix with. Thus proving that something impacted the side of the building creating that initially displaced material.
Dem still tries to chicken
Dem still tries to chicken out from the points i listed above.
Furthermore he continues to lie:
"...you said internal explosives are what caused the explosion...
...And I provided solid reason as to why that's frankly nuts..."
You didn't provide ANY reason at all.
You also didn't respond why you allow internal explosives for the controlled demolition but doesn't allow it for the synchronisation at time of CGI impact.
Astounding
"....what caused that
Submitted by ewing2001 on Fri, 08/25/2006 - 6:41pm.
"....what caused that explosion when the planes hit then? ..."
When the allged aircraft hit the South Tower, internal explosives had been activated. Simple.
You live in an illusion, not me. Check your own reality.
» reply"
^ Ok Nico that's you, now answer the question;
What caused the colouration of the initial impact area?
i think you didn't
i think you didn't close a bold tag...
Could be right, I don't get
Could be right, I don't get it lol.
"..You live in an illusion,
"..You live in an illusion, not me. Check your own reality..."
This is a meaningless remark.
You didn't respond to anything, what i pointed out.
Furthermore you still ignore that there was no impact at the side of the wall which was targeted by the CGI.
If a 767 with lots of fuel* hit the towers
why is there no fire around the immediate impact hole burning Edna?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWQow7gUFdo
(*Flight 11 was said to have 10,000 gal @ impact)
Becuase the fuel ignited
Becuase the fuel ignited inside the building. Explain the colouration of the impact area!
Alex, WE actually offered
Alex,
WE actually offered the challenge FIRST to confront our findings.
What you do is a strawmen debate about a claim that there wasn't any finding.
A collections about evidence on 9/11 TV Fakery was so far widely presented at http://www.911tvfakery.net
Alex is one of many who also didn't even pick up one point.
I vote to have all the namecallers banned
they're obviously too stupid to take anything seriously.
Considering NPT absurd is illogical, baseless, and a sign of brainwashing.
911Blogger should be reserved for those with the brains to actually look at evidence
LOL
ignorance is bliss I see.
I can only assume you are not aware that you just called 99% of everyone on this site "stupid".
Now let me speculate...
It seems to me that both Nico/ewing2001 and Killtown could intentionally be trying to spread yet another myth within this whole ball 'o wax.
Why is it that two very early and savvy 9/11 researches have been pumping this new theory? Come on you two, I know you're both not stupid...you have done some good work, but why the sudden shift? And why does it seem, from what I can tell, that two of the earliest 9/11 Internet researchers have become sidetracked with this unbelievable theory?
I can speculate, not unlike savvy computer hackers who've been hired by the DoD, that you two may in fact have met the same fait.
If true, I hope it's worth it.
OK..so Killtown..There are easier answers to demolition than no
Its not so imossible to answer how the towers came down or how the explosives could be planted.But the no planes theory goes where? where does that investigation end up? Its a good concept to hide drones,and less risky than having hijackers trying to find NYC from where they started from,but thats about it.
I personally never shifted
I personally never shifted from anything.
I believed since Day 1 that at least 1 video was fake
(CNN amateur exclusive from the side)
During 2002/03 i tried to get supporters for a further analysis in my group "9/11 Science and Justice Alliance".
When we finally established a solid evidence for further fakery during 2003/04 we tried to promote this, but got confronted with either ignorance, attacks, threats, confusions on purpose, disinfo ("pods") or additional sabotage.
At the same time the same saboteurs also blocked the evidence on controlled demolition and developed memes which they still use now against the evidence on TV fakery plus against the forensic evidence on 'no planes' which is not my current focus anymore.
In late 2005 i decided to revisualize the evidence, when i got a new notebook. I was until early 2002 a video encoder anyway but an intense hack on my Workspace threw me back into stoneage for months. I worked for video- and TV industry for 10-12 years until then.
Since almost every other 9/11 research is well covered in MSM it makes only sense, that i still support what isn't covered yet and possibly never will be covered, because MSM was complicity in the fakery.
I focus furthermore at teamplus.org on many other things as well, which wasn't covered yet either by these self-appointed 9/11 truthling speakers. That btw. also includes radar-, BTS-, tail number- and passenger research plus global issues and other false flag analysis.
Have you been pushing the Flight 93 photo smoking gun?
This is my main piece of 9/11 info I'm pushing, one that IS a true smoking gun:
Val McClatchey Photo: More Smoking Guns, or Total Fraud?
Have YOU been helping to spread the word about this golden smoking gun around? If not, why?
TV Fakery stuff is a relatively new theory I'm exploring and only seems like I'm "pushing it" lately because I'm satisfied with all my other theories and the NPT theory is really the last one that seems to have merit IMO and that's why I'm interested in tackling it.
Plus, I have this theory that when some so-called 9/11 truthers "VIOLENTLY" oppose a certain theory, it could mean it is because that theory is a true distraction that will hurt the movement, OR these theories are what REALLY happened and the most "violent" truther opponents are really shills who are getting scared and desperate that the real truth might get out.
It's fascinating that
It's fascinating that several 9/11 blogger members opened their own blogs against the TV Fakery evidence,
since i offered the debate at my blog only.
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001
And nobodies like - Ø®£Z insist, that i am the only one, who allegedly stirring things up?? -;)
I'm going to ask that this blog be deleted if...
...it continues to be used as just another venue for the never ending no-planer shout and insult fest. This is exactly what I DIDN'T want.
Nico: (ewing2001): Please provide what I asked for, or do not contribute to this blog further.
Dem and others: If you want an immediate poll, that is up to dz and the team members to initiate. It would be fine with me.
I didn't ask you to open
I didn't ask you to open this thread.
I have my own blog and you can respond over there which makes it easier for everyone of us.
On your demand i already responded above.
The evidence is well covered at
http://www.911tvfakery.net and i don't see the need to restructure it for aversion technicians like you.
There is also an archive over there.
Start reading over there and then respond back.
Nico...
Nico: Putting lables (such as "aversion technicians") on people is not a good way to make your point (if my use of the term "no-planer" is insulting to you, that was not my intention). Name calling reveals a weak stance.
The link you provide to the explanation/proof of your claims simply makes my point. It is a rambling patchwork of fuzzy claims and stretched logic. It is NOT clear and concise.
Even if your claims ARE true, you will continue to alienate people with your defensiveness, insults and lack of conciseness and clarity in presentation of them.
I did not begin this blog to debate you. I started it because from what I've seen (and I believe most other members agree) the time for debating is over.
Alex, that's exactly what
Alex,
that's exactly what aversion technique does,
therefore it's an analysis of your attitude,
not an insult.
You said:
"...It is a rambling patchwork of fuzzy claims and stretched logic. It is NOT clear and concise...."
Let's see what 9/11 TV fakery says about this popular tool against us:
May 9, 2006
Evasion Technique of "9/11 Truthlings"
Gerard Holmgren wrote:
"....How stupid do you think we are ? If we send you general common
sense musings like my article "Why they didn't use planes", you will complain that
it's speculative, and not backed up with hard sources. If I send you my
for the WTC damage to have been caused by planes, you say that it's "not
convincing" "not detailed enough".
If I send you Morgan's article which goes into greater detail,
you'll complain that it's "reams of information" which
you don't have time to read.
This is an ever present evasion technique. When I write brief
forensics physics notes proving that no plane hit the pentagon, people want to
argue the toss on fine details. But when I point out that all of those
fine details were covered in the most detailed fashion in my 50 page
article, there are complaints that it's long and unwieldly.
"You should make your arguments simpler, so that people can
understand them"
"And you should make them more detailed, so they provide full proof"
"And you should back everything up with full sourcing"
"And you shouldn't inundate people with reams of information"
"You should make it longer , so that it covers every counter
argument, and shorter, so that people have time to read it, and more detailed, so
that we know you've done your work properly and less detailed, because we
just want the gist of it, and sophisticated and thorough so that it will be
credible for peer review by experts, and simpler so that every one can
understand it..."
OK, Nico, I Hear You...
I hear your dilemma. I suggest that you create a page with simplified bullet points, each expandable to CLEAR clarification and proof.
Perhaps you are sincere. Perhaps you are not disinfo. But my good man, until you make your point clearly, you are causing a headache to most in the movement, no matter how long you've been involved.
I agree, it's a pointless
I agree, it's a pointless cycle of bullshit. Lets just have the poll and vote out “no planes” bs for good.
Yep, that's all what you
Yep, that's all what you can.
Banning people will however not stop the evidence.
History will decide that you have been one of the rabid planehuggers, even meanwhiler louder than Fetzer and Jones together, who allowed the cover-up of a crime.
However the voices of the loudest rabid WTC planehuggers are already in the minority anyway against 80 supporters of our petition. A poll would be just another support of these minor voices, who always failed to win the argument against us.
Let's see who else has nothing else to say any more.
Skipping Prof. "Los Alamos" Jones and Jim "HavetoaskJones" Fetzer who supports the pod/remote control theory, ironically also critized by Jones.
then we have WING TV (using photos!, LOL to make their point), Chris/911blogger, Mark Bilk (only occasionally loud), Eric Hufschmid (too busy with ranting more against 'Crypto-Jews' instead against no-planes), Kyle Hence (rants when he wakes up every 4 weeks), Victoria Ashley (louder than Jim Hoffman, but only when i rarely post at 9/11Truth Alliance), Bill Douglas (usually chickens out after 2, 3 replies), Ken Jenkins ("jenk science" only on demand), Dick Eastman (no specific points, just allegations) Loose Change (too busy conspiring with the Naudet Brothers or endless RE-Re-Recuts :), Butterpilot Ralph Omholt (too busy with being silence at "hard evidence list), Russell Pickering (trolls only back for Bilk if he's busy), Mark Rabinowitz (? where is he)- the last 4 are not even loud enough anymore.
...Ah yes, The Salter Brothers retired from planehugging already in late 2005 :)
The only smart guys of the planehugger crew btw.
Flight 93
First it has to be proven that the photo has not been altered,or claimed to been taken somewhere else.This is one "smoking gun" that will have a lot of detractors. What you are hearing now is just a microcosom of what will happen later on. Thats My opinion...just putting that out there so you realize what you're up against.
maybe you shouldn't be
maybe you shouldn't be looking at it in terms of planes/no-planes, but rather as tv-fakery. think about this:
we all saw a 767 hit wtc2 on tv, right? right. but when you slow the videos down enough to actually discern what's going on you see that not one single piece of the 767 broke off upon impact. this is undeniable. so. you then look at a photo of the hole:
http://nineeleven2001.t35.com/images/newyork-2.html
and you see that there is no section of the hole that corresponds to where the tail went. but it went somewhere because it did not break off upon impact, did it? it did not. but we all saw it disappear into the tower on tv. and the hole in general is too small to have allowed a 767 thru it without any of it breaking off. but none broke off. also, none came out the other side.
if we disregard the absurdity of an aluminum plane with a plastic nosecone actually penetrating the massive steel of wtc2, we can say that a plane smaller than a 767 might have hit the wtc2. but what we saw on tv was a 767 disappearing (without any of it breaking off and falling to the street below) thru a hole that is too small. so even if there WAS a plane (i don't believe there was) it was covered up by a 767 on the tv images.
----
if that isn't enough to convince you of 911 tv fakery then you should realize that the images of the 767 (that we all saw on tv) have been analyzed and found to be flawed:
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/#Gedeon
ie: wing angles, light and shadows, even some of the smoke from wtc1, read the link!
----
and if THAT still doesn't convince you of 911 tv fakery then you should realize that after "ua175" hit wtc2, the plastic nosecone was seen poking out the back side of the wtc2 for just an instant before the screen went black and then we saw the explosion:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5459/522/1600/salter%20nose.jpg
----
so whether or not there was a plane, what we saw on tv was fake.
You're now simply stealing time. A theft.
Agreed.
Understand that I carry absolutely no ill-will towards pursuit of example and evidence of deception at play through all media. Please compile your material with particular respect to chain of evidence, as this presents significant difficulty when proving its existence, and thus application by its perpetrators. A wicked catch 22, but I wish you all the luck.
For now, I just won't watch TeeVee. A tough choice, and probably not for everybody.
That said, physical evidence (what little we have) and physics itself, present clear challenges to the Government's narrative as attempted in the Kean 9/11 Commission Report. Now, persons who continue to defend the ambiguously allusive Official Narrative accuse me of "anti-Americanism", of being "un-Patriotic", or even of being "A Traitor" for "causing domestic dissent which aids the enemy".
I can not be surprised, it was I, the common joe with NOTHING TO GAIN, who called my president a lier and a traitor first. Clearly he and I are at some form of impasse.
This NPT arguing stinks, and I'm sure as heck not going to use it fighting for my life.
7 days is too long. You've had enough. Please move aside.
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
"...This NPT arguing stinks,
"...This NPT arguing stinks, and I'm sure as heck not going to use it fighting for my life..."
Same was claimed against the evidence on controlled demolition.
Erin S. Myers just confirmed that it doesn't matter for Erin, if the media gets away with complicity in the crime.
Myers claims that his background is U.S. Army trained, and distinguished graduate of Aircraft Structural Repair
and Military Occupational Skill 68G10 from Fort Eustis, Virginia.
However his background does not include to analyse physical violations but allows butter buildings, wings which do not break apart and walls which do not crumble.
THAT stinks ;-)
It does matter.
I wish you the best of luck.
For now, I just won't watch TeeVee.
This NPT arguing stinks.
Take care
"7 days is too long. You've
"7 days is too long. You've had enough. Please move aside."
move aside for what? for the claim that a 767 indeed hit wtc2? this is a claim that has not only NOT been proven but CAN be disproven - for god's sake we saw a 767 but the hole that the 767 made was too small, hence, video fakery!
if nico is made to move aside then you'd all better be prepared to fill the gap.
that there was 911 video
that there was 911 video fakery can be proven in a court of law. can anyone prove any other aspects of 911 in a court of law? can demolition be proven in a court of law? can any stand-downs be proven?
911tvfakery is not a joke.
it is serious.
You too, james ha
Take care.
A few points
I love some of the work KT has done I still use his page with the listing of all the comission omissions and distortions.
But this NPT stuff has just got to stop. We have more than enough as is to convict them. This subject doesn't cast doubt into americans minds about the official story, it casts doubt in americans minds about us.
PLAIN AND SIMPLE
If the goal is to endlessly go in circles over this inane and superfulous piece of speculatory investigation, with the same people who already believe basically the same thing you do, that 9/11 was a lie. then by all means keep running in circles.
BUT
If the goal is to wake america and the world up to the lie of 9/11, to prevent further false flag terror campagins.
then we should FOCUS ON STUFF THEY CAN COMPREHEND.
Things as obvious as building 7
that's all it took combined with griffins work on the comissions omissions and distortions to wake my pops up.
As much as I don't like to do this to people... I agree it should be put to a vote, cause if the speculatory can't be kept where it needs to be, in areas where the general public won't see it (not in the F*CKING history channel forum on 9/11 for christs sakes!), and a place like 911blogger, where the focus is the hard physical evidence we have, then we need to take appropriate action.
These no-planers have
These no-planers have already been debunked ten times over. their theories are quite literally insane. They are either disinfo or imbeciles. They offer nothing of substance. They are an albatross. I say cut em -- now. If I never read another insane rambling from Nico it'll be too soon.
NPT must have merit
or else all the shills wouldn't be so violently opposed to it!
that's circular reasoning, and you know it
;)
One question I have
Do you or do you not believe that the WTC buildings 1/2&7 we taken down by Controlled Demolition?
Do you or do you not believe that in fact this administration is complicit?
If you do believe as ALL of us believe that in FACT the buildings were taken down by controlled demolition and that this administration is fully complicit then WHY THE PHUCK DOES IT MATTER WHAT THE HELL HIT THE TOWERS?
It doesn't does it?
So WHY muddy up what we ALL know happened which is dividing the truth movement "slightly" lets be honest of the 50% of the American public that believe this administration is guilty of being complicit in 9/11 the NPT is believed by only a tiny fraction that are suspiciously vocal about it.
You have ZERO proof of such an assumption, so why not simply stick to what we all know are the provable facts that ALL of us agree on and leave it at that.
It does NOT matter in the slightest if there were planes or no planes, the issue is were the buildings destroyed by Controlled Demolition by a faction of the US government?
This is WAY too important an issue for those of us that know full well the US government is guilty to be arguing over something that makes no difference at all.
Would be like arguing over whether Kennedy wore a gray suit or a black suit when he was murdered.
Who the phuck cares, stick to the known facts and maybe WAY later years from now when all this is fully in the open and these bastards are in prison rotting, THEN go right ahead and tell us all about it.
Same goes for the Pentagon, I frankly do not know what hit the Pentagon, sure doesn't appear to me to be a 757 but in reality it doesn't matter much and there are so many pieces of solid evidence I can be concentrating on that to focus on something where the very best you can do is just speculate is foolish.
""But this NPT stuff has
""But this NPT stuff has just got to stop. We have more than enough as is to convict them.""
why haven't they been convicted then?
""These no-planers have already been debunked ten times over. their theories are quite literally insane.""
a 767 disappeared into the side of wtc2 without any of the 767 breaking off and a hole smaller than the 767 appeared only after the explosion occurred.
but what's truly insane is that continues to be ignored.
""already been debunked""
no. it has only been ignored.
------
here's a tip for you geniuses:
if you're afraid that your neighbor will think you are a kook because of no-planes then don't tell your neighbor about it. if you think that wtc7 is the "smoking gun" then that's what you should tell your neighbor about. if you think that Mineta/Cheney is the "smoking gun" then that's what you should tell your neighbor.
thats the whol point james
I can't say for sure whether some of that was faked, KT and nico raise some speculatory but convincing cases.
but what good does that do us in swaying public opinion?
IT DOESNT DO A F*CKING THING
in fact it makes it harder
"if you think that wtc7 is the "smoking gun" then that's what you should tell your neighbor about. if you think that Mineta/Cheney is the "smoking gun" then that's what you should tell your neighbor."
I love how you present those like it's presenting icke's reptile agenda. It indeed shows your true colors
why haven't they been
why haven't they been convicted then?
Do you live on this planet? They haven't been convicted because the MSM flatly refuse to acknowledge the facts and are spreading propaganda as fast as possible to thwart any real & honest investigation.
We no longer live in a Democratic republic and are under the rule of a despotic half wit that fully believes he was chosen by his little invisible friend to rule the world.
We also know without any doubt whatsoever that these treasonous war criminals stole 2 elections in 2000/04', yet it is barely mentioned in the media and even the Democrats refuse to discuss it, go figure.
""a 767 disappeared into the side of wtc2 without any of the 767 breaking off and a hole smaller than the 767 appeared only after the explosion occurred.""
And here is a F4 phantom Jet hitting a solid concrete wall @ 500MPH with no where to go (Like inside the building) and yet guess what, you see the exact same result, no pieces of plane at all.
BTW I see an area in the hole left in the WTC that looks like it would fit the plane very well, tail included so that just doesn't make any sense, you must be blind or in such a state of Cognitive Dissonance that your brain refuses to acknowledge it.
http://www.breaktaker.com/displayimage.php?pos=-1243
"""They haven't been
"""They haven't been convicted because the MSM flatly refuse to acknowledge the facts and are spreading propaganda as fast as possible to thwart any real & honest investigation."""
so of course "no-planes" is holding you guys back?
"""I see an area in the hole left in the WTC that looks like it would fit the plane very well, tail included so that just doesn't make any sense, you must be blind or"""
really? look a little more closely at whether the columns are actually cut or merely the aluminum facade is cut.
http://nineeleven2001.t35.com/images/newyork-2.html
morgan reynolds seems to differ with you guys. is it a choice then? your way or the highway?
wake up
so of course "no-planes" is holding you guys back?
Not in the slightest, the No planes drivel is meaningless as to why the media refuses to report the facts.
They refuse because they are complicit, the 5 Corps that own virtually all of the media in the US make money off of War and the selling of that war.
The No planes manure however does give these Media propagandist ammunition to babble on about so that they can conveniently ignore the REAL evidence, the solid & scientifically provable hypotheses.
Because we all know such crap as this is what they will key on so they can ignore the solid evidence.
really? look a little more closely at whether the columns are actually cut or merely the aluminum facade is cut.
Yeah really! I can see an area that looks like a Jet of that size could fit perfectly tail and all, if you dont then you are not thinking rationally at all.
I dont give a ratz ass what morgan Reynolds thinks, especially if he is trying to spread something as ignorant as the NPT, there is ZERO evidence for that hypothesis plus overall as I said in an earlier post IT DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL if planes hit the WTC or not, all that matters is the FACT that they were taken down by controlled demolition.
That can be proven, and that proves the administration is complicit, the end.
I dont care to muddy the facts with wild unprovable speculation, there is tons of solid evidence to hang these bastards on.
no sense
"BTW I see an area in the hole left in the WTC that looks like it would fit the plane very well, tail included so that just doesn't make any sense, you must be blind or in such a state of Cognitive Dissonance that your brain refuses to acknowledge it."
So how exactly does this WTC hole jibe with the F4 expt? I'm not following you if you're arguing for planes.
Here's proof
from a former mechanical engineering professor:
About aluminum cutting through steel: It's about relative speed. It doesn't matter if the wing hits the steel column or the steel column hits the wing; it's the same problem. So, park an airplane on the tarmac, get a big steel column (assuming you could hold), and take a few swings at the wing. Guess which part will be destroyed? Remember, airplanes are not overdesigned like buildings.
If the above is scientifically accurate, then the plane videos are fake.
I'll Try This One Last Time...
People, my purpose in creating this blog was NOT as a place for discussion about the pros and cons of no-planes. It was to:
1. determine if the no-plane people would accept a challenge to clarify their position, and
2. to determine if we should have a poll created to vote to see how many members find the issue to be a harmful distraction.
It would appear around 10% of the respondants understood this. And at this writing, not one no-plane advocate has accepted the challenge.
Please stick to the issue from this point on. Debate with the no-planers all you want over at Nicos place.
sorry Alex
I didn't see.
I'll debate what I can but I'm not an expert.
Put the Poll Up Now
I would like to see this poll put up as soon as possible. I agree that these people have had more than a fair hearing here. I cringe everytime I see this infighting and as best as I have been able, tried to stay out of it. You wont find many comments by me despite many attacks I have been the target of. I never respond to them as 1) I feel that is playing into their hands, and 2) it gives them more ammo with which to attack me again, and 3) wastes valuable time, which I am already in short supply. It's a vicious cycle they lure you into.
I have taken a look at the TV Fakery claims and honestly, I cannot make it through just a few minutes of it. This is not in anyway a personal attack against its' author, but it's poorly written and poorly presented and not easy to read. If it were presented as a research project in any high school around this country, I would be surprised if it received a grade of D-. A college professor would probably hand it back and say try again. I also found the "evidence" when even able to get that far less than scientific or even pursuasive in the least. As well, any evidence presented which would contradict these claims are summarily dismissed as planted, faked, and so forth....I'm not buying the NPT at the Pentagon (thank you Jim Hoffman for your work here) and certainly not the NPT in NYC.
All of that aside, the one thing, that really bothers me about these people, and I am not naming any names but you know who you are, but if you happen to disagree with them, what happens? Hang on cause thats where the attacks begin. I cannot say how many times I have been attacked by a certain individual on this blog, who has called my house and screamed at me and left messages screaming at me. I was new to this all at the time and was like "whoa nelly!" ....something was weird. I have seen the same thing here at 911blogger from this individual and others.
I am not saying these people are COINTELPRO provacateurs because obviously, I have no way of knowing that 100%. But I can only imagine what a new truth seeker who might happen upon 911blogger might think after taking a peek at some of the bitterness displayed here at times. Look, it's a proven fact that the government infiltrated groups in the 60's for the sole purpose of disrupting, dividing, and ultimately conquering. It's also a fact that as a result of the Church hearings, this practice was in effect, prohibited, although I am quite certain it took place anyway. It's also a fact that these COINTELPRO regulations, as they became known as, were relaxed by John Ashcroft and the Justice Department shortly after 9-11. So what makes anyone here believe that they ARE NOT doing this now? And if they were, how would these practices manifest themselves? Perhaps exactly what we are seeing now?
One clue may be found in most all of the mainstream hit pieces, including the one that came out today against the New Hampshire professor. ALL of these hit pieces have at least one thing in common; they go after the fringe theories like, you guessed it, NPT. Sometimes you have to be able to read through the lines. We also have to realize that we are rookies playing against the veterans. We have some serious catching up to do lest we let this kind of thing ruin all of our heartfelt efforts.
I would like to ask all of the members of this blog a few questions. And please do not take any of what I say the wrong way. I look at you all as my commrades and friends. I am not looking for an answer here as these are rhetorical questions that I hope everyone will ask themselves.
How much time have you spent engaging these people?
Could your time have been spent more productively? If so, doing what?
How many times have these people upset you?
Can you live without the negativity?
I think you get my drift here. If you answered like I know many of you have to, you will see that IF the goal of these people were to distract you or divide you or to waste your time, they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams and are sitting back laughing.
Whether one is religious or not, a certain scripture comes to my mind and I would like to share it with this group of great people. It comes from the book of Matthew, Chapter 7.
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Let the polling begin and may the good trees be left standing tall.
Thank you, Michael....
...for your excellent post. You have eloquently expressed the very heart of what my purpose is in starting this blog.
Among your many lucid points, I'd like to highlight this one:
"...I can only imagine what a new truth seeker who might happen upon 911blogger might think after taking a peek at some of the bitterness displayed here at times."
THAT has been one of my primary concerns, and that alone is reason enough to stop the pointless bickering.
Excellent post
Thanks, Michael.
I'm ready to vote...
Worth reading twice.
Thank you, Michael.
This guy (you know who) is
This guy (you know who) is IMHO extremely harmful. He is the perfect looner/freak for the corporate media.
Even Alex Jones shouting 24/7 at people through a megaphone wouldn't be as harmful to the movement as a single Interview with that guy.
Don't let him speak for the movement!
ROTFL
The only thing that is proof of is your gullibility.
The above is NOT scientifically accurate unless you live in a Road Runner/WilE Coyote cartoon.
FACT the planes weighed in excess of 100 TONS.
FACT entire MASS of those planes hit the side of the building at between 400-500 MPH.
Thus 100+ TONS of material, (again does not matter what the phuck it was, Aluminum, Paper Mache, Water, freaking toilet paper, dont matter) it was 100+ TONS going 500MPH GET IT?
Now 100+ TONS of MASS does not just splat on the side of a building like a fly, it created almost inconceivable "Foot-pounds of energy" into that building.
Actually what saved those buildings was having the steel beams break away like they were designed to do in order to absorb that much MASS moving at such a velocity.
You remind me of talking to a Fundy Xian about the fairytales in the Bible they claim are 100% true.
Regardless of evidence presented it just makes no difference.
Sorry
Im done wasting time on this nonsense.
You are right, this is no place to be debating (if you can call it that) about such drivel.
/ignore
good
now we won't need to hear anything more from you.
Only intelligent discussions to follow
CB_Brooklyn, that was not
CB_Brooklyn, that was not necessary, and went directly against what I just requested.
"""determine if the no-plane
"""determine if the no-plane people would accept a challenge to clarify their position,"""
i did clarify my position. i now do so again:
not one single piece of the 767 broke off upon impact, yet looking at photo of the hole we see that it is smaller than a 767:
http://nineeleven2001.t35.com/images/newyork-2.html
and there is no part of the hole that corresponds to the giant tail of a 767.
and here we see the abundant flaws with the images that were recorded on video:
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/#Gedeon
what kind of a 767 has one wing at a different angle than the other wing?
so. my vote for your poll is 911 tv fakery is the reality. if you are so easily distracted from your efforts by the thought of no-planes or even video fakery then that doesn't speak so well of your concentration.
you opened the doors for this discussion alex by issuing your "challenge".
here is my challenge:
prove that the video inmages that we saw on tv were not fake. we have already proven that they were.
------
"""FACT entire MASS of those planes hit the side of the building at between 400-500 MPH.
Thus 100+ TONS of material, (again does not matter what the phuck it was, Aluminum, Paper Mache, Water, freaking toilet paper, dont matter) it was 100+ TONS going 500MPH GET IT?"""
that is moronic. the nosecone of an aluminum 767 is made of plastic and would squash along with the beer-can-like fuselage against the massive steel of wtc2. mere birds damage airplanes on a regular basis. the fast moving 767 hitting the stationary wtc is physically no different from a fast moving wtc hitting a stationary 767.
nunyabiz, your attempt at condescension is pathetic.
------
do you guys hand out dvds?
yes? so do i.
i will not change my stance on video fakery.
OK, James...
James, you said: "I will not change my stance on video fakery." I, for one, am not asking anyone to change their stance on anything. I'm asking that you and other no-planers take your confusing, devisive claims elsewhere, and allow 911blogger to be a clear beacon of truth to both new and seasoned thruthers.
Your referenced site is, as always, a myriad of conjecture, half-baked claims, and headache inducing chaos. There may be an interesting fact among the drivel, but it takes far too long to discern. If you are determined to spend valuable time focusing on this questionable area of research (when there is so much far more compelling information to study and disseminate) I sincerely hope you and others of your mindset find a way to present your claims in a clearer, more compelling manner. Otherwise, you'll always be on the fringe.
:)
that is moronic. the nosecone of an aluminum 767 is made of plastic and would squash along with the beer-can-like fuselage against the massive steel of wtc2. mere birds damage airplanes on a regular basis. the fast moving 767 hitting the stationary wtc is physically no different from a fast moving wtc hitting a stationary 767.
nunyabiz, your attempt at condescension is pathetic.
This makes no sense at all, obviously you dont have even a rudimentary grasp of basic physics.
The material is moot, the plane could be made of toilet paper, the ONLY thing that makes any difference is the MASS/Weight and the Velocity.
100+ TONS of Toilet paper or Turkey Breast traveling at a velocity of 500MPH would have bashed those Columns out just as fast.
Maybe you should take a few classes and return when you have a clue.
Nunyabiz: You said:
"Im done wasting time on this nonsense.
You are right, this is no place to be debating (if you can call it that) about such drivel.
/ignore"
I agree with you, Nunyabiz, and would appreciate it if you would honor what you said.
Kinda hard
To do that when about 60% of all the post here today are from these nutbags without just leaving the site.
which Im going to do right after this post.
Will return tomorrow to hopefully less NPT drivel and if you cant get rid of them I guess I should just stop posting here altogether, because I feel compelled to say something.
I find it hard to believe these people actually believe this manure.
Soon as I try to /ignore one, another one pops up spewing something equally as absurd.
again and again
"The material is moot, the plane could be made of toilet paper, the ONLY thing that makes any difference is the MASS/Weight and the Velocity. 100+ TONS of Toilet paper or Turkey Breast traveling at a velocity of 500MPH would have bashed those Columns out just as fast."
you've made similar claims in other threads and this latest one only highlights your lack on knowledge regarding physics. how can you claim that the material doesn't matter and then cite mass? do you realize that mass is intimately connected with the type of material? further more, you lumped mass and weight together-- they are not the same.
your analysis ignores density. your analysis ignores how objects made from various materials deform under stress (ex: is pencil is more likely to break and not bend with latitudinal force is applied where as a steel bar is more likely the bend under the same force). i posted something similar to you twice yesterday in another thread here with no response: http://911blogger.com/node/2321?page=2 (followed below by a response to your claims the material doesn't matter)
here's a copy/paste/butcher job on my comment:
no one has explained how UA175 can slide into WTC2 without the tail breaking off (witnessed in ~4 videos), without the wings breaking off, and without any sort of deformation. those who try to explain usually rely on velocity and [conviently] forget that while the plane is sliding into the tower with little or no resistance, while the plane is slicing through perimeter columns, the plane is also busting through atleast one concrete floor section - look at the impact hole pictures to see thats a multifloor crater.
many people were willing to accept the OTC from the start [without reserve] and only when they started questioning their beliefs [and asking the right questions] did that change. why then now are some of the same people willing to forget that little lesson in exchange for another unfounded belief?
bottom line, physics is not on your side.
and to alex: i don't support a poll to ban NPTers (just because some people, IMO, aren't capable of intelligently debating the issue). i do support intelligent constructive debate-- something sorely lacking from so many comment threads.
you may wish to invite ST911 to debate
they're already considering this
How They Did the Plane Trick at WTC 2 - Morgan Reynolds
Very interesting read...
How They Did the Plane Trick at WTC 2
I mention possible theories of "cloaking" in my Flight 77 page: #6
I guess you missed this...
Killtown: perhaps you missed my previous post, regarding my purpose for this blog:
...my purpose in creating this blog was NOT as a place for discussion about the pros and cons of no-planes. It was to:
1. determine if the no-plane people would accept a challenge to clarify their position, and
2. to determine if we should have a poll created to vote to see how many members find the issue to be a harmful distraction.
It would appear around 10% of the respondents understood this. And at this writing, not one no-plane advocate has accepted the challenge.
Please stick to the issue from this point on. Debate with the no-planers all you want over at Nicos place.
We accept
"1. determine if the no-plane people would accept a challenge to clarify their position"
And so do we...
Hey dz, can we get that poll happening?
"I mention possible theories
"I mention possible theories of "cloaking" in my Flight 77 page"
That's right folks, the Klingons carried out the attacks;)
LT. Wharf traveled back in time and utilized a cloaking device to disguise a missile flying into the WTC. Asked later during his trial by the federation why he didn't simply use a regular plane, he stated: "I've always wanted to use a cloaking device, and it seemed like the perfect opportunity. It worked! Those foolish earthlings all thought they saw planes! I would have gotten away with it too if weren't for those pesky kids on the internet!"
Ditto on the poll. Let's cut these quacks loose.
The only "quacks" are the ones
who don't know how to read properly and spread misinformation like you just did.
YT, how many members do you
YT,
how many members do you want to ban?
Do you also suggest a keyword banner every time the word "TV fakery" is mentioned?
They tried that once at LooseChange and Letsroll Forum.
Good luck -;
I'm sure we'll figure it out.
Thanks.
OK Killtown...
Killtown: OK, you accept the challenge. Great. Then please provide a clear, easy to read and understand presentation of your proof of no-planes. Something a person new to the truth movement could look at and follow without getting a brain hemorrhage. Thank you.
I thought I already did, but here it is again...
Now these are just my analysis. They are only a part of all the evidence:
- Video Collection of the WTC 'Plane' Crashes
- 767's Wing Tips Made Of Pentanium Steel?
- 2nd Plane 'popping' Out Of The Sky!
- Why Crash A 767 Into A Loaded Building?
Now remember, YOU may not like this evidence and YOU may not accept this evidence, but DON'T say we have "no evidence" because that will show you to be a LIAR.
Killtown....
...you said "Now remember, YOU may not like this evidence and YOU may not accept this evidence, but DON'T say we have "no evidence" because that will show you to be a LIAR."
First of all, I have not appointed myself final judge and jury on this issue. I'm just asking you and your ilk to present your case clearly, so that members here can decide for themselves if
1. it has value, or
2. it is a distraction from our pursuit and dissimination of 911 truth.
I'm sorry, but looking at what you provided, once again, made me feel like reaching for the Tylenol, as my head started pounding while attempting to make sense of it all. Maybe that is just me. Other members may see it differently.
By the way, the first link led to a page where the "slide-show" didn't work.
What is so hard to understand?
The video collection page shows all the inconsistencies with the crash videos thereby proving they are fake. (What slide-show?)
The wingtips page questions if it's possible for a 767's wingtips and tailtips to pass through steel.
The "popping" page shows a doctored video and also shows the plane's wings passing through the building without breaking the surface.
The last page asks why crash a fully loaded plane in the building where you just wired it to implode. Notice nobody had a good answer for that question.
Un-f'ing believable!
1. flexible liquid crystal display screens on the aircraft itself that display the background image (cloudless blue sky)
2. external sources projecting a background image in so-called stereoscopic form to a camouflaged aircraft covered by a retro reflector.
FU Reynolds!
You are like the 3 monkeys
The technology exists. If you don't want to believe it, than that's your problem.
Also, if you believe the gov't would go through the lengths to commit a conspiracy, why wouldn't they use their latest secret technology to help pull it off?
why wouldn't they use their latest secret technology to help
pull it off?
1) too risky to involve new, relatively untested technology
2) why risk the new secret technology being exposed on such a sloppy scam as 9/11
3) they could do it without the secret technology just as easily
Lo-res video "evidence" and logical fallacies aren't convincing me, but hey, if you have a case, make the best one you can!
_
"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers
dz, sbg? Can you set up the
dz, sbg? Can you set up the poll already?
Adding fuel to the fire
I am really, really pissed about this
http://www.911blogger.com/node/2303
and I've only had an account here for 2 days!
luckily I'm an already seasoned truther, and privey to all the politik of it already, and not totally turned off to this site by it.
I wouldn't surprise me if...
...we start seeing an influx of MSM coverage with guests who promote the NPT. If this begins to happen, then you can bet your boots, it would've happened by design.
No planes proof
A collection of articles here explains the no-planes theory very well:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/08/inconvenient-truth-about-91...
If you have any questions about any of the material, please contact me.
But roughly the evidence is:
1) some or many videos do not show a normal 767
2) videos show conflicting plane paths, not possible for a real plane
3) the WTC facade holes are suspicious, complete wings should not have contacted the wall and left scars
4) the 2nd plane slides into the building without slowing or anythin breaking off
5) no black boxes found
6) some plane evidence looks planted
7) some witnesses never saw a plane
8) TV was used to drum the idea of plane crashes over and over
Operationally:
1) no planes is an effective BIG LIE psy-ops
2) easier for the perpetrators to control than using real planes
MediaPuppet wrote: "...I
MediaPuppet wrote:
"...I wouldn't surprise me if...
Submitted by MediaPuppet (not verified) on Mon, 08/28/2006 - 9:21am.
...we start seeing an influx of MSM coverage with guests who promote the NPT...."
So why didn't it start yet in your opinion, especially *IF we're shills?
Why was Morgan Reynolds or Judy Wood not on FOX?
Any answers, smarthead??
Maybe you can also tell me who was behind Yahoo's decision to disable my account and erase our Yahoogroup 911InsideJobbers after 13 months with no complaints whatsoever?
There was no spamming, nothing. No warning, zero.
They just took it down a few hours after the Reynolds/Wood article.
Any explanations???!!
Spooked, please elaborate...
Hi spooked... your post is approaching the kind of answer to the challenge I've been looking for.
Would you please provide substantiating links for each claim made (so members can determine viability)? That would be most helpful. Thank you.
the links are all in the article I linked to
there is TONS of evidence.
If you want clear evidence that videos showed conflicting plane paths, look here:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/08/dive-bomb-video-conflicts-w...
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/07/mis-aligned-cbs-video.html
But this is just the tip of the iceberg.
I also highly recommend Marcus Icke's Ghost Gun article:
http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/prod/dialspace/town/pipexdsl/q/aqrf00/gg...
"""Something a person new to
"""Something a person new to the truth movement could look at and follow without getting a brain hemorrhage."""
this would seem to be well written and not very brain hemorrhage inducing:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/04/critique-of-complete-offici...
of course one would actually have to read it.
this one is a little more involved but it points out in excruciating detail the veritable plethora of flaws to be found with the various images of alleged ua175:
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/#Gedeon
again, one would actually have to read it to glean any insights from it, but you're all smart guys. (including the genius who suggested that even 500+mph papier-mache would penetrate these columns):
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5459/522/1600/Core%20Box%20columns.2.jpg
never underestimate the power of yosemitesam!
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5459/522/1600/087.jpg
James, why?
James Ha - Bottom line question: Why, when there is so much other compelling evidence regarding 911 to investigate and share, should we ask a new (or even seasoned) truther to dive into the murky depths of the no-planes concept?
You and your cronies have every right to pursue whatever line of investigation you want. However, I for one believe it needs to be isolated among your own group until it can be positively proven and clearly demonstrated. Otherwise, it does more harm than good, in ways that have already been enumerated.
"""believe it needs to be
"""believe it needs to be isolated among your own group until it can be positively proven and clearly demonstrated."""
i believe that nico, spooked, marcus icke, webfairy etc. HAVE positively proven AND demonstrated it. it is valid in my opinion, but none of their research ever seems to even be discussed, let alone proven wrong.
"""Why, when there is so much other compelling evidence regarding 911 to investigate and share, should we ask a new (or even seasoned) truther to dive into the murky depths of the no-planes concept?"""
since the fakery is obvious to me, it is also obvious that everything else is a foregone conclusion. ie: the lack of air defense response, demolition of wtc, etc. the entire 9/11 fairytale revolves around 4 highjacked boeings hitting 3 buildings. since the planes were obviously bogus the ENTIRETY of 9/11 was bogus. it should be as easy as that.
to continue with the (IMO) charade of planes allows an entire segment of perps (military/media, nico has details) to escape scrutiny.
----
the reason why this is such a battle (IMO) is that 'truthers' are dismissing it (no-planes) out of hand as ridiculous without addressing the specifics of any of it.
"disinfo!, wacky!, hurting the movement!" i know that you see what i'm saying. you guys don't all need to jump on the no-planes wagon, but if it's going to be dissed and dismissed then the dissers should perhaps address specific points that they disagree with rather than just dismissing it with the sweeping "ridiculous".
i believe that nico,
i believe that nico, spooked, marcus icke, webfairy etc, analyses of the images of alleged ua175 can all stand up under true scrutiny. i bet they would even stand up in a court of law. THEY are the researchers, i just have a big effin mouth - but if i were to put words in any of their mouths or promote something that wasn't correct they would tell me to shut-up in a heartbeat. and i would.
until that happens i will continue to defend their research/analyses because i believe in the validity of it.
Murky???
It's not murky at all! It's the friggin' heart of 9/11!
Were there real planes that hit the buildings and ground or not?
It is beyond obvious no plane crahsed in Shanksville.
There are well known anomalies with the pentagon hit.
The WTC hits have videos, but does it mean it really happened that way?
As I explained, there are good reasons why they wouldn't have used real planes and good evidence supporting this idea.
I wash my hands of this...
I'm done. I've asked and asked for clear proof of the no-plane claims and all I get are links to more endless pages of dubious claims, or posts with lists of unsubstantiated claims. This is a bottomless pit of pointless run-around.
I leave it to dz to determine if a poll regarding the banning of those posting no-planer distractions is the right direction to go. As to this blog, consider it open. Go ahead and engage in more time wasting debate.
"""all I get are links to
"""all I get are links to more endless pages of dubious claims, or posts with lists of unsubstantiated claims."""
wow. since the analyses of the images of the alleged ua175 would entail the actual looking at images i guess i shouldn't be surprised at your blanket dismissal of links to them.
"""distractions"""
thus proving my earlier point. way to go truther!
that is really weak
did you even look at my links?
sorry, if reading is too difficult for you!
No, your "evidence" is weak..
..and I'm done wasting my time looking at it.
I challenge YOU to show PROOF of WTC demolition!!!!!
Come on, no more disjointed links and difficult to read essays and diagrams. Let's see your PROOF!!!!!
Of course if you can't prove it to my satisfaction, it must mean you are spreading disinfo or something!!!
Excellent Analogy!
Controlled Demolition Evidence:
1. Straight Down Collapse
2. Freefall Speed (in environment)
3. Pulverization of concrete in powder from the top down
No Plane Evidence:
1. Aluminum Plane Cleanly Slicing Structural Steel
2. Planted Plane Wreckage
3. Flight 11 (and 77) not in BTS database
etc.....
perhaps the main problem with the no-plane theory
is that it requires a modicum of critical thinking.
If you're not the least bit skepitcal about a picture like this:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5459/522/1600/fake%20plane%20entering...
then what can I say?
You are complicating the issue!!!!!!!
Ok, every video ever made "showing planes" hitting the WTC buildings were mocked up somehow. Fine! No planes ever hit any building on 9/11!!!!! Great! The movie "Independence Day" showed a realistic version of a UFO hitting the White House and other buildings. The movie "Armaggedon" showed meteorites showering on NYC peppering the WTC towers... (they didn't collapse in their footprints btw.. and at free fall speed).
I am sure that all of us "yes, planes hit the WTC building" theorists are anxiously awaiting a concise, well-documented thesis arguing the point that no planes hit the WTC. I am sure that if you can provide this convincing evidence, all of us will thoroughly read through it and provide a rebuttal or say "you were right!".
We have a hard enough road to hoe right now just getting the word out about the atrocities of 9/11 thanks to our government's involvement. I just want this internal plane vs. no-plane shit to end as it does not help OUR cause at all. Bring the evidence on.
"A patriot must be ready to defend his country against his government" - Edward Abbey
"""We have a hard enough
"""We have a hard enough road to hoe right now just getting the word out about the atrocities of 9/11 thanks to our government's involvement."""
it doesn't occur to you to question the extent of the media's involvement?
"""sure that all of us... are anxiously awaiting a concise, well-documented thesis arguing the point that no planes hit the WTC. I am sure that if you can provide this convincing evidence, all of us will thoroughly read through it"""
as if spooked and myself have not provided many fine examples on this page alone?
i change my vote in your poll to that you go ahead and ban even the merest thought of no-planes from this blog. it wouldn't even make any difference would it?
i'm done. you guys can get back to your smoking gun #1,784.
wow just like
wow just like papier-mache!
http://www.911hoax.com/gBoeingButter.asp?intPage=8&PageNum=8
Present your argument for no-planes and post it...
If anything, people here are very open-minded. If you truly believe that no planes hit the WTC then compile and present your case, concisely. We will listen.
"A patriot must be ready to defend his country against his government" - Edward Abbey
"""Present your argument for
"""Present your argument for no-planes and post it...We will listen."""
wow i thought i was done but i find myself drawn back here for one last attempt. you want a little no-planes thesis without links to images and analyses, but the very claim of planes relies SOLELY on the images of alleged ua175 so to dispute the claim of planes one has to refer to the images.
reynolds claims that there are holes in the plane story:
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes
and spooked elaborates:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/04/critique-of-complete-offici...
prof. jones insists that there were indeed planes and cites as evidence the eyewitlesses and the video representations of ua175.
regarding the eyewitlesses:
http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=84
which brings us to regarding the videos. analyses of the manner in which alleged ua175 penetrates the wtc2 reveals the absurdity of an aluminum 767 passing into the wtc2 like a baseball man sliding into home:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/
as if that wasn't absurd enough, individual images of alleged ua175 have been analysed and found to be flawed:
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/#Gedeon
i don't see how it could be made any clearer at this point.
god help us all.
Here is about as simple a proof as you can get--
a 767 is 160 feet long
the wtc was 208 feet wide
according to the official story, the plane was completely intact as it penetrated the building, but once inside it completely disintegrated-- all in about the length of the plane.
it defies logic to say that the plane could not show any distortion or noticeable slowing upon entry but once inside completely come apart.
in other words, how can the plane be indestructible going in but completely fragile once inside?
and if the building is tearing the plane apart as it enters, shouldn't this slow the plane down a lot more than what is seen?
and how can the plane break through the outer wall and outer floor slabs without crumpling-- but then tear apart completely once it disappears inside?
THE OFFICIAL STORY DEFIES PHYSICS.
no, you just don't
no, you just don't understand physics, and you have had this concept explained to you multiple times in the last few days but you refuse to accept it.
I Think the Issue Is
It's not that there isn't an at the very least a probably case for further examination of the NPT for more expirenced truthers. (I looked at the cgi compare paper [read about half of it] spooked posted and the anomolies are intriguing)
It's the issue of running out to the world with bullhorns shouting it out.
again I ask the question
Is it not our goal to wake up the masses to government sponsored terrorism?
When I go to the history channel forum and there is already a NPT thread there, we have a problem.
We can't toss these people with such degraded reality lines into the deep end first. You have to start at the shallow end. Just getting them to accept they've been lied to about 9/11 is a tremendous task in itself. Without trying to throw on top of it holographic planes!
To reiterate, this is why discussion of this topic should be done in areas where the slanderously pernicious media and the general public don't frequent.
does that make any sense?
if it doesn't, then theres no other thing to do than to vote on it.
OwnThe NWO, you said...
"To reiterate, this is why discussion of this topic should be done in areas where the slanderously pernicious media and the general public don't frequent."
Absolutely. Well stated.
No-plane people: why can't you see the reasoning here? What is so difficult to understand?
Investigate away! Just do it behind closed-doors while the rest of us investigate and share information that the average Joe and Mary can better accept and deal with. Ohterwise, you are doing more harm than good. It's that simple, and from what I have seen, the majority of members (so far) agree with me.
agreed. im at a loss as to
agreed. im at a loss as to why they are allowed to still post on this site. look what they have done to the last 10 or so major threads. all disinfo. all no-planers versus the rest of us. thread after thread is being hijacked with disinfo and no plane arguments and they are still allowed to post here. until the no-planers can come out with a coherent documentary or something more than a few cryptic websites with blurry videos, i will continue to think they are disinformation. it would be one thing if they made their own blogs or threads on no planes, but they are taking over every thread trying to bash it into our skulls that CGI was used. sounds bannable to me.
"""No-plane people: why
"""No-plane people: why can't you see the reasoning here? What is so difficult to understand?"""
oh i understand perfectly - you would rather that we just quietly went away.
well maybe you will succeed in having us banned and if you do we will merely laugh and consider you to be on a par with some other obvious shills. quit sweating it! you asked for 'proof of no planes' - both spooked and myself have provided what we consider to be such proof.
(to the genius that just claimed "you just don't understand the physics" i can only say as if!) if you want to persist with the govt fairytale of 4 highjacked boeings hitting 3 buildings then that is your right. but if you think for one second that any of us will go along with such a false notion then you are sorely mistaken. good day.
you will be compared with
you will be compared with "the holocaust never happened" and "Elvis is still alive" crowds if you continue to make "no planes" your lead evidence. you CGI people have no tact whatsoever.
We already saw this in how
We already saw this in how the Scripps poll was spun.
"Sure, 36% of people believe 9/11 coverup but 38% believe our government works with aliens so who cares?"
All the government HAS NOW is to try and marginalize the truth movement as kooks.
They have very little evidence propping up their conspiracy theory, and we all know that.
So you must understand that the battle now is to not be spun as kooks, and that's what the No Plane Theory does, lets the 9/11 truth movement be spun as kooks. Look at the Penn & Teller piece. Do you think they could do that about the $100,000 wire transfer from Pakistani ISI to Atta, and the multiple war games going on during 9/11?
911 awareness will be spun
911 awareness will be spun as kooks by the media no matter what. because the masters of the media are as much of perps as the pentagon and the silverstein/guliani crew are. the $100,000 ISI wire transfer? what is that smoking gun #1,749? aren't you losing count of the smoking guns yet? there are so many that it's pathetic.
i do understand your point about being perceived as kooks and i believe that is actually a good point!
but it is another thing entirely to see stuff like "you just don't understand the physics" (of aluminum plane v. massive steel/concrete structure).
i think that the st911's (including jones who hasn't actually said that aluminum plane v. wtc is NOT absurd) under stand the physics of it just fine. that's probably why they have been silent on that until now. but things will probably change thanks to reynolds/wood. do any of you honestly think that you are smarter than reynolds and wood? they don't believe there were real planes and i side with them.
but i at least understand your point so i will keep my mouth shut about no planes on your blog.
"oh you just don't understand the physics of the papier-mache-soft-lead-bullet analogy!"
ha ha!
Do I understand physics more
Do I understand physics more than Morgan Reynolds? Most definitely, he's an economist, I have a biomedical engineering degree.
And if Judy Wood doesn't think that it is physically possible for a plane to have entered the towers? Then she has a problem.
It was designed to absorb a hit by an aircraft, not have an aircraft bounce off of it because the outer steel columns can't be passed through by an aluminum aircraft.
That is a joke, and its elementary physics.
"""That is a joke, and its
"""That is a joke, and its elementary physics."""
right - even the wingtips - it's elementary! why don't you write up a little thesis about how it's elementary physics that even the wingtips would slice (did they slice? or did they chop? are the wings extra sharp at the tip? or are they extra hard and dense at the tip? morons like myself want to know!)
by the way, one of the chief no-planers also has a biomedical degree.
funny how you guys bitch and moan about no-planers fouling up every thread and i look at another thread and who's bringing it up? you guys.
"""That is a joke, and its
"""That is a joke, and its elementary physics."""
one would think so anyway. ok then did the plastic nosecone of the aluminum 767 poke thru the steel columns like an arrow or did it bludgeon thru like a hammer or did it flow in between them like mercury?
911 awareness will be spun as kooks by the media no matter what.
"911 awareness will be spun as kooks by the media no matter what."
Well why don't you paint a giant holographic target on our asses, it will make it that much easier for them.
thats the point.
True or not the NPT is not necessicary to wake up the american people or bring criminal charges against them initially, but if true could come out in the proceedings.
but until that time, what the fuck is the point?
Yeah in your mind because the planes are fake everything else norad standing down, ect, falls into place, but that's YOUR BRAIN. You need to not be so niche about this.
come on, have a little common sense.
Suckers
Don't buy into the emotional appeals of these jerks. Are you really going to let them guilt trip their way into spamming the movement down? How much time should be spent trying to convince each 'misguided' 'truthseeker' that the no-planes crap is entirely discreditable? What a waste...
"""Don't buy into the
"""Don't buy into the emotional appeals of these jerks."""
what emotional appeals? it's either "elementary physics" that an aluminum 767 can penetrate a steel/concrete wtc and disappear entirely without a trace or it's not.
the only emotional appeals have been made by the govt/media with their claim that evil muslims highjacked 4 boeings and flew 3 of them into landmark buildings. the result of that govt/media emotional appeal is the war on arabs.
either there were actual planes or there were not. the time for saying 'it doesn't matter' is drawing to a close.
Shep, I've reposted your post...
...because it got lost among the others due to how this blog is structured: You said:
"The material is moot, the plane could be made of toilet paper, the ONLY thing that makes any difference is the MASS/Weight and the Velocity. 100+ TONS of Toilet paper or Turkey Breast traveling at a velocity of 500MPH would have bashed those Columns out just as fast."
you've made similar claims in other threads and this latest one only highlights your lack on knowledge regarding physics. how can you claim that the material doesn't matter and then cite mass? do you realize that mass is intimately connected with the type of material? further more, you lumped mass and weight together-- they are not the same.
your analysis ignores density. your analysis ignores how objects made from various materials deform under stress (ex: is pencil is more likely to break and not bend with latitudinal force is applied where as a steel bar is more likely the bend under the same force). i posted something similar to you twice yesterday in another thread here with no response: http://911blogger.com/node/2321?page=2 (followed below by a response to your claims the material doesn't matter)
here's a copy/paste/butcher job on my comment:
no one has explained how UA175 can slide into WTC2 without the tail breaking off (witnessed in ~4 videos), without the wings breaking off, and without any sort of deformation. those who try to explain usually rely on velocity and [conviently] forget that while the plane is sliding into the tower with little or no resistance, while the plane is slicing through perimeter columns, the plane is also busting through atleast one concrete floor section - look at the impact hole pictures to see thats a multifloor crater.
many people were willing to accept the OTC from the start [without reserve] and only when they started questioning their beliefs [and asking the right questions] did that change. why then now are some of the same people willing to forget that little lesson in exchange for another unfounded belief?
bottom line, physics is not on your side.
and to alex: i don't support a poll to ban NPTers (just because some people, IMO, aren't capable of intelligently debating the issue). i do support intelligent constructive debate-- something sorely lacking from so many comment threads.
"
Top 30 Evidence for 9/11 TV
Top 30 Evidence for 9/11 TV Fakery
http://www.911blogger.com/node/2377
thanks Alex...
just so its clear to everyone that comment was directed @ Nunyabiz and it still exists up top...
anyone who thinks 'the material is moot' (as Nunyabiz stated up) might want to think about bulletproof vests and bulletproof glass. lexan and kevlar can both stop bullets, yet a bullet can travel extremely fast-- certainly faster than a jet. anyone who tries to discuss the impact physics at WTC2 (as observed in ~4 videos) and then cites velocity as the metric of concern, while ignoring all other physical properties, is just plane wrong. 'nuff said.