| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Samantha J Fox
Minor Poster
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 68
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 11:26 am Post subject: The NP witnesses are very quiet don't you think? |
 |
|
For me the one thing that blows the NPT out the water is the sheer lack of volume of people trying to get the message out that what hit the towers was not a plane.
There must have been many many thousands of people staring up at the towers from all angles, and they would have seen the whole event of the second hit and explosion.
Instead from the NPT'ers all we get is repeated claims that it was media insiders who got to air their voice (no surprise as it is the media after all) as to what hit the towers, with the occasional vague quote from someone who wasnt sure if it was a big plane or a small plane.
The law of averages would suggest that of all the people around the WTC when the second plane hit, there would be a good number who would have clearly seen if it was missile or some kind of guided flying pig with dynamite attached to its trotters.. it was a very clear day after all.
But having perused these sites for a few years now, I notice a real lack of any eyewitnesses that use the net to get their voice heard that what they saw was not a large passenger plane..
Or just maybe nobody who was in Manhatten on that morning uses the internet. 
_________________
SAPERE AUDE |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It would be interesting generally to know how many New Yorkers are in the no planes/media fakery camps, (apart from Rick 'oh b* I missed it' Seagull).
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:11 pm Post subject: Re: The NP witnesses are very quiet don't you think? |
|
|
| Samantha J Fox wrote: | For me the one thing that blows the NPT out the water is the sheer lack of volume of people trying to get the message out that what hit the towers was not a plane.
There must have been many many thousands of people staring up at the towers from all angles, and they would have seen the whole event of the second hit and explosion.
Instead from the NPT'ers all we get is repeated claims that it was media insiders who got to air their voice (no surprise as it is the media after all) as to what hit the towers, with the occasional vague quote from someone who wasnt sure if it was a big plane or a small plane.
The law of averages would suggest that of all the people around the WTC when the second plane hit, there would be a good number who would have clearly seen if it was missile or some kind of guided flying pig with dynamite attached to its trotters.. it was a very clear day after all.
But having perused these sites for a few years now, I notice a real lack of any eyewitnesses that use the net to get their voice heard that what they saw was not a large passenger plane..
Or just maybe nobody who was in Manhatten on that morning uses the internet. |
you make a really good point - which is probably why the NPT sheeple have spent the last few days giving this thread such a wide berth.
just as they have to somehow prove that every single video or image of a plane is fake (which they are unable to do) - they also have to prove that all witnesses who saw a plane are wrong/lying/being mind controlled by the perps or whatever (which they are also unable to do)....
after the first tower was hit thousands of people all over Manhattan had their eyes trained on the upper floors of the WTC - from the ground, from their homes, from rooftops, from windows in the many high rise buildings....
The wtc was situated on the edge of the hudson river and the upper floors of the towers (not to mention the huge plumes of smoke heading skyward from the north tower at the time of the second hit) could easily be seen for many miles around.
large numbers of people will also have been watching the north tower burn from New Jersey in the west, from Brooklyn and Queens in the East and Staten island in the south.
if you've seen Rick Siegal's film "911 eyewitness" you can see just how many spectators were watching the towers burn in just the small section of pier that he chose to film from. you can see many, many more in other 9/11 videos....
thousands of people will have seen the plane flying in with their own eyes - not on tv - and it's stupid to try to claim otherwise.
how on earth could so many people who were physically present at the scene be fooled into believing that there was a plane if there wasn't one?
it's a ridiculous idea.
but as well as denying this reality, NPT believers also try to focus on those witnesses who were shown on tv and didn't see the second plane as it approached - and make the false claim that this is evidence for "no planes".
actually, it's not at all surprising that some peple were in a location that precluded them from seeing the plane or weren't looking at the right part of the sky at the right moment.
but not only do the NPTers ignore such obvious explanations, they also misrepresent these witnesses in a way that's deliberately dishonest.
a good example of this is shown right at the beginning of "september clues" (and is repeated in "9/11 taboo" and maybe also in other NPT videos) - we hear a CNN anchor talking over the phone to an eyewitness called Winston Mitchell about the first strike. When the second plane arrives Mitchell doesn't see it and just reports an explosion ("September Clues" also tries to make a big deal out of the fact that his mic "picks up no impact sound").
what has been deliberately left out of this carefully edited footage (but you can find out for yourself by checking the unedited footage in the September 11th television archive) is that Smith is inside a diner that's somewhere just to the north of the wtc - and when the second plane hits he is looking at the north tower through a window (which is presumably on, or near to, ground level).
So there's a very simple reason why he doesn't see the plane - ie he's in a location that makes it physically impossible for him to have seen it (and there's also a simple reason why his mic "picks up no impact sound" - ie he's inside a building talking to the anchor over the phone and we don't even know if he has a mic).
this is the kind of deliberate deception we see over and over again from NPT believers.
I wonder why they have to lie to make their case.
and I wonder why the local New York radio shows that night weren't flooded with callers saying "there were no planes", "the plane images must be fake" etc....
maybe it's because there's no evidence whatsoever that any of the witnesses who were seen or heard on tv saying that they didn't see a plane actually believe that no planes hit the towers.
there are plenty of people who were physically present at the scene in NYC on 9/11 who have since disputed the official story - and if there really were no planes, you'd expect a significant number of them to be disputing the idea that planes hit the towers.
so where are all the people who believe in no planes based on what they actually witnessed themselves in NYC on 9/11? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fish5133
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2568
Location: One breath from Glory
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
IMO The NPT has only come about much later because it tries to mask the truth that no boeing hit the Pentagon.
Perhaps the perps were getting worried that the Pentagon truth was coming out so needed to inject the NPT to confuse matters
_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paul wright
Moderator
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Call me a consevative if you want, but I still hold to that old-fashioned notion that holograms platformed on hovering orbs hit WTC2 and maybe the Pentagon, which would explain the differing accounts re the latter and the differing visuals on the former
Shame David Shayler was hit by messiahship before he could expound the views much taken up by the msm to deride as ridiculous
Most previous holders of this view were shifted by alterations to the background images of the videos
But as people say these are mostly low quality and debatable
_________________
http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephen
Moderate Poster
Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 819
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The NP witnesses are very quiet don't you think? |
No not really, just because it's beyond most people's comprehension doesnt mean it's not true. Open your mind to all possabilatieys, then you will be free.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | but I still hold to that old-fashioned notion that holograms platformed on hovering orbs hit WTC2 and maybe the Pentagon |
*blink blink* In all honesty, seriously?
_________________
"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| paul wright wrote: | Call me a consevative if you want, but I still hold to that old-fashioned notion that holograms platformed on hovering orbs hit WTC2 and maybe the Pentagon, which would explain the differing accounts re the latter and the differing visuals on the former
Shame David Shayler was hit by messiahship before he could expound the views much taken up by the msm to deride as ridiculous
Most previous holders of this view were shifted by alterations to the background images of the videos
But as people say these are mostly low quality and debatable |
Does it therefore follow then, you also believe the engines and wreckage were dropped off by lorries, the higher bits on top of other buildings were offloaded from helicopters, the holes in the buildings were blown by planted explosives and the burning aviation fuel/whatever, was ferried up in the lifts?
Is that a fair assumption on my part?
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
