NPT Proof Needed

[zimboy69]

i have been wonder for a while about NPT
and wonder what kind of proof would be needed to prove it

if someone finds a picture with no plane in it dose this count?

[Jack]

that would pretty much suffice by the no-plane theorists, yeah.

[marky 54]

basically anything that ignores any evidence of a plane being present.

so that would be:

witnesses who did'nt see a plane or did'nt mention a plane, whilst ignoring or accusing anybody who did see a plane or mentioned a plane as being a plant or shill.

video evidence that is shot from the wrong angle so we cannot see a plane or was to far away, some cases would involve anything of poor quality or small detail compressed to youtube which makes it hard to pick out the moving pixel, whilst totally ignoring or accusing every video that does show a plane as fake.

debris in the street being ignored or accused as being planted with no evidence to support the "planted" claim.

do this with everything and you to could become a npt believer overnight, the role also includes loss of prespective.

this thread itself is proof of no planes, i can not see a plane in it, i cannot even see a mention of planes exsisting, and anybody who does mention a plane will be hassled with numerous phone calls to question this and then labelled a shill and a goverment plant.

so overall a photo with no plane in it would prove it 100% even if it was the wrong angle or from a different time period, hell even a picture with a plane in it would prove it 100% because it would be fake apprantly.

[Ningen]

If someone found an authentic picture with no plane, yes, it would be evidence.

David Handschuh's photo suggests no plane, and could be authenticated by him.

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0110/int_handschuh.htm

The reason of course it could be evidence suggesting no plane is because of crash physics, which should have resulted in debris showering down at the time of this shot.

This shot suggests no plane, and could be authenticated by David Thom:

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/06/no-plane-witness.html

[marky 54]

[Ningen]

Thanks for telling me about the gallery. Here's a larger version of Handschuh's shot:

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0110/main04.htm

"but he does show a plane if you view the gallery."

The picture you posted from the gallery is by "Sean Adair / REUTERS." not David Handschuh.

Sean Adair is not one of the photographers interviewed.

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0110/interviews_intro.htm

[Ningen]

like i said to prove npt or once you believe the theory you have to ignore all evidence for a plane as demonstrated by the post ive just qouted and responded to.

http://www.911disinformation.com/noplanes/NoPlanesCounterEvidence.html #EvidencePlanePhotosAnchor

does this help?[/blockquote]

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/05/no-planes-counter-evidence.ht ml

(If that doesn't work, go here and scroll down to "No Planes Counterevidence.)

I haven't ignored it. I'm just not convinced by it. You, on the other hand, appear to be willing to believe anything because you saw it on the telly.

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html

There you will find a link to the "No Planes Counter Evidence" site, and in the comments can find my response to a comment similar to yours:

"Anonymous said...

Shouldn't you admit that nothing could convince you of that? Photos, video, eyewitnesses, none of it supersedes your opinions based on your faulty logic involving the crash physics correct? I see no honesty in your research as you quite easily determine what is and what isn't fake, and that determination is never more than a decision based on your pre-existing opinion.

May 18, 2007 10:17:00 AM PDT"

"Ningen said...

Anonymous 10:17:00 --

Yes, perhaps I should admit that no video or picture from that day will convince that an image depicting a physically impossible event is authentic, or that the physically impossible event happened in the real world. An image or sound of unproven authenticity certainly won't change my mind. I admit it.

Some of those images at 911disinformation.com do not seem authentic to me. Others do, but depict an event I know is impossible. Others are not conclusive. Others show plane debris that is obviously faked because of the physics involved in getting it through the building to the place where it was found. The images of the truck with "Aircraft Debris" spray painted on the back are just ludicrous. I have yet to see if the site includes videos or statements of people that did not see a plane, which could also lack authenticity but would at least provide balance and would comport with the impossibility of a plane disappearing into the building without significant debris found below the alleged impact point.

If you want to address my logic, you are welcome here. But I will not accept any more empty attacks on my integrity. If you have something substantive to say, say it. Otherwise, you have made your point.

May 19, 2007 12:19:00 AM PDT"

[Ningen]

does this help?

http://www.911blogger.com/node/8487

What, a picture of a plane part in CNN? Of course it does not help.

You can read my debate with Greg Jenkins at that link, by the way.

[Ningen]

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/4088/wheel2bin2bbroken2bsteeei0.jpg

Are you aware that this panel weighs 6 tons? At least I've read that, though that is heavier than I would have thought.

Think how much inertia it has. It was supposedly not only knocked out, but propelled about 500 feet, by plane debris that had passed through the core of the North Tower. That's absurd. No, impossible. The idea that this panel was planted there that morning is also absurd. But it's possible. Other possibilities -- faked, picture taken some other time (and faked), blown there by explosives -- also come to mind.

The other supposed Flight 11 wheel is discussed here

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/little-wheel-that-could.html

which leads to discussion of the panel, here:

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/little-wheel-that-could-not-p art-2.html

[Ningen]

http://old.911digitalarchive.org/images/details/402

Thanks - I've never seen this.

Have you read this?

http://911digitalarchive.org/about/faq.html#q11

"That said, most people who take the time to submit something to the September 11 Digital Archive share the goal of its organizers -- that is, to create a reliable and permanent record of responses to the 9/11 attacks -- and therefore most contributions are authentic."

I'm not saying this is not authentic in the sense that a real person took a real picture of what was really there. That's the start of the analysis. Next is -- could it have gotten there from a plane crash? I've haven't done that analysis for this part.

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/photos/wtcengines2.html

Same analysis for this engine -- how could it get there? NIST's models found it would not exit the building, though they said if they tweaked the model to change orientation of plane at impact it might exit. NIST NCSTAR 1-2, p. 284. But not at over 100 mph which is what it would take to arrive there.

http://img54.echo.cx/img54/8972/21305140zjsnlclfovph0nm.jpg

If this is the North Tower wheel, I address that in "The Little Wheel That Could Not"

[marky 54]

[marky 54]

[Ningen]

Please write more clearly.

In case I was the one that did not write clearly, I will explain what I meant. A real person could have taken the picture and the object could have been there exactly as shown. That makes the picture authentic. It does not make the picture evidence of a plane. For that, you have to show that the object could get there in the way claimed.

[marky 54]

[Ningen]

You're right. There's no way for me to definitively distinguish fake from real. But it's perfectly logical to look at physical possibility to determine whether a photo is evidence for what it is offered.

The problem is the burden of proof -- you are well domesticated, and dead wrong. The burden of proving the official story is on the government that is killing, imprisoning, sending youth off to war, infringing civil liberties, and profiting on the basis of unsubstantiated claims, and sending youth off to war.

The title of this post should be "proof of planes needed." The videos don't prove planes.

If Khalid Sheik Mohammed was brought to trial and was willing and able to vigorously dispute every fact, I don't think the official story could be proved. That would probably include the videos. The burden would then properly be on the government to prove authenticity.

I don't view KSM as a terrorist until he is proven guilty in open court in a fair trial. That's a most basic Anglo-American principle, and you should agree. Until then, I view him as a proxy for the imprisonment of our minds by the official lies.

Having read Irving's paper, I see that it will be very difficult to prove TV Fakery, as there can always be questions, especially when the burden is placed on citizens to prove them false. That doesn't mean there is not sound basis for questioning the videos. You, properly domesticated, say that means I should take the videos as real.

The absurd thing is that Irving and Lawson agree that a regular Boeing could not do what is claimed. Why are we fighting each other, then? Even if the videos are real, they don't show what it is claimed they show. This is very important evidence that the no planers have made known, and have been villified for.

[marky 54]

[Ningen]

No, it's how the perpetrators' fraud works. All you, Lawson, and Irving have shown me is that they may get away with it.

I didn't imply, I said you're domesticated. Don't take it personally, we all are. It was on the telly so it must be true, and why would anyone lie? You treat those images as evidence of a physically impossible event, which they cannot be.

There are many witnesses that should have but did not see a plane, so witnesses are not conclusive.

Lawson and I apparently agree that a missile hit the towers. He calls it a specially rigged plane, but if so, it was not regularly scheduled Flight 175. I don't agree with him that the missile was a specially rigged plane, because such a plane would have left debris. Handshuch's photo would have shown that debris coming down, and that debris would have been seen by firefighters.

It is not simple and stereotypes are nothing to be proud of. You've made up your mind. Good for you. Why are you here, then?

[marky 54]

[marky 54]

[Ningen]

You can't prove a lie. Even the September Clues "debunkers" are now acknowledging the obvious about the crash physics.

I'll take the risk of being proven wrong over the risk of being a stupid sheep that believes something absurd merely because everyone else believes it because they saw it on TV. The number of people that believe something has nothing to do with whether it is true.

I'm not claiming to know what was done or how. Faked videos are a possibility. Lawson/Irving seem to think a rigged plane or a rigged building are more likely explanations, but have not explained how that was done.

Gerard Holmgren and Killtown both made good arguments why planes would not be used:

http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=71

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-they-didnt-use-planes-to-hit- wtc.html

[Ningen]

"this is simply a silly comment and no thought went into it,"

Really? What if we were talking about another issue? Say the buildings. Is it your position that just because the government has said something and everyone believes it, the burden on us is to prove it wrong? No matter how absurd the official story, is it our burden to prove what really happened?

Like I thought, you are well domesticated.

[chek]

[marky 54]

[Ningen]

May I take this as stating your belief that the buildings collapsed as claimed by NIST, or are you just avoiding the question?

[marky 54]

[Ningen]

" your kinda of saying that if i think npt is based on lies then i must believe the offical storey, which is very silly and dos'nt wash. it dos'nt suprise me to be honest, npt'ers often excuse their lies by comparing to people who question the offical storey."

Fair enough, but that's not what I mean. I'm simply questioning the idea that the burden of proof is on citizens to prove such a significant fact as whether hijacked planes hit the towers.

I don't use the word "planehugger."

Andrew Lawson and Nick Irving have raised valid questions about September Clues. But they have not addressed the question of crash physics, and Andrew Lawson appears to acknowledge problems with the assertion that a regular plane went into the buildings. I still think the government has not proved what hit the Towers, and that the burden must be on them to do so.

There's really no reason to attack, belittle, and assume ill motives. It's also not fair to say I discount all conflicting evidence. I can easily say that you do the same. Serious questions remain - Lawson has only shown that September Clues has not proven the case. He can't say that no questions remain. September Clues is a great start, and at least puts the videos out for criticism.

I apologize for the "domesticated" comment. My point is simply that we have to question everything, and the burden should be on the government to prove the story it is using to justify so much.

[marky 54]

[mason-free party]

its fairly simple...planes don't travel at 500mph at near ground level and then melt into buildings without leaving any wreckage..only a shill or a complete dumbass would believe that...next question

ps..many cases of planes crashing into mountains at high altitude leaving plenty of wreckage/bodies....activate any brain cells?

[Micpsi]

[telecasterisation]

Agreed that mountain crash sites tend to leave wreckage and bodies in plain sight. The tremendous difference with 911 is that the aircraft hit completely vertical structures - way different to every other plane crash we can study via video or film footage.

There are very few air crashes where the plane has not struck either the ground or a building at an angle, which allow the fuselage to break apart, lose impetus and leave identifiable sections and pieces. There are many videos available to show aircraft crashing, intentionally or by accident, however the only video I have seen where an aircraft is powered into a vertical wall, leaves nothing that can be recognised. Even that was not a good example as the wall was wholly solid and unforgiving.

The fact that the WTC was essentially 'hollow' adds an extra somewhat unique dimension, however, the expression 'melt into buildings' is highly loaded and misleading, which is totally unfounded. There was no 'melting' whatsoever - the term being used to add unconnected elements and to embellish.

The only true comparison to draw is one where similar aircraft fly at similar speeds into similar structures - to cite crashes where aircraft have hit glancing blows into hillsides is plainly incorrect and not at all representative of 911 in any way.