The State of the Union

[Veronica]

I'm writing this in order to update UK Sceptics on the 'state of play' within the Truth Movement.

There has been a major division for a very long time, and it has currently re-surfaced. It might be that I (inadvertently) caused this resurfacing to occur. If that is the case then it was inadvertent on my part, but it has been bubbling away for the last few years, only requiring the smallest catalyst in order to re-surface.

The major division can be briefly summarised in the following way:

1) Whether or not four real-life planes were involved in 9/11, and

2) Whether or not that makes any difference.

On one side of this argument is Nico Haupt, Gerard Holmgren, Rosalee Grable (WebFairy), Rick Ratjer (Scholars for 9/11 Truth), myself (now, also S911T), and … basically … Morgan Reynolds (also S911T).

Morgan, having written a 'summarising' article We have some holes in the Plane Stories (http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes) tends to take a back seat, as far as I can tell. Fundamentally he stands by that article (for well he should), and (presumably) it states his point of view, and as such speaks for itself.

On the other side of the isle (I can't say argument, for reasons explained below), is - basically - everyone else.

The reason why I can't say 'argument' is because the 'everyone else' will not argue … in the form of a debate. Any mention of this business elicits what can really only be described as 'hurling personal abuse'. (Very similar in characteristic to the way 9/11 Debunkers operate).

Before summarising the position, so that you become informed, and are therefore able to form your own opinions, I need to add a couple of pieces to the jigsaw.

The former group, Nico et al, are generally referred to as the 'no-planers'. The latter group have been given the tag 'planehuggers'. There is also a more derisory term for 'planehuggers', which is 'truthlings'.

I propose to use the terms no-planers and planehuggers simply as a matter of expediency and the elimination of unnecessary keystrokes. I do not use these terms out of any personal animosity.

I will now attempt to summarise the position, so that you can form your own opinions. I will start with the planehuggers, for the simple reason that (a) their position is the 'established' position, and you will be familiar with it, and (b) it is their 'theory' that is under attack.

The position of the planehuggers seems to be:

1) That WTC7 was brought down by a controlled demolition due to the agreement made between Larry Silverstein and the Fire Chief.

2) That something, probably a 7X7 or remote-controlled substitute, hit the North Tower, releasing burning jet fuel, which created a fireball. The North Tower later collapsed due to previously placed controlled demolition charges.

3) That something, probably a 7X7 or remote-controlled substitute, hit the South Tower, releasing burning jet fuel which created a fireball. The South Tower collapsed due to previously placed controlled demolition charges.

4) That there is a serious question mark over UA 93, and that it was probably shot down over Pennsylvania, but it might have landed at Cleveland, Ohio reporting a 'bomb on board'. There is much confusion about UA 93.

5) AA77 did not hit the Pentagon. What hit the Pentagon is a matter of conjecture.

6) That (1) (2) and (3), above, is all that is necessary to consider in order to prove that 9/11 was an Inside Job.

7) That anything else is diversionary and does nothing to advance the position … indeed it only creates division - where none should exist if we are to present a united front.

(Please note, I leave out of this discussion all other aspects, such as the 'put' options, etc. etc.)

The position of the 'no-planers' is this:

1) Full agreement with (1) above, concerning WTC7

2) That the Naudet Brother's film was staged. Some post September 11th scenes are staged, like the fake funeral, but the footage from the day is genuine. The object seen impacting the North Tower is genuine, however it was not a commercial airliner. The reasons for coming to these conclusions are reasonably compelling.

3) That a 'diversionary' commercial airliner, possibly in an attempt to confuse or disguise itself as UA 175 was seen, and captured, on film at the time. It may even have been UA 175. There is no other (apparent) explanation for this 3rd plane, which was in violation of FAA-controlled NY airspacing rules. A Scholar for 9/11 Truth, Reynolds Dixon, drew attention to this 3rd plane and wrote an article about it. Subsequently his life, and that of his family, were threatened. As a consequence he has pulled the article from his website, and resigned from S911T. The article has now been picked up by S911T, as an organisation, and re-posted on their own website. It can be read here (http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_4_Jet.pdf).

Certainly a commercial airliner did not hit the South Tower. Whether or not anything hit the South Tower - or whether the 'impact' was merely a set of explosions - is still a subject for debate. The reasons for coming to these conclusions are reasonably compelling.

4) That UA 93 almost certainly did, indeed, land at Cleveland Ohio and, if UA 175 existed, then they were quite possibly the only real aircraft involved, and were the only craft that contained actual passengers.

5) That either nothing hit the Pentagon (i.e. manufactured by explosions), or it was a missile. This is still a subject for debate.

6) That something, in addition to conventional explosives, was used in order to bring down the towers. The no-planers are united on the view that highly advanced forms of technology were used, and will oppose any version of demolition which tries to sweep this under the carpet.

7) That these aspects, if true, are very important and should not be dismissed because, firstly, they throw a very different light on to what we are actually fighting, who we are fighting, and what our mindset and tactic should be.

It is probable that the first time you saw the no-planers view, your reaction was 'ridiculous', and you are tempted to take the planehuggers point (7), above as your view. That is perfectly understandable.

So, before continuing, perhaps a little bit of 9/11 Truth history is in order.

Back in early 2002, the core of people who originally formed what is now called the no-planers, were the group who were pushing the 'controlled demolitions' theory. They received the same howls of abuse and derision they now receive when attempting to explain the 'no-planes' theory.

It is largely due to their efforts that 'controlled demolition' has now been accepted … to the point where Prof. Steven Jones took up cudgels in a scientific manner, and has advanced controlled demolitions as far as 'thermate'.

Having had a considerable amount of contact with the no-planers, it is my considered view that they are perfectly happy to step back from the controlled demolitions issue (now it has become 9/11 Truth 'mainstream'), and are prepared to accept any lack of credit - on the basis of the importance of the fact that it has, finally, become the accepted view.

Nevertheless, their fight for acceptance was historically, massive, and the vilification they endured was breathtaking in its monstrosity.

For these reasons alone it is therefore essential that they should be given a fair hearing on the no-planes issue.

Why is this important?

For a number or reasons. I gave a few above (it throws a very different light on to what we are actually fighting, who we are fighting, and what our mindset and tactic should be).

I could add that if we are get to the position of being able to prosecute for a crime, then a 'no planes hoax' would be damning evidence. For controlled demolition, it is possible to merely feign ignorance ("Oh ... the Towers were loaded with explosives? .... Oh, we didn't know that. Just a coincidence.").

But there is more. Quite a lot more.

First of all there is the question: What is the Truth movement all about, if is not interested in the Truth?

But, possibly even more important than that, is the fact that the prominent figures in the movement (Jim Fetzer, Robert Bowman, Kevin Barratt, Steven Jones, etc.) are ever more increasingly appearing in 'hit piece shows' such as Hannity & Colmes of Faux News.

And, I suggest, you need to ask yourself why?

The point is that if the Mainstream Media hoaxed everyone over the plane's impacts, then it is this self-same media that is now giving brief airtime to Jim Fetzer & Co.

And that should raise a question in your mind. It certainly does in mine. There is every reason to suggest that this donation of airtime is designed to allow 'controlled demolitions' to surface sufficiently, such that 'the rug' can be pulled away underneath it when the time is right.

So we have the fact that, if we don't call them on this, they essentially know they can pull off similar hoaxes and cover it up with pixels. This is much cheaper than actors and expensive parts.

Or, to put it more succinctly, they hoaxed use once … they can do it again.

And, furthermore, there is every reason to suppose that 9/11 was 'layered' in such a way as to ensure that - even if the no-planers figure it out - their 'peers' will ridicule them, tell them it is not important, tell them it is a diversionary issue, and (effectively) 'police' the movement by remote-control.

Precisely the same methods 'they' use on a day-to-day basis, of course.

And, furthermore, there is another aspect.

George Orwell discussed doublethink at some length in his novel 1984, and I'm sure we are all aware of his hypothesis.

Consequently if the Truth about the 9/11 Hoax is staring someone in the face, and they refuse to acknowledge it, then that constitutes doublethink.

And, again, forcing the population of this planet to accept doublethink as the 'norm' is precisely what 'they' wish to achieve.

For these reasons I urge you to consider all aspects of the no-planes theory, and make your own assessment accordingly. Start with an open mind, and work from there.

Now, more than ever, it is essential that we all stay firmly rooted in the region of singlethink.

One Final Note

If you are in any sort of doubt that the ideas proposed by the no-planers have no merit, then please take a look at this video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6523761027552517909) (it runs about 5 minutes). Then consider, if this is public in 2004, then it would certainly have been available to the so-called Security Services (and those in the media 'in the know') three years prior.

I have only posted minimal links in this essay in order to summarise the position. The body of evidence I refer to is massive. I intend to try to obtain a 'succinct' set of links from the core no-planers as soon as possible


Veronica
July, 2006

[program58]

there is one truth which is self evident. the movement is concerned with waking the majority to question the official story therefore to gain the truth. 'planers' or 'no-planers' do not know the truth, they have facts which are keys to unlock the truth.

the focus should be clearly on distributing the facts to as many as possible. for a person new to this questioning about these attacks, the existence of planes hitting these buildings, when they have watched the sequence of events from our media over and over again, is not an expedient means for questioning. it is a another level of questioning.

look to yourself. did you arrive at the 'no planer' position from the very start of your enquiry into these attacks? did others? the answer is of course, no. then why should others? focus others to question the official story first, then their belief system which binds their trust to this story and the media and governments that originally distributed this story, support these individuals to make action to distribute the facts to others, and then and only then, introduce 'no planes'. at that point, one can make a judgement to its relevence or not.

the movement needs more active members who are courageous like yourself to make action. therefore, one must be wise in the pursuit of truth and, compassionate.

[Graham]

one thing for sure is there is no way we can prove anything for definite, without unclassified access to EVERY piece of paper currently hidden from us.

[Veronica]

Graham & Program58,

I absolutely agree.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----

I would also like to point out to everyone in the UK that we are not 'privileged' to be able to watch Fox5Local, ABC, CNN etc. a la New York City.

(I mean ... we do not necessarily get, for example, the same version of CNN as they do in the States)

It is this aspect that makes some difference, because one of the key factors is that the 'flight paths of alleged UA 175' DIFFERS between these TV feeds - whereas (in reality) THE FLIGHT PATH would be the same in each case (albeit from different camera angles, of course).

We also have to allow for the fact that we were not quite so inundated with saturation coverage, as they were in the States. Or, to put it in prospective, we were not so brainwashed.

(By the way, here is something interesting. On 10th September 2001, Donald Rumsfeld annouced 27 TRILLION DOLLARS could not be accounted for in the Pentagon's budgeting. Then, the following day ....)

[Newspeak International]

It's hard enough implying a 911 inside job to most people,let alone saying there were no planes involved, when everyone saw the "evidence" for the planes on the TV.

I agree with program58 & Graham on this,there maybe a case for no-planers, but not for potential truth newbies.

Why is there a problem, we can be sure the PTB know what is discussed,
therefore how could they think they could get away with a no plane/whatever in the future!

For sure it's the demolition angle that should be emphasised,for public consumption.

N

[Veronica]

NI,

I understand where you are coming from. We all do.

The fact that you put 'evidence' in quotes is an encouraging sign.

LC2 does a good job (IMHO ... although that is not necessarily shared by other no-planers). The reason I say it does a good job is because it is good for 'newbies' and does not - SPECIFICALLY - 'harp' on the impacts themselves. It covers the entire ground starting with A ... and ending at Z.

So there is nothing - fundamentally - wrong with LC2 for newbies (even though it does contain a few factual errors, which are not particulalrly significant). And the 'plus' is that it does bring out the fact that 93 could well have landed in Cleveland.

My point is, that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with a 'Basic 9/11 Drivers Course' (LC2), and an 'Advanced Motoring Course' (no-planes).

Once it becomes pointed out that, for example AA11 and AA77 were not even scheduled flights on that day, and that there is ZERO data in the BTS Database for them (i.e. no taxiing time, no take-off time, no wheels-up time, etc.) and that all Flight Manifests for them are totally contradictory (indicating at least 7 or 8 fictitious passengers), then the 'Advanced Course' starts to take off (no pun intended).

Then the next stage is to look at the Naudet's video and assess whether or not you +actually see+ a 767. Then look at the footage of the South Tower impact and answer truthfully if it does not look like a 'cartoon'.

You need to answer these questions truthfully ... however I can assure you that the 'no-planes' theory does by no means depend on these visuals.

One very importatnt point to remember is that 'eye-witness testimony' is - both LEGALLY and IN PRACTICE, the VERY LAST THING to base any TRUE assessment or judgement upon.

Where HARD, PHYSICAL, evidence exists, that ALWAYS takes precedence.

Only where no hard, physical, evidence exists AT ALL, is TOTALLY CORROBORATED eye-witness testimony acceptable as evidence.

Eye-witness is the 'last resort' whenever you would otherwise be empty-handed.

(That's the law ... and for very good reasons).

To summarise: I see no particular conflict between 'no-planes' and newbies. Newbies get involved via LC2 et al ... then graduate to 'no-planes'. As long as they do it swiftly, because time is running out.

[Veronica]

I know my introductory post was quite lengthy, so perhaps I could reiterate some essentials.

The no-planers are those who fought to wean everyone away from clinging to 'war game drills' and 'stand-down' as 'smoking guns'. In doing so they underwent months of massive personal abuse.

However they ultimately succeeded to move the situation to 'controlled demolitions'.

(Ghandi: First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you … then you win)

Well … they won. Now, of course, everyone clings to 'controlled demolitions' as the ultimate 'smoking gun'.

But they are pointing out that CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS ISN'T THE SMOKING GUN YOU THINK IT IS.

IT MAY VERY WELL NOT EVEN BE A SMOKING GUN AT ALL.

And they have as good a set of reasons for saying this, as they had for pointing out CDs in the first place.

How can I say this any other way?

How about: Do you know what happens if you put all of your eggs in one basket, and drop the basket?

(In the words of a recent plethora of e-mails: WHAT DOES IT TAKE?)

[Veronica]

I forgot some additional terminology for those who might delve into the no-planes/TV Fakery stuff.

First of all it is a bit of a misnomer. It should strictly speaking be 'no-7X7s', since we can all agree that there might have been 'flying objects' involved.

Secondly, anyone proposing this theory is likely to run into a hail of abuse (so be warned!). Normally this abuse ranges from 'bs' to 'inconceivable' to 'inconclusive' to 'irrelevant' to 'So what? Let's all stick together(*)', and then back to 'bs' again - in consecutive e-mails.

The term for this process is called 'fruit looping'.

(* i.e. All doublethink together from the same song-sheet)

[scar]

[Veronica]

Hi scar,

I'm sort of in agreement with you to some extent.

What I posted was not out of any form of elitism I can assure you. The object of that posting to bring this aspect to everyone’s attention … such that it becomes ‘mainstream’ … which (I suggest) is the exact opposite of elitism.

I simply believe this is a serious issue because, as I said originally, it has been bubbling away for quite a while and explodes now and again. Each time it does, it is ever more vicious … simply because the no-planers are fed up to the back teeth with being called nutcases. I’m sure that, as a 9/11 Sceptic, you can empathise with that.

But, more importantly, has serious ramifications for other aspects of the 9/11 position.

It is a historical fact that the no-planers were vilified when trying to obtain recognition of controlled demolitions. If you want to argue the toss with them about this, I'm sure that Nico Haupt and Gerard Holmgren will be pleased to fill you in on this one, chapter and verse.

Try: nicohaupt2@yahoo.com and/or holmgren@iinet.net.au and/or webfairy@thewebfairy.com

Perhaps it was more obvious in the UK, and in this Forum, but it certainly was not across the water. If it was so obvious across the water, then Prof. Jones would not have waited approximately 3 years before becoming involved in a scientific manner, I suggest. Scholars for 9/11 Truth was founded (by Profs. Jones and Fetzer) in December, 2005 (how long ago was that?). Furthermore (if it was so obvious), how many other respected Physicists have stepped up to the plate? How many UK Physicists are doing research into this matter?

No ... controlled demolitions is +real+ IT IS NOT A BLACK HOLE, in that sense. (BTW With respect, I suggest that you refer back to the original post … no-planers Point 6 … we are convinced there is sufficient evidence to indicate the presence of technology IN ADDITION TO themate)

But CD is not, NECESSARILY, a smoking gun. That's the point. It can be passed off as ‘incompetence’ or ‘ignorance of the fact’ … like everything else … can it not?

Furthermore 'Stand down' and 'War Games' take on a different light in the context of no-planes.

These are the points we are trying to get across.

(BTW: I assume that you have read the few links I have managed to cobble toether so far)

I’m currently very much engaged in collecting further links together, and consolidating the position. We are doing this with the view to presenting it as a paper to the Journal of 9/11 Studies. When we do they will put up a massive fight, of course. However if it is written to their standards, which is perfectly possible, then they will have no option but to peer-review it – like everything else they accept. (Well, that's the plan, anyway).

Out of this effort I hope to offer a consolidation for your consideration as well. Until that has been done, I’m reduced to offering ad hoc links at present.

For example the question has been asked “Why go to the trouble of faking it, when real planes could be used instead?”. Put in that manner, the question does not sound as absurd as it actually is. The answer is here: http://911closeup.com/. In fact that link contains most of the answers to questions you might ask.

Finally: Constructive criticism is most welcome. (That is what got me into this in the first place)

[Andrew Johnson]

Veronica,

Thanks very much for that fantastic, succinct coverage of the issue. I have followed developments, but that really brought it all together in a super way - thanks again.

I think it is extremely significant as to who and what has been allowed on Mainstream Media so, whilst on the one hand, we need to try and play an active role in encouraging people to peel back the 1st layer of the onion, the rest of us should realise we are dealing with an onion and not an egg!

In summary, they know that we know and they are trying to manage the deconstruction of the illusion to keep themselves "in the driving seat".

As regards the TV fakery, my impression is that they did a mixture of things i.e. I can even believe they might have used 1 real plane at the WTC and one missile which was faked on TV to look like a plane. I think it is likely that the 1st plane was a 7X7 or close substitute and as the horror of the 1st attack was being observed, it would've been easier to get away with a "faked" 2nd plane which was actually a missile - I have always been struck by the "penetrator" object shooting out of the 2nd tower (and I am given to wonder where it landed and what damage it caused - does anyone know the answer to that one?? - See http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=57770)

It is always good to try and look back in history and I may have posted this before, but here it is again:

I think there is a good precedent for TV fakery - from 1964 - it is worth checking out what the truth behind the famous JFK Zapruder film is.

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/index_old_c ontent.html

(this is a super analysis)

In summary:

1) It was released about 1 year after the assassination (and was not publicly shown until years later. For 1 year in 1964 time, read 30 minutes or 1 hour with 2001 technology)

2) It showed Kennedy's car in continuous motion.

Close analysis of the film seems to show it was doctored very skillfully - probably to add misinformation into the game. i.e. witnesses in Dealey Plaza described how Kennedy's car stopped at the time shots were fired, then accelerated. Releasing the Zapruder film neatly discredited those witnesses and, by inference, their assertions about shots fired - how can statements be taken seriously from such "unerliable" witnesses?

Because of the rise of the Web, those managing the 9/11 operation would have to come up with a new "Zapruder Hoax" with more intricacies and levels - to sap all our collective energy in discussing the issue.

[John White]

ALL the "guns" fired on September 11th 2001 are still smoking, as far as Im concerned

controlled demolition certainly stands up: so does stand down: so does drills: so does government protection of the alleged terrorists: so does the swift removal of the primary evidance (ground zero)

Although I can quite happily entertain the notion of the "no planes" hypothesis, the essential problem here is proving the non-existance of that which has appeared to exist...in a way, "no planes" requires a doublethink of its own: that what was "seen" was not what was seen: thats not to say those hypothesis may not be true...but it certainly represents a major problem in accepting them as the balance of probability without some kind of primary supporting evidance (top secret leaks from the inside, for example). The fact that I neither believe in the Easter Bunny or Father Christmas indicates how likley I believe that will be forthcoming

On that basis, and being a singlethink fan that I am, it seems wisest to me personally to focus on the singlethink aspects when looking to communicate with others...and becuase Im a consistant fellow, on that basis focusing on singlethink is always what I advise

[scar]

Hi veronica,

I didnt mean to sound aggressive if i did. @elitism: Perhaps i misunderstood the 'Advanced Motoring Course' comments.
The no-plane issue has been raised in this forum a few times before now, perhaps you didnt see the threads?
I agree of course that this is a very serious issue and i can empathise with the 'you're nutcases' side of things hence the sig, im sure most here will have experienced it. I have for over 4 years and no longer see my family as a result of my militant stance. This is one reason people reject the no-planes side as they already have an uphill battle undoing the brainwashing of their friends and family, let alone strangers in the street.
Everyone arrives at different points and follows different 'leads' over time and so at any one point one person may be embroiled in one side and not see the relevance of another. I have been awake to 911=inside job since soon after it happened thanks to Ruppert and Jones and others and perhaps in the fog of time i have forgotten at which point exactly controlled demolition became an accepted fact for me. I have from time to time read Nico's, Holmgrens, webfairies work. Some of which is impressive.

I only found this forum in february so i cant comment on how obvious CD was to many here and when, this forum has only been around a year afaik anyway.
I know how late in the game the scholars came along but they have added a heck of a lot in that time really and a lot of credibility also. I think we should avoid arguing over who was there first, egos have no place here really do they.
I think in the States there is some 'i was there first' egotism. Ive noticed this from A.Jones a few times.
If they are bothered about this they should have obvious links with the no-planes stuff to their original cd research etc but its irrelevant now imo although would perhaps convince some who visit the sites more readily?.

I would agree with the technology aside from thermate. The dreadlock powerisation points to that as well as the numerous other factors. Not necessarily unknown tech perhaps a mini nuke as claimed by that finnish researcher whos name ive forgotten.
I dont agree that CD can be easily passed off as incompetence. Not when it is that extensive a cd and especially not in Building 7. I can however see how some might worry about that possibility. For the PTB to admit cd would surely open up an independant investigation esp in light of what 'they' did with the steel and other factors. So bring it on you evil FU*KS!!

Also, this mini-nuke could easily be argued to be a suitcase job from the basement so this additional tech doesnt change the 'get-out-clause' you are worrying about imo.

All your points are valid in my eyes although as my focus is critical mass mostly i will still be focusing time that way.
I think Richard Grove made the point that the sound would have hit the Naudet brothers head from the right yet he swings up to the left perfectly to catch the 'plane' impacting.

All the evidence in the world isnt gonna reverse this paradigm shift we need more numbers.
Of course the more damning it is the better to that end, which is why i hold all those doing original research in high regard.
There are many 'researchers' researching endlessly the research of others which is understandable and must be done by all to get a good grip on things but isnt actually achieving anything especially when it takes up all their time which is why i said what i did at the end there above.

One poignant thing i read i think from Morgan Reynolds was that the plane/noplane arguments do NOT detract from the other conclusions and so people shouldnt worry about that - within the movement at least - out in the street is another matter entirely. With a convincing piece of media to show people this might change. That should be looked at along with the peer review plan.
I wish you all the best on your quests.

scar

[Veronica]

Andrew + scar,

Yes ... I don't think we are singing from radically different song sheets, either.

Fundamentally as long as the "DON'T TRUST THE MEDIA ONE IOTA" argument hits home, I think the rest will fall into place (assuming we have sufficient time ... I'm minded of Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza and Lebanon, ... leading to Syria & Iran, of course)

All I can say is that the comments here have been far more sensible and realistic than the threads I get via my Inbox (at the moment).

I have asked Prof. Jones if he has measured any abnormal radio-activity in the GZ samples he has in his possession, since I have not heard ANYTHING about that aspect from the scientific cimmunity. I have not had any reply so far (I only sent the e-mail this morning, Saturday). If I get a reply I will post it.

If anyone wants to read the 'mini-nuke' scenario, they can read it here http://www.veronicachapman.com/nyc911/911TruthMilitary.htm

[Veronica]

Hi ... a little bit more here:

http://thewebfairy.com/911/ghostplane/vanishment/

This page comprises comparisons between a Flight Simulator and the 'South Tower impact?'.

Take your own view. Make up your own mind.

BTW Changing the subject, and going off topic (well, not really .. and I am NOT trying to dazzle ... I'm trying to INFORM), I have it on good authority that the Luton Still is NOT a fake. PLEASE READ THAT CAREFULLY. PLEASE DO NOT JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS. The picture is NOT a fake ... although it looks like it. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THE THE FOUR GUYS ARE THOSE THE POLICE SAY THEY ARE. It just means that it is 'a picture, at Luton, of 4 people'.

The reasons given to me are:

1) First they take a still from a video.

2) Video stills are low resolution by nature, make up for that by the way they add the dimension of time...

3) Next they make it smaller, and then crop it and enlarge it.

4) Since all enlargements look cartoonie, suddenly it looks "fake. " (or at least looks like people imagine fake looks)

5) The way you can tell it is real is by making it very small.

6) Voila, it looks real clear and sharp.

7) If something is faked to be seen at a particular size, folding it down small makes the additions stick out.

Well, that's what I have been told.

PhotoShop experts (of which I am not) ... by all means step forward and contradict.

[alwun]

Dear Veronica - whatever the still image is - it in no wise can be said to show a living likeness to anyone at all. anyone on this planet. No matter how small or large you make that particular image there is no way that it can show that the four alleged bombers are in the image. So - the 'fake' component, i.e. that it erroneously purports to show the alleged perps, remains a completely false component. On good authority you say -- let's see this authority please. Oh and could you post the 'clear' image which you have somehow managed to produce in minature. Thanks in advance

cheers AL

[Leiff]

Am I right in thinking that it was dry in Luton on the morning of 07/07/05?

[John White]

Ok, thats the first twenty seconds: what about the next twenty? the next fourty?

We need to study the fireball which followed as well or its only half the story

[numeral]

Hi Veronica

Was that you speaking up in the House of Lords last week? Good job.

Regarding the Luton image, the strange resemblance of three of the figures to the corresponding figures in the 28th June sequences tells against the idea that it is just four odd people entering Luton station. The Germaine Lindsay figure is carring a white plastic bag on both days. The Mohammad Sidique Khan figure has a white cap on both days. The Shehzad Tanweer figure has clothes whose colours are inverted from those on the 28th.

[flamesong]

[Veronica]

First of all apologies for not replying. My Inbox (for some reason) stopped telling me there had been posts to this thread.

I'll try to answer the questions one by one.

Alwun: You confirmed, to some extent, what I said. The image shows 'something', but it hasn't been 'doctored'. To allege that it has been 'doctored' is wrong … but to state that it indicates nothing relevant, is almost certainly correct. The source in question was WebFairy (Rosalee Grable). I will contact her for 'specimens' of the images she was talking about, and post accordingly. She has been right about everything else, and has a particular interest in this matter (Luton). I might even be able to encourage her to post this herself. If not, then I will do it.

Leiff & Flamesong ... To the best of my knowledge there was, indeed, approx an hour's worth of rain in the early morning, which would account for puddles. This in no way explains how one of the larger sources of London Commuters could only find a mere 4 people to photograph at that time in the morning.

John White: Sorry, not understood … what is your context?

Numeral: Yes, that was me at the HoL. I agree with everything else you said.

[Veronica]

Wow … it's easy to get off-topic, isn't it? So (my other promises aside) I would - if possible - like to come back to topic.

All I have done in so far is to introduce the no-planes aspect in a formal manner, including the 'terminology' generally used for expediency.

I included a few links, but I certainly have not even begun to explain the theory, so I don't expect anyone to be convinced .. or even convinced of its validity to the 9/11 Truth movement.

Perhaps the 'validity to the 9/11 Truth Movement' is the ultimate precursor to anything. (For example: Does what is happening in the Middle East have anything to do with 9/11 Truth? Personally, I think it has everything to do with 9/11 Truth, but others may disagree).

Consequently I have turned this thread into a Poll. I hope that as many members as possible will take part.

So can I please have replies to the following question (please read carefully):

If the possibility existed that you could be convinced that there was merit in the no planes case, would you advocate:

a) That it be thoroughly researched, debated and examined?

b) That it be ignored anyway, because such a truth would be logistically inconvenient?

I need to ask this question because, if the majority of answers are (b), then I need to shut up and stop harping on about it.

[Martin Conner]

[Veronica]

Hi Martin,

Thanks for the info about the Inbox problem.

[brian]

Hi Veronica,

a) That it be thoroughly researched, debated and examined?

b) That it be ignored anyway, because such a truth would be logistically inconvenient?

The answer to a) is - of course, but not foisted on those with no knowledge of or limited understanding of the events of the day. I can see little positive and plenty negative reasons for pushing no planes to the fore with the uninitiated.

b) It is not a matter of such a truth being logistically inconvenient, it would be logistical perfection if such a truth could be established but therein lies the problem.

Personally I cant accept your notion that controlled demolition can be dismissed by limited hangout, in whatever form, which admits the presence of explosives. That would be a major advance in the quest for an independent inquiry which would awaken many others to the glaring anomalies we are all aware of. To make the the no planes a central issue when controlled demolition is beyond any reasonable doubt could be more than counterproductive in my opinion.

I also cant accept that Chomsky for example has "bought into" the official tale. That Chomsky is acting as a gatekeeper I have no doubt whatsover, such overwhelming evidence as there is makes it impossible to believe otherwise.

[Martin Conner]

[Veronica]

Brian & Martin,

If that's 2 x (a)s, then I will proceed to explain no-planes so that you can make up you own minds. No-one has any intention of 'foisting' anything on anyone. All I would do would be to present the evidence for the Plaintiff, and you become the Defence and the Jury all rolled into one. How does that sound?

Perhaps I should start another thread for this purpose? What do you think?

(BTW: Andrew Johnson, in an e-mail, also agrees with you)