FRINGE THEORIES HARMING 9/11 MOVEMENT

[sonic]

Hi all,

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/050906fringetheorie s.htm

watch the video clip of the nose of the aircraft EXITING the building.

Peace,

Sonic.

So who will guard THE MEDIA?

[Serge]

That vid has been doctored. The only part which is not genuine is that nose flying out the other side of WTC. The angle and point in which the plane hits, appears to be different to the angle and place where the nose is ejected from. I wonder if its the anti truthers posing as truthers to cause discredit among the real truthers??.

[sonic]

What was the angle of penetration please?

What precisely should the angle of exit be please?

Thank you.

Peace.

Sonic.

So who will guard THE MEDIA

[James C]

[MiniMauve]

Even if you think the clip is doctored, how can anyone ignore the reality that the no-planes theory is being used against the movement? Speaking hypothetically, even if the no-planes theory turns out to be true, how can you ignore how vulnerable a theory it is?

[catfish]

The only thing harming the "woohoo truth movement" is people arguing amongst themselves and alienating people. Christ I tell everyone I meet about 9/11 and that's all I can do. As if I give a toss if it's planes or no-planes so long as I tell people.

Get off your bottom and go and tell people that they are living in a fantasy world where bad men are brown and good men have money.

Honestly if someone thinks there were no planes (and I'm not ruling myself out), let them think there were no planes, say, "hey brother I disagree with you on that small point, but we're both working toward the same goal so at least I'll let you post your stuff on the 9/11 forum without jumping down your neck and calling you a deranged nut job, thereby making you feel alienated and bullied."

What I'm trying to say is, Ironsnot, Minimauve, and others, is you've made it quite clear that you think that no-planes is stupid, now stop going on about it.... please

Edited for unnecessary use of bright red colour

[Serge]

Why does it not appear on loose change? why does it not appear in one single video over the past, almost, 5 years, and only appears now?.

It is the only video out of the many hundreds which has been altered. The size of the nose on ejection from the WTC is larger than the nose before the plane hit WTC.
Watch C4 now, the filming of the second remote controlled plane hitting WTC shows absolutely no nose ejection whatsoever. And the filming was angle was exactly the same as the one in the video.

I am all for the truth and know the US Gov is wholly responsible for the 911 massacre of innocent people, but doctored videos reflect badly imo.

And as for the no planes theory, I have noticed that thread but not bothered looking, so, I assume that some think that NO planes actually hit WTC. That makes us truth'ists' look silly.
They were, remotely controlled planes with nobody on board, that hit WTC. Anyone who thinks that filming can be doctored 'live' while its actually happening, is on something. I watched the whole event unfold within Government libraries, and there is no such thing as 'no planes hit WTC'.

[Serge]

[ian neal]

Well said Catfish

Thankfully, by and large the 9/11 truth movement seems to be able to handle this kind of issue and theory much better these days.

When 'In plane site' was first released, it was viciously attacked by some campaigners and Dave von Kleist was accused of photo shopping the video evidence (of the pods) and accused on being a shill etc, etc. which caused no end of animosity amongst certain campaigners

The pod theory was based on Spanish University research (not on Dave von Kleist). It was a genuine academic study based on original film footage (to the best of my knowledge and I know Sally and Luis who worked with the university to translate the study).

With time and greater research, the pod theory has been 'debunked' (atleast to my satisfaction). If anyone is interested I could try and dig out the best links demonstrating this. 'Debunked' as in the majority informed opinion is that it is not something added on to the plane but more a 'trick of the light' ie shadow. At the same time it is easy to see why the Spanish research and Dave von Kleist supported this theory in the first place and it is important to note that the 'In plane site' footage was not doctored (unless someone can prove other wise)

The point being this is how we progress our understanding. By putting forward theories and testing them. Just because a theory is unproven, controversial and new, does make it automatically wrong or based on doctored film necessarily. The way to show that this film is doctored (if indeed it has) would be to find the 'original' footage that presumably will lack the shot of the nose cone exiting?

And because it is new and not widely accepted it should not form the plank of anyone's presentation of the strongest evidence until it is more widely accepted and tested IMO. Or if it is included, the controversial/ untested nature of the theory should be acknowledged

Take another example: Alex Jones' Terrorstorm, which in parts is brilliant and in other pasrts (in particluar the July 7 section) contains school boy errors. Does this mean Alex is a shill and disinfo artist. No (IMO). It means on occasion he is not as thorough as perhaps he should be.

That is why there is a no endorsement policy here: 'peak oilers' and 'non-peak oilers', 'pod' and 'non pod' people, 'planers' and 'no 7X7s'. All are welcome. All opinion as long as it is respectfully made and does not contravene the principles of the site (no promotion of hatred: see about us) is welcome.

[Abandoned Ego]

Personally I like Webster Tarpleys take on all of this.

Namely that we should abandon ANY in-fighting in this campaign.

At the end of the day, there is one thing upon which we are all agreed, which should form an unbreakable bond between us.

Namely that the official 19 Arabs theory is THE big lie.

[ian neal]

Amen to that

However uniting in common cause and avoiding ego driven in-fighting shouldn't stiffle debate of evidence and voicing of differing opinions. Webster is indeed an inspiration for us.

[MiniMauve]

I'm sorry if I come across a bit strong on this issue, but my big worry is that some 911 spokesperson is going to introduce 'no-planes' in an interview or presentation. It will be viciously debunked because there just isn't enough credible evidence to support it. The minions of the corporate medias will seize on it (just like PM did), ridicule it, and use it as a reason to ignore ANYTHING related to 911 conspiracies. If there isn't enough evidence to convince people like us, whom are relatively open-minded to far reaching conspiracy theories, how do you think it's going to play in the population at large? Especially once the critics start pointing out the gaping holes in the logic of it? This may seem trivial to you, but it is what will cause the movement to fail in it's stated goals. Oh sure, there will always be activists preaching to the converted on forums like this but if we ever really want to make a difference beyond entertaining each other with the latest, coolest theory, we will need to apply a form of scientific triage to ALL theories.

All the debunkers need ask is one simple question: How does the no-planes theory explain how thousands of eyewitnesses that had the opportunity to photograph, videotape or simply etch into their horror-struck memories the sight of the plane hitting WTC2? Until someone comes up with a credible explanation of how all these witnesses were silenced, there is no sane reason to present the no-planes theory as a possibility.

[catfish]

[Mark Gobell]

I endorse the tolerance angle being promoted here, we all should.

We are all passionate about this subject so it's understandable that initial reactions appear dismissive.

Personally I have made the mistake many times, and still do, of blindly taking a stance on a particular angle without checking it out as best I can and listening to others.

If I have doubts about something I try and check what the arguments are. I try not to say anything either way until I am more informed. Checking it out if you want to or ignoring it or complaining about it are the only options really.

The only real, effective way to gain knowledge is to do the learning for yourself.

I do not think many of us would use the more contentious issues to introduce new people to. Some would, but not many.

Besides, the msm and others denigrate us when we have rock solid evidence, like the laws of physics, so whatever we do we have to endure their ignorance and at times, contempt.

The other thing to realise is that because I say it was done by alien mind osmosis that doesn't mean everyone else agrees with me. If "they" choose to knock the entire movement because a few are pushing the the alien theory then that's up to them.

See it as a strength, not a weakness. If we all agreed and sang the exact same song, we would be no better than those that peddle the OCT.

[MiniMauve]

WEll, I guess obviously I'm a voice in the wilderness on this issue. I'm honestly amazed and somewhat appalled that there isn't more of a will for a scientific approach to contentious theories.

I'm tolerant of any plausible theories and my beef really isn't with those of you, like yourself Mark, who bring a degree of critical thinking to bear on the potential evidence. My beef is with others who state outright that there was no planes, period. They may believe so, but this isn't about belief (as one critic so aptly pointed out to me), it's about evidence. There simply isn't enough evidence (far from it!) to justify coming to an unwavering conclusion. I think everyone needs to step back and decide if this movement is a religeon, an art or a science. It's very clear to me that it needs to be a science but I seem to be in the minority.

[Steven Collins]

That clip isn't recent & isn't doctored. I remember playing it over & over again back in '03 on this old PC of mine (maybe even in '02). Can't remember where I first saw it though. One of the early 911 sites. I also remember reading somewhere (maybe the same site) something along the lines that it was a specially built military plane & that the 'pod' underneath it was a bomb to ensure that when the nose of the plane exited the other side of the tower the explosion from that bomb would ensure the complete destruction of the plane because the perpetrators didn't want the nose cone hanging out of the tower for all to see that it wasn't a normal plane. So it was a 'pod' theory site, quite possibly letsroll.

Steve

[optimus79]

I've seen this particular clip so many times, does anyone else notice something strange on it? After the plane has hit and the nose cone exits and explodes there is a black streak across from behind the tower. Im sure it is from behind the tower, ive watched it many times and always wandered what it is.

Does anyone else notice this?

[GEFBASS]

I think I asked a scientific question on this thread about two explosions.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=2272&highlight=gefba ss

However, IMO all theories are just that. IMO until someone from the scientific community, such as Steven Jones, go away and do calculations, write papers etc. etc. they will still only be theories.

I think probably not all theories about 911 will be proven, but major ones like use of Thermate, for example, are highly relevent.

I`m no expert so am reliant on whether a point can be refuted or not.

I think the ideas/theories anyone comes out with should not be derided, or scorned, merely challenged in a logical way and not with distain or abuse.

Have we forgot what free speech is about, or more to the point free thinking.

(This post is not aimed at individuals nor ideas, I`m just blowing off steam at the frustration at the (mainstream) news media propoganda machine which will not investigate the truth movements collective concerns).

Geoff.

[xmasdale]