| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
fixuplooksharp
Moderate Poster
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 216
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:25 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
david ray griffin said some very important things regarding the hologram theory and unproveable theories....they are pointless and detremental.
i am getting * pissed off with all this no plane *!!!
divide and conqour you fools, thats how the gov works...........
im not saying your all shills.....but seriously....if you actually believe this/and or are telling other people about this, im oretty sure you are just getting off on your little trip that other people cant work out the greater conspiracy, giving you a sense of superiority.
get over yourselves....stop looking for the unproveable.
we cannot prove that this ever happened, even if it did....
im guna start tearing my hair out soon!
im praying 4 u guys |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JimB wrote: | | THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: |
NO EXPLOSION |
I assume you mean no immediate explosion. So we can conclude the fuel doesn't ignite immediately.
On what basis
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | NO BITS DROPPING OFF |
Dropping off? It slams into the tower at high speed. Debris is ejected from each side of the tower visible in the clip.
There is no debris evident
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | AND NO DAMAGE TO THE SIDE THE PLANE WENT IN |
So where does the cloud of smoke/dust/debris emerge from? A ghost hole? It couldn't be that the hole isn't apparent because of the poor quality of the video clip, could it?
The dust comes out later after the bombs have gone off
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | ONLY A GHOST PLANE COULD DO THIS
Move the clip on and you see an explosion coming out the other side of the building |
Like the debris, the explosion emerges from each side of the tower visible in the clip.
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | - the explosion should have been at the entry point when the wings which store the fuel hit the building
|
Really? What makes you so sure?
That's obvious
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | Why don't you answer the questions Jim? |
Answered. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JimB
Minor Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TRUTH: NO EXPLOSION
ME: I assume you mean no immediate explosion. So we can conclude the fuel doesn't ignite immediately.
TRUTH: On what basis
On the basis that a 7x7 laden with fuel has just flown into the building and there's no immediate explosion.
TRUTH:NO BITS DROPPING OFF
ME: Dropping off? It slams into the tower at high speed. Debris is ejected from each side of the tower visible in the clip.
TRUTH: There is no debris evident
Right, it's a poor quality clip and it's not clear what the emerging clouds consists of. So how can you be so sure there are no plane bits? You can't.
TUTH: AND NO DAMAGE TO THE SIDE THE PLANE WENT IN
ME: So where does the cloud of smoke/dust/debris emerge from? A ghost hole? It couldn't be that the hole isn't apparent because of the poor quality of the video clip, could it?
TRUTH: The dust comes out later after the bombs have gone off
It's a poor quality clip and there's no way to determine from it the extent of the damage to the building.
TRUTH: - the explosion should have been at the entry point when the wings which store the fuel hit the building
ME: Really? What makes you so sure?
TRUTH: That's obvious
Really? What makes it so obvious? Was it full of Insta-Kombust fuel? (j/k) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Woodee
Moderate Poster
Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Posts: 159
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JimB wrote: |
TRUTH: - the explosion should have been at the entry point when the wings which store the fuel hit the building
ME: Really? What makes you so sure?
TRUTH: That's obvious
Really? What makes it so obvious? Was it full of Insta-Kombust fuel? (j/k) |
Shouldn't all the electronics in the cockpit create a few sparks to set off an explosion?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JimB
Minor Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Woodee wrote: | | JimB wrote: |
TRUTH: - the explosion should have been at the entry point when the wings which store the fuel hit the building
ME: Really? What makes you so sure?
TRUTH: That's obvious
Really? What makes it so obvious? Was it full of Insta-Kombust fuel? (j/k) |
Shouldn't all the electronics in the cockpit create a few sparks to set off an explosion? |
Perhaps they did. But TRUTH finds it suspect that there was no immediate explosion. Can you guarantee that there would be sparks immediately on impact? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | Why don't you answer the questions Bushwacker? |
Sorry, Jim had answered them by the time I got back to this. But I do not understand why you say there is no hole. Obviously because of the angle a hole is not going to be very obvious, but if you look immediately after the plane went in and before the smoke comes out, you can clearly see a black line, which is the hole from this very oblique angle. Anyway, the hole is clearly visible on video and photos taken from a better angle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| not this one bushwacker - the fatal flaws one - please counter my points |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wrong kind of debris bushwacker - looks like dust and fragments of the skin of the building - cannot see any plane debris |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paul wright
Moderator
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fixuplooksharp wrote: | david ray griffin said some very important things regarding the hologram theory and unproveable theories....they are pointless and detremental.
i am getting * pissed off with all this no plane *!!!
divide and conqour you fools, thats how the gov works...........
im not saying your all shills.....but seriously....if you actually believe this/and or are telling other people about this, im oretty sure you are just getting off on your little trip that other people cant work out the greater conspiracy, giving you a sense of superiority.
get over yourselves....stop looking for the unproveable.
we cannot prove that this ever happened, even if it did....
im guna start tearing my hair out soon!
im praying 4 u guys |
I agree with you, tho a veteran NP myself
This is all self-indulgent w*nk for those with nothing better to do
It gets as irritating as those jref shills ever were
It's been done to death, now are you suggesting we include it in our publicity?
ffs put up, ie put it out yourselves, or shut up
_________________
http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | wrong kind of debris bushwacker - looks like dust and fragments of the skin of the building - cannot see any plane debris |
The wrong kind of debris - did you use to work for British Rail?
Seriously, you cannot possibly tell what kind of debris that is, and of course the skin of the building and the skin of the plane are both aluminium sheet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well bush cannot see any plane bits at all - like wings, tails, engines - point me in the right direction - you can obviously see summat that I cannot |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | not this one bushwacker - the fatal flaws one - please counter my points |
You were asking me why I had not answered questions on a thread I had not contributed to? Sorry, didn't guess that one!
Here goes then, assuming these are the right questions:
You have already said they would want to minimise the risk - so why were the alleged planes flow at twice the normal operating speed for that altitude? - seriously compromising the handling of the planes and the cances of the mission succeeding.
The planes were surely high enough for there to be no ground effects, so I don't see a problem. Normal operating procedures are set for all sorts of reasons and are unlikely to show the limits of an aircraft's capability.
How could they be sure they would hit the target? They have had no practice of flying a plane by remote control - even at normal speeds into a Skyscraper.
They were huge targets, and how do you know what practice they had?
If they were real planes - how could they we sure the Air Force would stand down?
They couldn't, but giving them a short time to respond and sending four planes at once maximised their chances
If they were real planes (with passengers on board) how could they be sure the passengers wouldn't try something? - people facing their demise would try anything
Again they couldn't, and we are told they did on one plane, but if patsy Arabs were used they had muscle on the planes as well as pilots.
And finally and most importantly - how could they be sure that the planes would not trigger off all the explosives in the buildings upon impact and ruin the whole operation - nobody would believe a plane could knock a skyscraper down in 10 seconds flat
I assume the charges would be detonated wirelessly to avoid trailing wires round the building, and to avoid this problem. The impact might dislodge or detonate a small number of charges but that would not set off the whole lot |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
And please in turn, Truth, answer these:
Is there any evidence whatever of a hologram generator powerful enough to produce 7X7 size images at a great distance?
If not why would one be developed in total secrecy?
How could they risk not having, or alternatively generate, for the hologram the appropriate noise, radar image and shadow?
Why does the hologram reflect sunlight?
When the hologram was directed with pin-point accuracy and timing on to the precise spot on the buildings where the exposives were ready to blast a plane shaped hole, why did that blast not throw any debris outwards? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ally
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| please drop this hologram nonsense, you're just trying to give people a bad name through cheap labels so certain issues remain undiscussed and marred in controversy. Ain't that the point of forums - using debate to uncover the truth? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ally wrote: | | please drop this hologram nonsense, you're just trying to give people a bad name through cheap labels so certain issues remain undiscussed and marred in controversy. Ain't that the point of forums - using debate to uncover the truth? |
One would hope so yes. Sadly when you cannot surmount an argument you attack the messenger, throw your dummy out of your pram and leave the thread. Trying to gatekeep people from discussing holograms whilst saying "Ain't that the point of forums - using debate to uncover the truth?" is highly amusing. You're so arrogant.
Pushing debunked cgiNPT belief systems like it was monotheism.
Holograms of this type cannot be proven to exist so i agree with you on the hologram, you dont want to debate or examine the other side you wish to push your beliefs and tell people to shut up when they conflict with those same beliefs. Hypocrite.
_________________
Positive...energy...activates...constant...elevation. (Gravediggaz) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
graphicequaliser
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 111
Location: United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think you're missing the point of this thread which is to discuss :-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMT4REHBvFk&NR
The main problem with that video is this inconceivable fact that is clearly visible in this film (and others too) :-
Since when does a light, hollow aluminium tube and wings, enter the equivalent of a giant steel grating, and come out on the other side almost unscathed. There is no way - this is so obviously a hoax, and I am sure the physicists amongst us here will agree, the nose of the aluminium tube would certainly not appear out the other side of the grating mesh without blemish. Who are you trying to kid? Come on now, we are not that stupid (although certain posters are being unbelievably obtuse). 
_________________
Patriotism, religion, tradition and political/corporate alliance are the vehicles they use to fool us passive, peace-loving, family-orientated apes into fighting each other.
Graphic  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LBC
New Poster
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:27 pm Post subject: Re: It was holograms after all. |
|
|
| prole art threat wrote: | | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMT4REHBvFk&NR |
Awesome '100% proof' of 'no planes' there. Keep up the good work.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
graphicequaliser
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 111
Location: United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LBC, how do you explain the question I posed, about the thin, aluminium chassis going straight through loads of steel girders to come out unscathed the other side of the building?
_________________
Patriotism, religion, tradition and political/corporate alliance are the vehicles they use to fool us passive, peace-loving, family-orientated apes into fighting each other.
Graphic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JimB
Minor Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| graphicequaliser wrote: | | LBC, how do you explain the question I posed, about the thin, aluminium chassis going straight through loads of steel girders to come out unscathed the other side of the building? |
You must have great eyesight to be able to tell that that's unscathed thin, aluminium chassis. I see debris of type unknown, condition unknown. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bicnarok
Moderate Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 334
Location: Cydonia
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | JimB wrote: | | THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | That is only your explanation for the delay in the man looking up - and that relies on your unproved theory that he could not hear the plane approaching - I agree with you - he could not hear something that was not there |
Unproved? Sound travels slower than light. Fact. It can be demonstrated with the simplest of experiments. How the hell does this provide evidence for holograms? |
Well Jim
Play the clip again
Freeze it at 45 seconds - you will see that the plane has completely entered the building -NO EXPLOSION, NO BITS DROPPING OFF
AND NO DAMAGE TO THE SIDE THE PLANE WENT IN
ONLY A GHOST PLANE COULD DO THIS
Move the clip on and you see an explosion coming out the other side of the building - the explosion should have been at the entry point when the wings which store the fuel hit the building
So answer these points if you can |
I´d like to add a few points to this debate.
The video is low quatliy is played slowed down and there are many frames missing so the explosion and actual hit effect seems delayed. Simple trick!!
The plane was going very fast and the wall of the tower has lot of glass in it, low resistance, so the plane entered the entire building taking the debris with it due to the momentum.
The explosion is the worrying thing imo. Dunno why it should have happened like that, plus the flash or beam hitting the building just before the airplane is also a very interesting thing. The most possible reason could be that a missile was attached under the plane and launched just before the plane hit the bulding. The flash would be the missile going in. Why this would be done is rathr confusing.
None of this though gives any credibility to a hologram plane.
_________________
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind..." Bod Marley |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Bicnarok
Do it detect the slightest concession from you that something is amiss?
If you play the sequence again - and freeze it at 45/46 seconds you will see that the plane has completely entered the building - there is nothing to see - no damage - no explosion - and no plane
Now ask yourself this question and be honest with yourself
- is this possible with a real plane?
- is this possible with a ghost plane?
Which is the most likely answer ? Please post your honest answer to this one question
This footage is courtesy of ABC news |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin
9/11 Truth Organiser
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 500
Location: Cumbria / Yorkshire Dales
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I posted this last Friday but it is still very relevant:
| Quote: | | This morning I had a long telephone conversation with David Icke and when I asked him for his view about the 'No Plane' theories concerning the Twin Towers he said 'Don't go there!. In his opinion this is being used to damage the 9/11 Truth movement at this extraordinarily important time for us and, whilst he accepts that the PTB/Illuminati/NeoCons are capable of almost anything, our campaign must stick to the basics. He said that the most important thing is for a new impartial inquiry into 9/11 to take place and that it is not up to us to come up with the detail as to how the PTB actually carried out the day's attacks. So please, those of you who champion the NPT, just stop and think what likely damage you are doing to the greater cause. I can totally understand your fascination in wanting to find out how they actually pulled the whole thing off, but please keep these theories 'entre nous'! |
And for those who believe a plane entering a skyscraper would not behave the way the two planes did on 9/11, I posted this:
| Quote: | | David doesn't think that a plane flew into the Pentagon and likewise, concerning Flight 93, the crash site is missing any serious debris. As regards the Twin Towers, I'm sorry but both he and I believe they were planes that went into the buildings - in fact IMHO (and I studied plane crashes at Cranfield University as part of an International Disaster Management Course) the planes entered the Towers exactly as I would expect them to do - after all they were not made from reinforced concrete like the Pentagon. At the Pentagon you would expect the plane to crash against it leaving substantial wreckage on the outside of the building - and it seems realistic IMHO to expect the opposite when crashing into a skyscraper. |
| Quote: | | Sorry to sound heavy on this but a lot is now riding on what we are doing and we must present our case in the best possible light if we are going to win quickly. Just remember please, whilst you have the luxury of debating all this in a safe and peaceful environment, innocent people are dying in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere on a daily basis. Iran is likely to be next with possibly thousands of innocent lives being lost. The sooner the NeoCons/PTB are exposed for 9/11, the sooner these people can live in the sort of peace you take totally for granted. Please don't be so selfish. |
_________________
Connect to Infinite Consciousness - enjoy the ride! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lostpomme
Minor Poster
Joined: 13 Aug 2006
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm still undecided on the NPT (though leaning towards its implausability) but i'm with Justin on this. Even if we had concrete proof to back the theory i would still be wary.
If we dont ride the current media wave and do so with the most compelling evidence, we could miss an oportunity that wont return.
I've already witnessed potential converts scared off by talk of holograms not to mention "new guys" wondering if it's all going a bit Elvis. Our best weapon is the undeniable quality of our argument and evidence.
Obviously, the whole truth is the ultimate goal, but right now the continued good results of the movement are the priority. And the NPT is hurting our credibility.
Dan
_________________
War is when the government tells you who the bad guy is. Revolution is when you decide that for yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Justin said
Please don't be so selfish.
I will not be bullied into dropping no planes
If the committee think it's so bad they can move it to critics corner |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | Justin said
Please don't be so selfish.
I will not be bullied into dropping no planes
If the committee think it's so bad they can move it to critics corner |
How about answering my questions above? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | Justin said
Please don't be so selfish.
I will not be bullied into dropping no planes
If the committee think it's so bad they can move it to critics corner |
How about answering my questions above? |
What questions Bushwacker? - there are none in your last post |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin
9/11 Truth Organiser
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 500
Location: Cumbria / Yorkshire Dales
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 said
| Quote: | | I will not be bullied into dropping no planes |
Not trying to bully you - just asking you to use a bit of commonsense, to think of others and to be a team player. The tide is turning very rapidly in our favour as these last four days have shown. Even Hugo Chavez has finally come out.
PLEASE, only publicly dally with the no planes theory once we have completely rubbished the official conspiracy theory and people are then asking 'How was it done?'
No bullying I can assure you - just a polite request.
Justin
_________________
Connect to Infinite Consciousness - enjoy the ride!
Last edited by Justin on Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:24 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh you mean the one about holograms. I don't know
You seem to know more about holograms than most - so what do you think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin wrote: | | Quote: | | I will not be bullied into dropping no planes |
Not trying to bully you - just asking you to use a bit of commonsense, to think of others and to be a team player. The tide is turning very rapidly in our favour as these last four days have shown. Even Hugo Chavez has finally come out.
PLEASE, only publicly dally with the no planes theory once we have completely rubbished the official conspiracy theory and people are then asking 'How was it done?'
No bullying I can assure you - just a polite request.
Justin |
Ok Justin
I will drop no planes
However this forum does need to have a position on what went on that day - so what is the official stance? - remote controlled planes or hijackers with boxcutters? Or is it "we haven't got a clue"
THIS IS MY LAST POST ON NO PLANES UNLESS SOMEBODY ASKS ME A QUESTION |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
