**The MOST important website**

[fixuplooksharp]

This no-planes nonsense is getting out of control. check this website out for a good analysis. there are corporate whores amongst us. beware!

http://www.oilempire.us/hoaxes.html

[Andrew Johnson]

This site pushes Peak Oil as a prime mover for 9/11. It's worth checking out previous discussions on this thread:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=746&postdays=0&posto rder=asc&start=0

[fixuplooksharp]

yeah obv peak oil is nonsense, but they do a good job of pointing out the trend that is emerging with the prominent no planes people.

[Andrew Johnson]

There are very few "no planes" people. It is more accurate to call it "No 7x7's", as I keep saying.

Appropriate labelling is a great tool for hiding important facts and evidence. A bit like hiding your life's saving under your dustbin or something.

[scar]

[Andrew Johnson]

You missed something. There is substantial evidence for TV Fakery. Most agree that it looks like SOMETHING hit the towers. "No planes" is suggestive of "nothing at all", "No 7x7's" is less ambiguous.

So, the debate is really between CGI and Holograms. I favour CGI (with SOMETHING hitting the towers).

Oh the subtlelty of labels. It's exactly the same method used as with "conspiracy theory" - people have a fixed picture of what the phrase means and therefore shut out other evidence with automatic rejection.

[Reflecter]

I just found this at the same oilempire site whilst searching for audio witnesses of planes at the towers strikes.

http://www.oilempire.us/no-plane-timeline.html

I realise this comes from Mike Ruppert et al pushing oil as the pretext but as a breakdown of events it seems pretty accurate even if some innocents pushing NPT at all, get caught up in the mix?

[ian neal]

I would just point out that last time Mark Robinowitz of Oilempire shared his words of wisdom about a controversial issue (the 'pods footage' on the In Plane Site DVD) it caused the mother of all schisms within the movement in the US.

So therefore I will always take Mark R's analysis of the evidence and who's trust worthy and who's not with a big pinch of salt. Given the schism he helped create last time I particularly question his ability to express his views respectfully and in a way that won't antagonise those he is disagreeing with.

Just to be specific on the pods. My understanding that Mark R was right to challenge the argument of pods and missiles (although there is always room for some doubt). Where he was wrong was to accuse Dave v K of manipulating the video footage. Nonsense,, he never did manipulate the video footage atleast as far as I know and Mark R certainly never showed this.

To disagree with someone over their interpretation of the evidence is one thing.

To accuse them of manipulating film footage to deliberately ridicule the movement (which is what MR accused Dave v K did not) is another thing all together.

I think it is also worth knowing that Mike R and Mark R see the world very similarly and work closely together. Indeed the more cynical amongst might even think that oilempire's primary purpose in this world is to big up fromthewilderness and Mike R.