View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Ally Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005 Posts: 909 Location: banned
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Banish Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 250
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ally Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005 Posts: 909 Location: banned
|
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No planes is kinda extreme, I definately believe some of the hit footage is fake tho. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Banish Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 250
|
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why is it "kinda extreme"?
I saw the fake airplane LIVE on the day.
Why did you post that link if you disagree with it? Just for others to troll and argue?
Can you see an airplane in either of the "rams" I just posted? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ally Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005 Posts: 909 Location: banned
|
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Banish wrote: |
Why did you post that link if you disagree with it? Just for others to troll and argue?
|
Say please and thank you and I will divulge my thoughts. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Banish Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 250
|
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lmao. Pretty please. How's that? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ally Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005 Posts: 909 Location: banned
|
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Banish wrote: | lmao. Pretty please. How's that? |
Perfect.
This theory which pertains that planes weren't used is extremely divise and that is certainly not the reason for my posting it. People on this board fell out big style last summer over how others interpret footage we have seen from 9/11. I tend to favour freedom of speech, if someone is wrong the it can be pointed out.
My PERSONAL view is that some of the hits are fake(to say the least), analysis here highlights reasons how much of the footage was shot by people with odd backgrounds. I also have original footage from the day and witnesses claim 'F11' was a missile and the only evidence we have to support otherwise is the suspect Naudet documentary. As for 'F175', how many STILL IMAGES, not video exist of the plane before it penetraited the WTC?
http://photoshop911.batcave.net/
http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/prod/dialspace/town/pipexdsl/q/aqrf00/ ggua175/
What's your opinion then? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Banish Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 250
|
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'll just answer quickly for now - busy day.
Most of the "photos" of 175 are stills from the fake video footage.
Invisible wings, engines in the wrong place, no specular highlights, cant read the AA carrier logo, tail fin changes shape in each photo, no windows. In some it resembles a black blob, with a wing growing out the top.
Now please lookee here.
http://www.positiontoknow.com/S-11/vid/2ndPlaneCrash.mpeg
Watch this footage frame by frame. Most telling are frames 64/65/66 - the fake plane disappears behing the scaffolding on a distant building.
I take it the naysayers have nopt read the Northwoods Documents. Fake planes, fake passenger lists, fake funerals, etc etc. Sort of like the London Bombings.
Quote: | The first proposal is for "a series of well-coordinated incidents" to take place in and around the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; these were to include having friendly Cubans dress in Cuban military uniforms to start riots at the base, blow up ammunition inside the base, to start fires, to burn aircraft on the air base, to sabotage a ship in the harbor, and to sink a ship near the harbor entrance.
That was just the start. The next proposal elaborated: "A 'Remember the Maine' incident could be arranged.... We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," or blow up a drone ship in Cuban waters. The memorandum coldly predicted: "Casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."
The memorandum continues:
"We could develop a Communist Cuba terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on the lives of Cuban refugees in the United States...."
"Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrests of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents also would be helpful...."
Among other actions proposed were to use fake Soviet MiG aircraft to harass civil aircraft, to attack surface shipping, and to destroy U.S. military drone aircraft. "Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft" were also suggested, and then—the most elaborated plan of all—to simulate the shooting down of a chartered civil airliner in Cuban airspace.
President Kennedy rejected the plan, and Lemnitzer directed that all the pertinent documents be destroyed. Nevertheless, some of the documents did survive, although hidden by heavy classification for decades.
To the astute reader, the potential parallels with recent events should be chilling. |
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
Would anybody care to point out ONE piece of aluminium airplane debris?
How could an aluminium airplane penetrate past ^4 lateral concrete floors each 6 inches thick - an acre in size encased in steel frames? It would have been sliced up into sections on impact. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ally Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005 Posts: 909 Location: banned
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Banish Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 250
|
Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There were NO airplanes IMO.
They may have been CGI's but I personally think it was done in a cheaper cheesier way. CGI Planes would have looked more convincing.
This is a plane?
Last edited by Banish on Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ally Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005 Posts: 909 Location: banned
|
Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Banish wrote: | There were NO airplanes IMO.
. |
There is no way you could substantiate the claim from the available evidence but you could prove some of the footage was fake.
Do you think Mark Burnback was lying?
Mark Burnback, an employee of FOX News said the plane that hit the second tower had no windows, Burnback was very clear about that. The plane had some kind of blue logo on the front near the nose and looked like a cargo plane. This point was driven to the viewer several times along with the comment from this FOX employee that "this plane wasn't from around here or anything you'd see take off from the airport." [/quote] |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Banish Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 250
|
Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ally wrote: | Banish wrote: | There were NO airplanes IMO.
. |
There is no way you could substantiate the claim from the available evidence but you could prove some of the footage was fake.
Do you think Mark Burnback was lying?
Mark Burnback, an employee of FOX News said the plane that hit the second tower had no windows, Burnback was very clear about that. The plane had some kind of blue logo on the front near the nose and looked like a cargo plane. This point was driven to the viewer several times along with the comment from this FOX employee that "this plane wasn't from around here or anything you'd see take off from the airport." | [/quote]
Aw cmon ffs you take the word of a FOX employee?
Yes he was lying.
Give me any photo you like of any of the plane shots and I will debunk it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ally Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005 Posts: 909 Location: banned
|
Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Your word against his is a close choice ;-> |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Banish Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 250
|
Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ally wrote: | Your word against his is a close choice ;-> |
I dont work for FAUX news,. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sickriver New Poster
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 Posts: 4 Location: London and east europe
|
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 8:55 am Post subject: Fight battles we can win |
|
|
Personaly i think this blue screen no plane idea is poisoning the well.
There were to many people on the streets looking at the3 towers and pointing their cameras.
Its divisive and something the main stream media i imagine are waiting to use,ha ha the conspiracy theorists even think the planes were false for example.
Theres more than enough evidence to fight on, the near freefall ,impossible without explosives, we have Newton and Gallileo on our side.The seismic recordins,the 16ft hole at the pentagon and no damage to grass.All the put options at the stock exchange etc etc
Lets fight battles we can prove and win.
Dont muddy the waters. _________________ www.scholarsfor911truth.org |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sonic Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Dec 2005 Posts: 196
|
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with sickriver.
PLEASE LET'S STOP POISONING THE WELL!
LET'S STICK TO WHAT WE ALL KNOW IS CLEAR.
WTC1, WTC2 AND WTC BLDG. 7 WERE BROUGHT DOWN BY CONTROLLED DEMOLITION THEREFORE A FULL PUBLIC ENQUIRY IS NEEDED.
Peace,
Sonic. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ally Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005 Posts: 909 Location: banned
|
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
sonic wrote: |
PLEASE LET'S STOP POISONING THE WELL!
|
I don't agree, that's a slur. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bu$hleaguer101 Minor Poster
Joined: 26 Mar 2006 Posts: 11 Location: British Columbia Canada
|
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I had heard that this theory was a hoax meant to discredit the truth movement? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ian neal Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005 Posts: 3140 Location: UK
|
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've heard lots of different angles of the evidence are hoaxes meant to discredit the truth movement. There have been so many claims and counter claims espacially amongst certain US campaigners and especially by the prponents of this hypothesis that this site aims to take a different tack: it seeks unity on the basis that we ALL agree that 'when taken in totality the evidence overwhelmingly supports the need to reopen 9/11'
Hopefully building unity regardless of whether you believe in planes or no planes. pods or no pods, hijackers or fly by wire, imminent peak oil or no peak, etc, etc.
So I would not seek to censor debate of any evidence or hypothesis. At the same time I personally find this evidence less than compelling especially when compared with other much stronger evidence. Our main challenge is to win over new supporters and this is not where I would start when introducing 9/11 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ally Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005 Posts: 909 Location: banned
|
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bu$hleaguer101 wrote: | I had heard that this theory was a hoax meant to discredit the truth movement? |
did u read the links n00b? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
is Minor Poster
Joined: 31 Mar 2006 Posts: 43
|
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Its probably unwise for me to introduce myself to a board by arguing against one of its members, but it IS too far a streatch to say that there were no planes involved at all. Even if you do have supporting evidence, its too outlandish a claim and will garner no support for this cause, just incite people against it.
"Would anybody care to point out ONE piece of aluminium airplane debris?
How could an aluminium airplane penetrate past ^4 lateral concrete floors each 6 inches thick - an acre in size encased in steel frames? It would have been sliced up into sections on impact."
But were arguying that explosives were used, both in the building and on the plane, in an extremely precise manner so as to shatter all the evidence and 'vapourise' the plane.
Certainly, when I begin my campaign of presenting evidence to people, I will not start out by saying 'there were no planes that hit the twin towers', ill be lynched immidiatley. Far better to concentrate on wtc 7, and the implosion. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ally Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005 Posts: 909 Location: banned
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
freddie Moderate Poster
Joined: 21 Feb 2006 Posts: 202 Location: London
|
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sickriver,
I agree, although I would add that the Seismic readings don't appear to prove the use of explosions from the analysis I've read. Also the '16ft' hole is an old mistake and really needs to stop being said. The holes caused by the wings were much larger and destroyed many of the ground floor pillars. The 16ft claim comes from the bad photos where the fireman spraying the foam covers much of the image. Check out the other angles and you can actually see al lot more damage. I'm still undecided as to what hit it, but my point here is that the damage was a lot closer to a plane crash than it has been claimed.
My other point regards the 'no plane theories' - - I always come back to the point of, "wouldn't it just be easier and more reliable to just highjack some planes via remote control and fly them into the buildings. Why is that so hard to believe? - It's the easiest option in my books. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
brian Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2005 Posts: 611 Location: Scotland
|
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nico Haupt is not claiming that no plane was used. His position it seems to me after listening to the interview is that what we are seeing is not what hit the building, whatever hit it, if anything, has been digitally masked.
I do agree that when introducing the subject of the lie it would be counterproductive to include what would appear to most as outlandish. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|