'No Planes'? - no problem

[alwun]

Here's one to deconstruct -


Link


cheers Al...

[Headhunter]

The only thing worth watching in that video, is the Octopus seen "de-cloaking" at the beginning. Man that was cool!

[marky 54]

this shows better the case being presented to the point that if i didnt question what is going of in each part/situation shown i'd instantly believe it.

however regardless of if NPT'ers like it or not people have a thing called a brain where they look at what is presented and ask questions about it to make sure that what is presented is truth so here goes...

the newsreader is talking to a man down on the street whilst the towers are being shown, the planes comes in and hits and the newsreader says so to, however the man on the street says he just saw an explosion and no plane. does anyone know where this man was standing in relation to the planes approach and impact?

most of the other stuff was comparing clips and only one example is shown where a plane is not visible even though there are slight differances in height and angle of each shot we would expect to see a plane in both, most other footage showing no plane is shot from a very long distance however this one is about the same distance as shown on t.v. so as far as im aware there is only one clip this close that shows nothing. so my question is has this one clip showing no plane been tested for fakery? or should i take every ufo/ghost clip i see as fact no matter how fake they look? yes it needs to be proved its not a fake as there isnt exactly lots of clips that close showing no plane maybe even the one that shows a plane is faked ie a plane has been added to make it appear the other should show a plane. ie faked flight path.

the film asks can we only see planes on t.v? the answer to that is no we can also seem them on amatuer footage taken from the street on the day that the news channels had no control over. can you explain this or is the question in the clip promoting disinfo by asking can we only see it on t.v then rerunning the clips in the film?

was the media using a script? yes i believe so but i cannot prove it other than it just being an opinion. can anyone prove this at this time without just being an opinion?

no doubt NPT'ers will go all redcheeked and steam will pour from their ears and and ignore my questions and tell me i dont understand. but these questions will be asked by anyone doing an investigastion including those who will decide wether a new inquiry is needed into 9/11.

so by all means sling remarks but if you cannot answer the questions or just ignore them remember you cannot do that when it comes to proving to the public who are unaware of 9/11 or they will just switch off, and if they switch of it will be thanks to NPT'ers not debating a subject they want to push. seperate truth from disinfo and debate but accept if something dosnt stand up for god sakes!.

[Headhunter]

I'm at a loss as to why they cannot simply set it aside for the sake of the movement of the truth, like when Morgan Reynolds was being interviews on TV, or David Shayler. Given what's at stake, I find them to be, reprehensible, the no planers, no matter who they are. It's a disgrace to the movement. Why can't they just let it go and focus on moving the truth of 9/11 as inside job forward, without all the no plane stuff?

[marky 54]

[marky 54]

if anyone can list a postive in believing npt at this time as it stands please list them!

[Headhunter]

They maintain the belief that it's blow the case wide open!

No planes = inside job don't ya know..

And it makes for one HECK of a conspiracy, gathering up all the videos and photos and republishing them, planting all the eyewitnesses, etc. etc.

If they went back to the hologram theory it would be more believable!

[telecasterisation]

How can we say with any certainty that any video or photograph isn't digitally altered? There is absolutely no way whatsoever to state that we know a clip or picture is genuine.

Combine manipulated footage with the testimony of those who were not in a physical position to see an aircraft and it appears totally credible.

Grainy, pixelated, low-res, five year old shakey video clips showing emerging nosecones or empty sky where there should be a plane - are FAKE.

I have long since discarded the value of video evidence and I strongly advise everyone else to do the same. It is put there to get us arguing.

[marky 54]

[alwun]

Marky,

I will expand on the one-liner later today. I take your point about the explanations and proofs, and I will try to clarify. Busy right now. Later...

cheers Al...

[marky 54]

al

just want to say that the above rant was not directed at you personally.
this is the first clip of the top of my head that has been posted by yourself and believe it goes ferther in explaining than most i see posted.

others do what i said above constantly and this is were the frustration lies where im concerned. i want to see the point and i want to understand but when you question it you get ignored. and nobody seem to be putting a solid case together that can be understood in full by everyone.
the clips and one liners need to stop if NPT'ers are serious, sure use them as examples with your evidence but on there own they dont mean much.
i mean if there were no planes can it be proved the flights in question didnt take off or landed somewhere else for example.

[alwun]

Marky,

no offence taken. Your tone of 'voice' always strikes me as sincere, and I try to accept valid criticsms anyway.
I am for sure no better informed than you . I have come to some understandings of the events, but only ever second hand, via forums such as this and in fact, mainly it has to be said via the net. In other words my understanding boils down to belief more than knowledge in the true sense of the word. The word 'knowledge', that is. To know something means utter certainty, so I don't know what happened - didn't see or hear it.

Since, as we know, the msm won't touch it, I rely mainly on this alternative, 'cyberspace', which whilst becoming familiar, still remains for me greatly uncharted territory in many respects. Books are also in print, a number of documentaries are out and about and of course, by now, we have, after a respectable interval, the hollywood treatments.
Out here in so-called cyberspace, I find myself still obliged to rely on the kind of judgements we constantly are making in everyday life about the people around us.
Are they cool, calm and collected. Are they braying and shouting over by the jukebox. Are they unfailingly polite or given to knee-jerk superiority. And so on.

Now, as regards the plane impacts, I can't quite believe in them. An aluminium tube with fuel filled wings hits a building, passes smoothly and easily through the side at 500 miles an hour. We are told that the plane can do this because of its mass times its velocity and all that.
But Marky, by the time the tail or a*se of the plane entered, this plane was all of a sudden no longer whizzing along at 500 - it wasn't even gliding to a stately halt. It came to an instantaneous brutal termination. We know this(in the true sense of the word) because by the time the plane was in, it was all but ready, according to its length, to come back out the other side.
All forward motion ceased in a trice, and this after sailing noncholantly through the wall. Not to mention leaving the flimsy(very fragile, as we are repeatedly reminded) wall behind unscathed, and the one in front barely scratched.

Some feat.

Nothing especial emerged. No wreckage is visible at the impact points.
This plane vanished. Show me the parts numbers of the wheels on the ground. That would be enough to give me pause, but I doubt we ever will. We don't even have one black box between two planes.
In other words, this is another part of the official conspiracy theory that I can no longer, sadly, believe in.
I can't prove it, but I no longer believe that passenger planes hit the towers

cheers Al..

PS
free download virtual dub will allow you to play any .avi video frame by frame. have a go. this allows you to peruse videos with full command of speed and direction - top class.

[marky 54]

thanks for the reply and thanks for being honest about what you think/can prove and carnt proof at this time. ill take a look at the footage for what you describe above as it enters, now someone has described exactly what is strange about it and why we should'nt expect a plane travling at 500mph(if it was) to do that, i may beable to see it for myself and now know what to look for.

i carnt search for the software you mention atm im having problems with web searches, the only reason i can link here is because its under favourites, not sure what its all about but i can link to things but when i search the results come up as blank. been like that since last night so im hoping its only short term and nothing bad that needs fixing

at least theres plenty of youtube vids in this section to link to for some footage or i'd be struggling to do even that to recheck the footage

[scar]

[marky 54]