Evidence Top 20 for NPT

[Mark Gobell]

NPT Evidence Thread only please.

Advocates of planes please post here

This thread is intended for those who wish to contribute to the debate on this thread

Please do not post here unless you have something that might be considered as evidence to support the NPT.

You do not have to be a NPT advocate to post here, maybe you just know the arguments, so please post them.

The only rule is that no TV, VIDEO or PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence should be submitted.

If it is, it will not add to the debate in any way because the agreement reached is not to include such "evidence" on both sides of the debate.

[marky 54]

i started mine this morning its not a top 10 or for plane huggers, shell i start one?

[Mark Gobell]

Might be an idea.

I wouldn't use plane huggers as a title though - what do you think ?

[Mark Gobell]

OK my starter for ten.

1. TV reporter eye witness at WTC who only saw an explosion - not a plane.

2. Eye witnesses at WTC who early on saw a helicopter / light aircraft

3. Eye witnesses at Pentagon who saw small aircraft / missile

4. NTSB data for AA 77 flight path too high and off course

5. No mayday messages from 4 aircraft

[Mark Gobell]

6. Bureau of Transportation (BTS) data - AA11 & AA77 not scheduled on 9/11

7. UA93 & UA175 not deregistered until Sept 2005

8. No NORAD interception of any flilghts (officially)

[Thermate]

[Mark Gobell]

Thermate. Please, I did ask to stick to the topic.

This is for evidence of NPT - can you contribute any ?

[telecasterisation]

Nope, this needs clarification. The rule is simple;

[Mark Gobell]

LOL I knew it would be you Telecasterisation who would question that.

I'm happy that these eye witnesses are "reported" to have said what they said.

The video, TV and photographic moratorium is intended to be for everything else.

If people are speaking on camera then I'm sort of OK with that.

As to how can it be evidence, that has yet to be decided.

These are just ideas to form an eventual list.

Your point however is noted and thank you for your contribution.

[Mark Gobell]

9. Supports item 6. UA employee reports seeing tail number N591UA of UA93 after 9/11

10. No black boxes found at WTC for AA11 & UA 175

11. Pilots question AA77's ability to perform dive into Pentagon.

12. Cell phone calls from aircraft not possible in 2001

13. SSDI & casualty discrepancies.

14. Hijackers DNA match

[Mark Gobell]

That's about my lot for now.

Would be good to hear from the NPT advocates though.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[Mark Gobell]

Here's one source http://www.911omissionreport.com/flight_93_plane_swap/

I have no idea if it's true or not but it has been reported for some time so I put it on the provisional list.

I don't have a pic and even if I did - it couldn't be used as evidence - them's the rules.

[rodin]

Today I had an NPT idea. Not so much NPT as NTSPT (not the same plane theory). Still mulling it. The planes were switched before 911. The ones that flew that day were specially modified for the job in hand. Did passenger's get on board? Probably. Israeli Hijackers (necessary to frame Arabs like the 5 dancing) probably all and certainly some. Did they die with the passengers? I doubt it. Turns out SEALs have been parachuting from passenger aircraft for donkeys even at hi-altitude.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

You will notice that those that argue against NPT rarely state what they believe really happened, but on the basis that 99% of truthers believe the alleged hijackers were incapable of flying planes that only leaves planes flown by remote control.

For 911 to be successful for the perps whatever plans they had would need to be carefully considered to minimise the risks in every area of the plan.

So let's assume that remote control had a 99.9999% chance of success then my question is this?

If flying planes by remote control is risk free then why do we have pilots on commercial passenger planes anyway, surely they would all be flow by remote control to save paying all the pilots salaries.

So the fact that commercial passenger planes are not flown by remote control leads me to conclude that remote control is more risky than using pilots and therefore given the manoevers that will be required using remote control planes would not be an option.

So in conclusion, we know the hijackers is the cover story and that is false, using real planes and real pilots is not an option (who would volunteer) and using planes flown by remote control is too risky.

What does this leave --- yes you've got it pretend planes using tv trickery?
Why is this the best option? It guarantees 100% the planes will hit the target.
Every other option has unacceptable risks.

You may say "but what if somebody has video evidence of the impacts and discovers that real planes were not used"

The perps had thought of that.

They knew that by the time it would be discovered any such notion would be dismissed as nonsense because so many millions had seen it live on tv and the event would be ingrained into their psyche.

Anybody saying their were no planes would be dismissed as nutbars.

That is exactly what has happened.

[telecasterisation]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[telecasterisation]

THETRUTHWILLSETU3;

[marky 54]

[Thermate]

[Mark Gobell]

This thread was created for evidence.

Not more arguments.

We can have our discussions once the evidence has been assembled.

You guys have no discipline whatsoever do you.

[Mark Gobell]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[telecasterisation]

Well you've got the hang of quoting, now all you need to do is master actually typing words.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[Mark Gobell]

It is clear that neither of you have any intent of even trying to honour the spirit of this debate have you.

You know what this thread is for and you have both been asked to argue somewhere else.

You are clearly not interested in moving the debate anywhere are you ?

[marky 54]

[Mark Gobell]

Evidence only please.

We can argue for millenia, if you wish, after each list has been agreed and presented.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Ok I will put this in the most simple terms.

The perps being evil bar stewards, such is their nature they wish to win any battle before it has began, they wish to minimise risk and therefore they would select a plan with the lowest risk.

The lowest risk option is to use a cartoon for a plane because this has a 100% chance of hitting it's target.

Real planes as evidenced by history do not always make it to their destination, more so if they have to carry out complicated manouvers and therefore they have a less than 100% chance of being successful and this chance would be reduced further when you involve more than one plane.