Snowygrouch Ipswich Lecture

[SHERITON HOTEL]

I've just watched this on the 'Pilots for 9/11 truth' site and found it very informative , educational and entertaining! I feared it might be like my old physics lessons at school with my brain switching off apart from wondering what to have for my dinner, but it was quite the opposite.

What I'd like to ask Callum is what was faked, the flight recorder data or the fish eyed lense film Judicial watch managed to worm out of the US government after 5 years? Callum calculated the aircraft in the CCTV footage was only 40ft shorter than a 757,possibly a 737, did this take into account the shortening effect of the fish eyed lense? and what about the smoke trail? I understand vapour trails are impossible at ground level, there was an urban myth being psy-opped that one engine swallowed a lamp component and started to smoke, I understand.

Is there any chance that this lecture will be available on DVD? oh and good luck educating the shill types on the channel 4 news forum.

[Witchfinder General]

The main item that was omitted was the conclusions to be drawn from fake black box data.

It had to be faked because there was no plane

Similarly any other black box data that finds it's way by accident or design into the hands of the truth movement will also have to be faked because there were no planes

[Snowygrouch]

Sorry WFinder,
I reside on a very different astral-plane to you at present, we`re all entitled to opinions and that applies to you as much as anyone else....however NPT currently has its very own place in this forum where such conversations can be had. This thread is NOT such a place.

If you want to have a long chat about NPT WFinder, please start a new thread in the Controvercial Theories section where we can converse.
PM me when the thread is started and we`ll talk all you like.

S.hotel,
The calcs included putting the image in photoshop and "flattening" out the fisheye effect by warping the image backwards so to speak; however the images are failry poor quality and I dont really place enough store in them to make any defnite claims about it.

Its quite possible that the engine swallowed a bit of lamp I`m afraid, so the smoke trail is possible. I could probably try to really get to the bottom of that by looking at all the photos of the poles, their positions and what bits were cut but thats a big job. Might try to do it before my next talk.

LOL about the C4 forum!! They have several PROFESSIONAL loyalists over there!

C

[EmptyBee]

I fail to see how anyone can be 100% sure either way regarding the existence or non-existence of a plane hitting the Pentagon.

There are numerous eyewitnesses who claim to have seen a plane at the Pentagon, and given the density of the local population it seems probable that
such an event would not go unnoticed, especially given what had already taken place that morning. That said, aside from the flight data recorder there's really very little that qualifies as physical evidence for a plane, and as Callum's analysis has shown, the contents of the flight data recorder itself are highly suspect.

Publicly released security camera footage in the area that must have captured (at least partially) the event from multiple angles is conspicuous by its absence - barring a couple of exceptions.

As Callum's lecture proves however, the one thing we can be certain of is that the official version of events is not internally consistent, proving that something doesn't add up about the Pentagon incident. Beyond that we're in highly speculative territory. Asserting as a matter of fact that Flight 77 was or was not what damaged the Pentagon doesn't seem to me to be a tenable position.

All we can say with any degree of confidence is that we have eyewitnesses that claim to have seen a plane, that substantial damage was done to the Pentagon, and that the official version of events is inconsistent.

[Witchfinder General]

[Craig W]

That is one of the rudest and least called for posts I have seen on here, WG, and it reflects very poorly on you imo.

[Witchfinder General]

[Snowygrouch]

Dear WF,
Sorry you fell asleep; I forgot to include any fantasy in my presentation so I`m afraid you have to put up with boring old facts and evidence *tsk tsk* what a bore eh?

Next time I`ll try to give it a big colourful happy ending with a nice big dragon too for the children perhaps?

If you cant even sit through 80 minuites of research on 9.11 in the comfort of your own seat then I`d be asking yourself exactly WHAT DO you do here Mr WF?

By all means disagree but starting to throw around rubbish insults like "over grown school-boy" and "boring" or "self imporance....and you just end up looking:

1: Rather silly
2: Ironically very schoolboyish

Try to be civil; I do see a pattern in your posts I`ve seen before. Not because it was you..but I beleive the intention was identical.
The process grinds on with numbing inevitability.....

C.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[TonyGosling]

[Witchfinder General]

[Snowygrouch]

WFinder,
It is my personal "opinion", that your posts here are worded with the intention NOT of putting your own views across but to ENSURE that you offend certain key people and try to stimulate agression and division.

I refuse to believe that people make posts like yours without realising what sort of reaction you are likely to get.

I`m not suggesting you work for the spooks....but I DO think you rather enjoy trying to put the wind up people you disagree with rather than just making a coherent argument to further your cause.

You might want to have a quiet think about why that is WF.

Failing that; everyone will draw their own conclusions about your behavior, which naturally you might not find pleasing.

Less offence and more reasoning please.

With regards to "ignoring" NPT; I will ignore nothing if I am presented with a decent argument and some evidence.

C.

[Witchfinder General]

The evidence for NPT is overwhelming, I can only assume you are under some kind of mind control that makes you fail to examine the evidence.

If you take away the planes then there is no need for your BLACK BOX research, and maybe that is your real problem

[Stefan]

[Witchfinder General]

Black Box research on false black boxes is worthless.

A bit like doing research on a print of the Mona Lisa

By the way there is no such thing as a free lunch

[Stefan]

Provide us with proof it is fake?

Let me guess: "There were no planes!".

A mantra is not proof.

As a side issue, if it was PROVED to be fake - this would be massivley important research. If it was PROVED to be real - this would be massivley important research. The BB data is a lose-lose situation for the perps of 9/11, yet you seem determined to undermine it's importance.

Why?

[utopiated]

SG claims, at the start of the video, you need document reference numbers for FOI requests.

This is not right in the UK or US otherwise nothing would get released. I presume this is the same for virtually any body holding data. Thought I'd correct this as it may put people off doing the anything.

Having done this myself you can only get denied info if you are too broad in your scope.

Here's a quote from UK FOIA process taken from http://www.thetruthhides.com

[Snowygrouch]

Well you`re luckier than I am if you`ve got sucessful FOIA requests without exact references.

Its not difficult to get the numbers as the really interesting (but not public) files are often referenced in the reports they DO publish.

If you have been able to get things more easily than I then please send me an email with your techniques!!

C.

[Stefan]

He's referring to the US.

Obviously he didn't ask the UK government for the American NTSB documents.

[chek]

[Reflecter]

Well in FOIA related realms, today we lost out

http://www.epolitix.com:80/EN/News/200705/aad3438b-dc2a-44c1-bf9d-0f01 7ba2c985.htm

Norman Baker, Simon Hughes, Ming Campbell and others lost 25 to 96 in favour of David Maclean's amendments bill.

Oh well, i'm just glad that the whole of our parliament and monarchy no longer wield any power and this therefore doesn't apply.

[utopiated]

[utopiated]

[SHERITON HOTEL]

Thank you for the reply Snowygrouch, it wasn't my intention to land you in a slanging match...honest.

I was wondering about the 'Judicial Watch' FOI action the US government won't fully comply with, barrack room lawyer question...are they in contempt of court for refusing to release all the CCTV footage?

[Snowygrouch]

Ok SH,
The trouble with FOIA is that there are about 7 different clauses in which they can legally deny you access.

They range from "National Security" to "disclosure of personal information" which is basically for example like requesting an employees company annual review. So its easy for them to deny you.

I`d like to just write to the CIA saying "send me anything with "able danger" written on it!

Hope to see you in London soon.

Calum