An over-view of NPT and TV Fakery

[Craig W]

Could anyone post a concise and simple over-view of the theories surrounding NPT and TV Fakery?

Or could someone point me in the direction of one?

What I am looking for is a simple summing up of the theories, that briefly assesses and explains the strengths and weaknesses of the theories and their implications.

I have looked on Gerard Holmgren's site but cannot find anything. Rather than trawl about perhaps someone else could help.

Does such a thing exist anywhere? If not, would anyone like to offer one here?

[telecasterisation]

I too have laboured to establish the key underlying concepts of NPT.

With the basic premise of planes and demolition charges, you know essentially where you stand, but having said that there are still many unanswered questions. Where the planes remote controlled, what type of charges, how were they detonated, were they wired or set off by wireless transmitters etc?

However, despite its apparent simplicity, the core structure of NPT seems incredibly more complex and ethereal in its delivery, in terms of the physicality of actually presenting planes visually to the world if they weren't really there.

Having spent many happy hour debating this with NPT exponents, I have never been able to move past first base, this being, 'There were no planes, you planehugger!'

Of course, my stance is equally convoluted and many struggle with my lack of apparent commitment, arrived at simply because I don’t know what brought the towers down. This makes it very difficult for people to compartmentalize me and consequently I am able to find total freedom to explore the subject from every angle. It really is very enlightening, for I am not constrained by the ‘rules of engagement’ dictated by my 'known' facts like there was a beam weapon, or cloaked missiles or thermite.

Therefore, having arrived at the point where I still have no clear understanding of ‘NPT’ other than it centres on there being no planes but ‘something else’, and considering the length of time I have been exposed to the notion, I too have to question what IS NPT simply because I have never had a straight answer?

My rudimentary overview is that most NPT’ers are themselves torn asunder by the gravity and dimensions of such a belief. There appears to be all kinds of branches to the subject, lots of different ideas and no-one can essentially nail down the almost constantly flowing perception of what happened if planes weren’t used on the day.

NPT appears to be a very unhealthy belief and I actively sympathize for by its very nature, there are very few rational NPT'ers who are able to answer simple direct questions for they seem to automatically adopt a very condescending attitude and enter conflict mode.

I would even guess that most NPT’ers, even though deep down they actually doubt the very idea, it is more they revel in the breakaway aspect of being a ‘rebel’, and even though our cause is the same, once they spied the mileage, potential and thread possibilities, all the other stale and regurgitated ground could be forgotten for this was exciting and new, it was ‘911 Conspiracy’ reborn/reinvented.

So where are we, or rather what is NPT? I can never seem to discuss it at any length, for its exponents never appear to move past heavy rhetoric coupled with the debating style that encompasses a great deal of anger, reflected by their colourful language.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate, that having a more fluid ideal has helped me greatly as both a 911 Truther and as a human being. I have been accused of arrogance for my lack of clarity on my beliefs, but I genuinely find this absence of fixed thinking the most beneficial. Having the courage to stand up and say ‘I believe 911 did not happen the way we are told but I can’t say with any certainty that I know what did happen on that day’, would help numerous tortured individuals here.

The majority of the bad feeling here is caused by egos being compromised, just because someone adopts the polarity response of taking another view, 'How dare you challenge my beliefs!', is the downfall of far too many. The fixed belief stance is really the worst place one can put themselves with such an emotive subject.

So it would be really most helpful to have some more NPT detail and how people visualize things as having happened and if you don’t know the answer to a question, for goodness sake – just say so.

[Micpsi]

Have you ever wondered whether control-demolition explosives might have blown up the towers? Many other people have and claim to see evidence for it in some of the TV footage.

[Craig W]

Can anyone oblige?

There must be someone among those who support these theories who could sum them up.

I mean, surely those who lend credence to these theories have scrutinised them fully, assessed their strengths and weaknesses and comprehensively considered the corollary questions they raise (what to do about video evidence showing a missile or nothing at all, what to do about contradictory witness testimonies, when and how were the plane-shaped holes created, what caused the big explosion that was coincident with the supposed plane "impacts", etc).

[Craig W]

Still no response.

I am baffled. There seem to be any number of people wanting to come on here and tell me that there were "no planes" and that the "evidence is overwhelming" etc. And yet when I actively seek help to understand this potentially crucial area of 911 reserach there is a deathly silence and no one is prepared to walk me through it.

Very odd.

Come on Witchfinder General, Fred, Killtown, Madge B, etc. Help me out here. Please.

[Craig W]

Still no response.

I am baffled. There seem to be any number of people wanting to come on here and tell me that there were "no planes" and that the "evidence is overwhelming" etc. And yet when I actively seek help to understand this potentially crucial area of 911 reserach there is a deathly silence and no one is prepared to walk me through it.

Very odd.

Come on Witchfinder General, Fred, Killtown, Madge B, etc. Help me out here. Please.

[MadgeB]

Oh dear, Craig W - I know how disappointing and baffling it is when your question doesn’t seem to be addressed straight away or perhaps even noticed. I’ve asked many times for just a single example of the mass media using no-planes as a stick to beat otherwise-sensible conspiracy theorists with, but no response so far.

Anyway, as it happens I was saying recently on another thread that I think there’s a need for a kind of bullet-point leaflet which goes through the planes aspect of the 9/11 myth. Unfortunately I don’t think one exists, yet - at least I haven’t found it.

This may be because historically it all started with debunking of the images - the webfairy and others like her showed that the visual record of planes was (shall we say) manufactured. They thought that would be enough - and why shouldn’t it be? To their surprise they found that many ‘truthers’ didn’t want to know, and attacked the researchers instead. I think the early, pioneering no-planers got frustrated because people who already (apparently) believed the towers were deliberately destroyed still seemed to want to prop up selected aspects of the official story on the basis of no evidence or discredited evidence, as if covering up for the perpetrators of the crime. The case is proved as far as no-planers are concerned. The debate got bitter and short-tempered. Even Gerard Holmgren who provided so many solid, logical arguments, eventually said you get tired of going round the fruit-loop.

But if you can stand back and start with the question, ‘What is the belief based on that planes hit the towers?’ and then look at the ‘evidence’, you find that it all evaporates under scrutiny. Holmgren’s sites give copious debunkings of the alleged visual record, the eyewitnesses, etc – but sadly for my lazy self I haven’t yet found anything short enough to copy and paste into a leaflet just as it is.

However, just as all ‘planehuggers’ don’t agree or don’t have a theory about the fate of the alleged planes and passengers, no-planers don’t all agree or have a theory on what caused the holes in the towers. We do know that it wasn’t passenger jets. And just as the most powerful single argument against ‘collapse-theory’ is, IMO, that it’s physically impossible for the towers to have come down at that rate purely through gravity, with ‘planes-theory’ it’s that it’s physically impossible for planes to enter buildings.

So I think maybe my starting point for a summary would be:

1. No evidence for planes at WTC: Planes – Passenger flight AA11 didn’t take off, no black boxes, no air crash enquiries, no credible debris, no numbered parts, tail nos not ‘deregistered’ (+ more).
‘Eyewitnesses’ - Accounts fall apart under scrutiny - didn’t see actual ‘hit’, or ludicrous/unconvincing/lying (?Praimnath, Albanese etc).
‘But we all saw it on TV’ - 1st hit video shows no Boeing, 2nd hit videos faked, deliberate confusion of images by the perps.
2. Why they didn’t use planes – possible problems + planes can’t enter buildings.
3. How were we all fooled? Media complicity/TV-fakery, the Big Lie.
4. Possibilities: Fly-bys and plane doubles, missiles (+more).
5. Why did they want to fool us, false flag terrorism and what we can do about it.

If it’s just me aiming to collect the relevant links and flesh this skeleton out, then it’ll probably take forever, so suggestions from other no-planers welcome.

But fortunately we now have video makers spreading the word via the internet in more imaginative ways, and I think that’s where the breakthrough is going to come – not with a handful of no-planers vs planehuggers slugging it out on a forum, but with genuine newbies who aren’t prejudiced by the timidity of the ‘official’ 9/11 sceptic movement and have no problem recognising TV-fakery when they see it, creating a way in to demolishing the rest of the 9/11 myth.

[John White]

The only unity amongst "9/11 researchers" is a belief that what the video images show is not what physically occured: other than that its like frogs in a bucket. If they ever stopped attacking everyone else for not sharing that belief, their "movement" would disintergrate in an instant: exaclty why they do just that of course, there is no choice in the matter, even if they are unaware of it: and exactly why there is little interest in producing a coherant picture of the who, the where's, the hows and the whys

Having investigated their claims in some depth over the last month (and to a deeper degree than i have bothered creating posts about), I'm now happy to conclude that a) I've been fair to their "evidence" (and found it direly wanting) and b) that they are "mostly harmless" and can be safely ignored, unless someone wants to be charitable talking to them

In the meanwhile, the rest of the 9/11 truth movement is free to carry on getting "out there" with the real evidence that can't be denied and amounts to more than an issue of perception, and I continue to be optomistic that this will be a breakthrough year

[Witchfinder General]

John White

You say you have investigated their claims in depth over the last month and found it direly wanting.

Please tell us why, a few bullet points will do

[telecasterisation]

[Fred]

Link

[John White]

[telecasterisation]

A good point, well made Fred.

Fred supplies an example of complete and utter nonsense - we are to believe that a number of videos are in fact the result of blue screen technology, concoted before and ready to go before the event.

This adds to my point, not just being fed faked videos, but videos that tell you what you see is faked. All designed to spread confusion and endorse our 'looney' label.

[Witchfinder General]

[John White]

See the search function at the top of the site? I suggest you use it to go back and actually read some of my posts: and then get thinking

Performing Seals may jump through hoops: I don't

[chek]

[Dogsmilk]

I think the biggest error in this one was leaving out the octopus - that was the one thing that kept me watching.

[chek]

[telecasterisation]

[Craig W]

It seems this thread has been hijacked by the marine life NPT splinter faction (who I suspect are really plane huggers out to make the true NPT look silly ).

In an effort to return to the thread topic I offer the following:

Thanks for your helpful response, MadgeB. I have made some comments below.

[MadgeB]

[telecasterisation]

[Witchfinder General]

When replays of the second hit are shown on TV, they are only shown at full speed, never in slow motion.

Sport on the other hand has lots of slow motion replays

So why no slow motion replays of the second hit?

[telecasterisation]

[Witchfinder General]

[John White]

[Witchfinder General]

There has not been a single showing of a slow motion replay of the 911 second hit on television, John White is trying to obfuscate this.

Why have they never ever showed a slow motion replay?

[Fred]

All you have to do is go to http://911logic.blogspot.com or http://killtown.blogspot.com

Telecastration isn't quite bright enough to visit those sites for himself and I'm not wasting my time answering any stupid questions from him. If he pulled his head out and looked at the damn pictures he would see for himself that the proof is right in front of him. When he is in prison they'll probably shave his head and cut back his ration of rum.

[telecasterisation]

[Fred]

http://911logic.blogspot.com works just fine, and so does http://killtown.blogspot.com

Here are some eyewitnesses who didn't see a plane. Hmmm

http://livevideo.com/video/83C0FA83D5E74E3F98B66F36DFF39F44/no-plane-w itnesses.aspx