The CIA doesn't hire retarded non-spellers. The same shill is infesting the forum here. Where did I claim he worked for the CIA?
Why indeed doesn't the media use NPT to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement. It's never happened and it never will. The <a href='http://conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com'>TV Fakery evidence</a> is solid and they won't go near it.
The only people trying to stop the word from getting out are the bottom-feeding shills on this forum (one of whom suffers from a spelling disability).
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 1:11 pm Post subject:
Apart from leaving out the camera tracking the Wildly Gesticulating Man and the consequent background motion (hint to Fred: check what a 'pivot' is), that's as good a roundup of Fred's "work" as so far presented.
As they say 'I rest my case'. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
I guess that's not a fact after all then is it? _________________ "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
Fred, this is all so utterly repetitive. I suggest you do a search for "Shayler" and "Sky" on this forum to see all these arguments thrashed out months ago. Then you will be in an authoritative position to comment on how the NPT can be used against us in our campaigning.
I'm not going to knock anyone who takes an interest in digging for the truth about 911. But we have to agree on the basic principle that the official verision does not add up. That is why we all take an interest. Beyond that, it is speculation and research. Until we are in the majority, we shall not be in a position to demand answers to what actually happened.
So fewer insults, please. I personally know many of the people whom you declare confidently to be one person. They are all active campaigners who get out there and try and change things on a daily basis. So stop carping from the sidelines. Join in. _________________ All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing - Edmund Burke.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem Americanam appellant - Tacitus Redactus.
Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 9:05 pm Post subject: Morgan Reynolds clip
Nice example - a rare instance of 'no planes' getting on air, and the TV interviewer took it all in his stride. To him it was no nuttier than any other aspect of the nutty conspiracy story (and he was quite restrained compared to the other idiots we've seen recently since the Rosie thing).
No sky came down on anybody's head because of no-planes, as far as I can see.
Since the no-plane-at-the-Pentagon theorists and the controlled-demolition theorists were also reviled as harming the movement before the evidence couldn't be suppressed any longer, we can confidently expect no-planes to become more widely known as time goes on, and eventually the gatekeepers inside the 9/11 movement will be forced to try another tactic.
Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 9:15 pm Post subject: Re: Morgan Reynolds clip
MadgeB wrote:
Nice example - a rare instance of 'no planes' getting on air, and the TV interviewer took it all in his stride. To him it was no nuttier than any other aspect of the nutty conspiracy story (and he was quite restrained compared to the other idiots we've seen recently since the Rosie thing).
No sky came down on anybody's head because of no-planes, as far as I can see.
Since the no-plane-at-the-Pentagon theorists and the controlled-demolition theorists were also reviled as harming the movement before the evidence couldn't be suppressed any longer, we can confidently expect no-planes to become more widely known as time goes on, and eventually the gatekeepers inside the 9/11 movement will be forced to try another tactic.
With all due respect Madge, I think you're being naive. You don' seem to realise how NPT sounds to the average person.... _________________
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 10:35 am Post subject: Re: Morgan Reynolds clip
Stefan wrote:
MadgeB wrote:
Nice example - a rare instance of 'no planes' getting on air, and the TV interviewer took it all in his stride. To him it was no nuttier than any other aspect of the nutty conspiracy story (and he was quite restrained compared to the other idiots we've seen recently since the Rosie thing).
No sky came down on anybody's head because of no-planes, as far as I can see.
Since the no-plane-at-the-Pentagon theorists and the controlled-demolition theorists were also reviled as harming the movement before the evidence couldn't be suppressed any longer, we can confidently expect no-planes to become more widely known as time goes on, and eventually the gatekeepers inside the 9/11 movement will be forced to try another tactic.
With all due respect Madge, I think you're being naive. You don' seem to realise how NPT sounds to the average person....
Seems to me Stefan you are more concerned about perception than the truth.
The ONLY way we will get the whole truth (and through it transform the world) is through massive public support translating into massive public pressure that forces the US authorities and the MSM to address the evidence.
In building public support how the truth movement is perceived is vitally important. Something many NP advocates seem to have great difficulty understanding. What use is it knowing 'the truth' (TM) if the vast majority of the wider public think you are deluded? Therefore whilst knowing 'the truth' (TM) may satisfy you that is not enough for me.
I knew the world system was rotten to the core, that we faced false flag terrorism and phoney wars well before 9/11 (as many others did). A small minority knowing this to be true doesn't actually help change things. For 911 truth to go mainstream public perception is everything.
I know that unless the 911 truth movement communicates its message better and is perceived to be correct in its basic assertions by people around the world, then the War of Terror will continue to grow, there will be further 9/11s and we will have change nothing.
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:42 pm Post subject: Equally whacky
Ian, I appreciate the line that you tread, but I honestly cannot see how you believe No Planes Theory to be so much more out-there than Controlled-Demolition Theory that it’s in a different league for the average person.
NPT is only made taboo because it’s disputed unnecessarily by people inside the movement. If 9/11 truthers pointed out as one that the planes could not have penetrated the buildings in that way, and that there is no actually no evidence for the 2 planes crashing – no black boxes etc, etc, there is no reason why it shouldn’t simply be seen as being equally whacky as CDT. I believe there is an equal amount of proof for the two theories in science.
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:08 pm Post subject: Re: Equally whacky
MadgeB wrote:
Ian, I appreciate the line that you tread, but I honestly cannot see how you believe No Planes Theory to be so much more out-there than Controlled-Demolition Theory that it’s in a different league for the average person.
NPT is only made taboo because it’s disputed unnecessarily by people inside the movement. If 9/11 truthers pointed out as one that the planes could not have penetrated the buildings in that way, and that there is no actually no evidence for the 2 planes crashing – no black boxes etc, etc, there is no reason why it shouldn’t simply be seen as being equally whacky as CDT. I believe there is an equal amount of proof for the two theories in science.
Really?
There is pretty much two reasons in the history of building design that buildings have been destroyed vertically:
Earthquakes
Controlled Demolition
If you want to believe the perps, fire became a third on 9/11, for three buildings, and then promtly went back to being an impossibility the day after.
Why do you consider it to be so "wacky" that the most common cause of building's complete destruction, pre-9/11, should be put on the table as a theory for the reason the buildings collapsed that day?
It isn't, which is why this message has had such success spreading around the world from day 1: it is MORE believable than a fire based collapse is, when the evidence and historical precedent are placed side by side.
Then add the fact that wide ranging testimoney and recorded-on-film explosions before and after collapse, squibs, the sight of the pouring yellow/white molten metal from the side of the south tower, the length parts of the building were propelling, and the speed of collapse together provide a pretty compelling argument for it.
Why not use your self as an example. Did you find the idea that explosives could have brought down the towers so crazy when you heard it? I would imagine that you found the fact that the US would do it a hurdle to cross, but the overwhelming evidence that it was not a gravitational collapse brought you to believe it. Just try and be objective. If your first exposure to 9/11 truth had been a "9/11 Octopus" style video (which I find deeply suspect and use several mind control techniques) wouldn't you just have walked away?
Either holographic planes or a complete control of all ameatuer footage and the insertion of CG planes, twined with some kind of explosive operation that could mimic the shape of a plane and bend beams of structural steel towards itself, or a plane shaped directed energy weapon, are not ideas which make sense at all to most people who are aware of the existence of black ops and that the US keep its new advancements from the public for at least 20 years, let alone the average person.
The response is a roll of the eyes, and complete discrediting with the genral public. Madge what I don't think you understand is how this stuff sounds to the average person. You've looked at the New Statesman and Sky TV who can't wait to get onto the subject of NPT, but because you believe it you say "there, where was the problem there?" the problem was with every other person on the planet who thought it sounded ridiculous.
While the case for DEW seems to be worked on with time, and more coherent arguments are coming forward, NPT seems to be racing backwards with ever more absurd and easily explained away claims of TV Fakery that do not stand up to even the slightest scrutiny. Meaning even people who are open minded to what could have happend that day are not being won over.
I have told you the logical place you should start:
Bring us some GENUINE analysis to prove your claim that the planes could not cause the damage we saw (saying "aluminium planes can't break the face of a steel framed building" is not analysis, it's a hypothesis), and then explain how, without the impact of a plane shaped object from outside the tower, effects like the thin slices into the aluminium where the wings would have been, and the bent inward steel beams could be acheived.
Because that is your major stumbling block. Focus on glitches in compressed you tube films all you like, but until you can actually come up with something solid, continue to expect it to be dismissed. _________________
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:32 pm Post subject: Re: Equally whacky
MadgeB wrote:
Ian, I appreciate the line that you tread, but I honestly cannot see how you believe No Planes Theory to be so much more out-there than Controlled-Demolition Theory that it’s in a different league for the average person.
NPT is only made taboo because it’s disputed unnecessarily by people inside the movement. If 9/11 truthers pointed out as one that the planes could not have penetrated the buildings in that way, and that there is no actually no evidence for the 2 planes crashing – no black boxes etc, etc, there is no reason why it shouldn’t simply be seen as being equally whacky as CDT. I believe there is an equal amount of proof for the two theories in science.
We're not just talking about how the media has and will continue to use the NPT against the Truth Campaign, we need to think how it impacts on the general public.
I have never said that we shouldn't all continue to research what might have happened - after all, that might be how the smoking gun is uncovered. However, rather than allowing this to divide us, we should get on with the research we want to do, but focus most of our energy on spreading the basic fact that the OCT just does not add up.
MadgeB, are you seriously suggesting that the best way to campaign, to approach members of the public is to immediately start saying that they need to investigate 911 because no planes/holograms/pods/DEW etc were used to bring down the towers? Is that the best way to ensure as many people as possible start to look for themselves?
For most people, even the idea that the US administration may have allowed the attacks to happen is outrageous. To go in at the deep end with the most contentious or cutting edge research is going to frighten off more people that it will attract.
Whereabouts are you based? How about joining some of us out there on the streets sometime and test people's reactions to your approach?
Regards
Annie _________________ All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing - Edmund Burke.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem Americanam appellant - Tacitus Redactus.
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:15 pm Post subject: Re: Equally whacky
Annie wrote:
MadgeB wrote:
Ian, I appreciate the line that you tread, but I honestly cannot see how you believe No Planes Theory to be so much more out-there than Controlled-Demolition Theory that it’s in a different league for the average person.
NPT is only made taboo because it’s disputed unnecessarily by people inside the movement. If 9/11 truthers pointed out as one that the planes could not have penetrated the buildings in that way, and that there is no actually no evidence for the 2 planes crashing – no black boxes etc, etc, there is no reason why it shouldn’t simply be seen as being equally whacky as CDT. I believe there is an equal amount of proof for the two theories in science.
We're not just talking about how the media has and will continue to use the NPT against the Truth Campaign, we need to think how it impacts on the general public.
I have never said that we shouldn't all continue to research what might have happened - after all, that might be how the smoking gun is uncovered. However, rather than allowing this to divide us, we should get on with the research we want to do, but focus most of our energy on spreading the basic fact that the OCT just does not add up.
MadgeB, are you seriously suggesting that the best way to campaign, to approach members of the public is to immediately start saying that they need to investigate 911 because no planes/holograms/pods/DEW etc were used to bring down the towers? Is that the best way to ensure as many people as possible start to look for themselves?
For most people, even the idea that the US administration may have allowed the attacks to happen is outrageous. To go in at the deep end with the most contentious or cutting edge research is going to frighten off more people that it will attract.
Whereabouts are you based? How about joining some of us out there on the streets sometime and test people's reactions to your approach?
Regards
Annie
There are very few people in the PODS and Hologram camp now.
If we had slow motion replays of the alleged second hit on the BBC it would take the campaign a giant leap forward. Thats why there are many ungenuine campaigners who want to snuff it out.
"Ungenuine campaigner". Well that's a helpful and constructive comment.
The truth movement is made up of an amazingly wide mix of people - all ages, backgrounds, religions, classes, and political persuasions.
That is unusual and it is a unique strength. To attack anyone over their particular views is counter-productive. But we do need to try to campaign realistically and effectively.
We are all supposed to be on the same side - questioning the official version and working towards holding the people behind 9/11 to account. Why does that appear to be so diffcult a concept??
Regards
Annie _________________ All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing - Edmund Burke.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem Americanam appellant - Tacitus Redactus.
We are all supposed to be on the same side - questioning the official version and working towards holding the people behind 9/11 to account. Why does that appear to be so diffcult a concept??
Why, indeed...
Well said, Annie. _________________ "Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
It is the questioning of the official version that unites us all
The solution is surely that rather than advocate that we present a theory for "what really happened" we focus on disproving the OCT. Given the inevitable gaps in our knowledge any theory that we present is bound to be incomplete and quite possibly as full of holes as the OCT
How we disprove the OCT, what evidence we present, what questions we ask, what other issues or evidence beyond 9/11 we bring into the picture and what lies we expose is surely up to us all individually to decide.
So I have no problem with people choosing to focus on which ever angle they think will be the most convincing angle to take and as long as these people don't insist that all other campaigners must follow their lead.
Some will choose to focus on the video footage or the WTC dust or photos of burnt out vehicles near WTC
Others may choose to evidence put forward by Steven Jones
Others may choose to ignore both Steven Jones' and Judith Woods' evidence and ask the questions DRG asks with regard to the tower collapses
Others may choose to ignore WTC and focus on the Pentagon or Shanksville evidence
Others may choose to ignore the physical evidence and focus on the questions of air defense and 'intelligence' failures and the nature of the 'investigation' (eg Press for Truth)
As long as we can respect that different people have different levels of knowledge and understanding and different campaigning strategies then we will all get along just fine.
My advice has always been that rather than spending our time picking fights with those who disagree with us (something public forums encourage) we should use these spaces to identify people who are broadly in agreement with us and link up with them.
At the end of the day it's horses for courses. For some they connect with the measured tones of DRG, for others it is the fire and brimstone of Alex Jones. Ultimately only the foolish would put their faith in any 9/11 guru to bring the people the truth. We all need to research the evidence for ourselves and help others along that path. Unite over what unites us and tolerate and respect each other when we differ.
The only exception to this is if it can be 'proven' that someone is playing for the away team.
The Official Conspiracy Theory is slowly and surely being accepted worldwide as a big lie................This is part of the perps plan.
Do you really believe that people as clever as this would make so many elementary areas in every conceivable area?
The Official Conspiracy Theory had to have been set up to be brought down and I'm sure most of you can see this.
This being the case the perps must have predicted the outcome of events over time and will use their influence to shape public perception and those areas that will shape public perception in order to move on their agenda.
For example if they wanted to stop Loose Change Final Cut going out they could easily use their influence to achieve this, but it looks like going ahead, the Virgin Airlines will they won't they is only token restistance.
Yes everything is going nicely for the perps, when millions know the truth and get very angry they can then bring in martial law and lock millions of us up.
We are now in the lull before the storm of the biggest recession the world has ever seen and this too is part of their plan.
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:28 am Post subject:
It struck me the other day that 9/11 skeptics show a high tendency to be left brain (pedantic "logic") dominated and 9/11 NPT'ers a high tendency to be right brain (enthusastic "imagination") dominated
I asked myself "are the percieved divisions in the truth movement as easy to explain as all that?"
And I decided "Yes, they probably are"
Both Polarities of the "9/11 thought stream" would love to dominate this forum (or at least, have shown strong deisre to): thats never going to happen, its not what this forum is for
But I do believe that as long as we allow the ideas to be heard, a greater unity will inexorably develop as we learn to profit from building on where we agree, not disagree
In fact, its my sincere opinion that learning that behaviour is the absolute key requirement of solving any of the worlds problems, both now and in the future _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:21 am Post subject: Truth or avoidance?
Stefan wrote:
Why do you consider it to be so "wacky" that the most common cause of building's complete destruction, pre-9/11, should be put on the table as a theory for the reason the buildings collapsed that day?
It isn't, which is why this message has had such success spreading around the world from day 1: it is MORE believable than a fire based collapse is, when the evidence and historical precedent are placed side by side.
I was referring to Controlled Demolition Theory as “wacky” in terms of how TV hosts etc present the issue and therefore, if reliant on the mass media for ‘facts’, how the average person sees it. When the evidence (or lack of it) for planes hitting the towers, crash physics and historical precedent are placed side by side (when has a plane in flight ever disappeared inside a building before, rather than crashing against it?) TV-fakery is MORE believable than disappearing planes.
Stefan wrote:
Did you find the idea that explosives could have brought down the towers so crazy when you heard it? I would imagine that you found the fact that the US would do it a hurdle to cross, but the overwhelming evidence that it was not a gravitational collapse brought you to believe it. Just try and be objective. If your first exposure to 9/11 truth had been a "9/11 Octopus" style video (which I find deeply suspect and use several mind control techniques) wouldn't you just have walked away?
A friend who is not your average Joe finds the argument that explosives destroyed the towers “crazy” because, he says, the logistics of planting the explosives would rule it out. And that does remain a problem for Controlled Demolition Theory. You have not explained to his satisfaction, and doubtless many others, how this could have been achieved. And as the towers were not even a ‘vertical collapse’, they were a spectacular job of annihilation, the energy required would be immense.
When I first came across no-plane stuff I saved it to go back to later, as I realised I didn’t know enough about the issues being disputed. I kept going back to it over time, going through argument and counter-argument, and finally realised not only the truth of TV fakery, but that this is being suppressed via the don’t-go-there attitude, which only helps the perpetrators. If that’s not ‘mind control’ I don’t know what is.
Why do you think that stuff by Killtown, genghis and other no-planers gets pulled from the net?
Stefan wrote:
Bring us some GENUINE analysis to prove your claim that the planes could not cause the damage we saw (saying "aluminium planes can't break the face of a steel framed building" is not analysis, it's a hypothesis)
Do you believe that “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” is a hypothesis? Is it a hypothesis that the impact of the plane hitting the building is equal to the impact of the building hitting the plane?
Stefan wrote:
My position is if you cannot win a debate on an issue, there is no point mentioning it at all, forget whether you believe it or not, whether it will win you someones ear or not is all that matters.
There speaks a true politician, as I think someone previously said. My position is that by giving your best evidence you can plant a seed, the idea that the OCT is false in all respects - including hijacked planes - and stimulate people to research for themselves.
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:31 am Post subject: Don't mention the planes
Annie wrote:
We're not just talking about how the media has and will continue to use the NPT against the Truth Campaign, we need to think how it impacts on the general public…. We should ….. focus most of our energy on spreading the basic fact that the OCT just does not add up.
Annie wrote:
We are all supposed to be on the same side - questioning the official version and working towards holding the people behind 9/11 to account. Why does that appear to be so diffcult a concept??
But Annie you’ve just said you mean we should only talk about how CERTAIN ASPECTS of the OCT don’t add up. We apparently shouldn’t talk about how the OCT doesn’t add up when it comes to the planes hitting the towers. Why does questioning ALL aspects of the lie appear to be so difficult a concept?
Quote:
MadgeB, are you seriously suggesting that the best way to campaign, to approach members of the public is to immediately start saying that they need to investigate 911 because no planes/holograms/pods/DEW etc were used to bring down the towers? Is that the best way to ensure as many people as possible start to look for themselves?
“Immediately start with” a conclusion ? Why should I do that? I can immediately say that the OCT is nonsense, let’s look at the evidence. Part of the OCT that is rubbish is that planes hit the buildings. It’s not the only feature, but it’s the heart of the beast.
Quote:
How about joining some of us out there on the streets sometime and test people's reactions to your approach?
Joining people who don’t want the planes mentioned doesn’t make much sense, in terms of testing the approach, does it? I’ve copied and distributed the London group’s leaflets in the past, even though there were parts I didn’t agree with, but I’m no longer prepared to promote the limited hangout in general and in particular anything to do with Steven E Jones, who continually falsifies history. That he is a liar is the most charitable thing you can say about him. Everything Gerard Holmgren said about Jones has been borne out by recent events, and some of the latest dirty tricks are mentioned here.
http://www.911researchers.com/node/546#comment-3993
So yes I now need to reassess how I can contribute to disseminating the truth about 9/11, but it certainly won’t include covering up aspects of the crime on the pretext that it’s not politically expedient to expose them.
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:46 am Post subject: Re: Equally whacky
plane son on 911 wrote:
Annie wrote:
MadgeB wrote:
Ian, I appreciate the line that you tread, but I honestly cannot see how you believe No Planes Theory to be so much more out-there than Controlled-Demolition Theory that it’s in a different league for the average person.
NPT is only made taboo because it’s disputed unnecessarily by people inside the movement. If 9/11 truthers pointed out as one that the planes could not have penetrated the buildings in that way, and that there is no actually no evidence for the 2 planes crashing – no black boxes etc, etc, there is no reason why it shouldn’t simply be seen as being equally whacky as CDT. I believe there is an equal amount of proof for the two theories in science.
We're not just talking about how the media has and will continue to use the NPT against the Truth Campaign, we need to think how it impacts on the general public.
I have never said that we shouldn't all continue to research what might have happened - after all, that might be how the smoking gun is uncovered. However, rather than allowing this to divide us, we should get on with the research we want to do, but focus most of our energy on spreading the basic fact that the OCT just does not add up.
MadgeB, are you seriously suggesting that the best way to campaign, to approach members of the public is to immediately start saying that they need to investigate 911 because no planes/holograms/pods/DEW etc were used to bring down the towers? Is that the best way to ensure as many people as possible start to look for themselves?
For most people, even the idea that the US administration may have allowed the attacks to happen is outrageous. To go in at the deep end with the most contentious or cutting edge research is going to frighten off more people that it will attract.
Whereabouts are you based? How about joining some of us out there on the streets sometime and test people's reactions to your approach?
Regards
Annie
There are very few people in the PODS and Hologram camp now.
If we had slow motion replays of the alleged second hit on the BBC it would take the campaign a giant leap forward. Thats why there are many ungenuine campaigners who want to snuff it out.
Truth Lite .............................No Thanks
very few people in the hologram etc camp????
ok maybe your right ive not heard much from there is recent months,
however when there was numerous people in that camp they all swore blind they were correct and that those who didnt believe it were gatekeepers ect.
may i ask why not many people would be in that camp now?
afterall ive been verbally abused on this forum for trying to point out holograms cannot be right in the past and been told i don't know what im talking about.
so are you now saying holograms were wrong all a long and those who believed in them were wrong all along, im just intrested because it was being promoted as 100% truth quite a few months ago.
also if holograms were wrong why should we now listen to the same people who claim they are right about no planes t.v fakery etc?
ive noticed a lot of those who believed holograms have just moved over to other camps without admiting they were wrong about holograms.
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 4:22 pm Post subject: Re: Equally whacky
marky 54 wrote:
very few people in the hologram etc camp????
ok maybe your right ive not heard much from there is recent months,
however when there was numerous people in that camp they all swore blind they were correct and that those who didnt believe it were gatekeepers ect.
may i ask why not many people would be in that camp now?
afterall ive been verbally abused on this forum for trying to point out holograms cannot be right in the past and been told i don't know what im talking about.
so are you now saying holograms were wrong all a long and those who believed in them were wrong all along, im just intrested because it was being promoted as 100% truth quite a few months ago.
also if holograms were wrong why should we now listen to the same people who claim they are right about no planes t.v fakery etc?
ive noticed a lot of those who believed holograms have just moved over to other camps without admiting they were wrong about holograms.
OK in return for my humouring you (on another thread) about how you don't know what a plane crash is and don't know how to use Google, please can you humour me a bit. I arrived too late on the scene to catch the pod/hologram stuff - please can you link me to your disputes with the pod/hologram theorists so I can catch up a bit?
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:42 pm Post subject: Re: Morgan Reynolds clip
MadgeB wrote:
Nice example - a rare instance of 'no planes' getting on air, and the TV interviewer took it all in his stride. To him it was no nuttier than any other aspect of the nutty conspiracy story (and he was quite restrained compared to the other idiots we've seen recently since the Rosie thing).
No sky came down on anybody's head because of no-planes, as far as I can see.
Since the no-plane-at-the-Pentagon theorists and the controlled-demolition theorists were also reviled as harming the movement before the evidence couldn't be suppressed any longer, we can confidently expect no-planes to become more widely known as time goes on, and eventually the gatekeepers inside the 9/11 movement will be forced to try another tactic.
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:46 am Post subject: Re: Equally whacky
MadgeB wrote:
marky 54 wrote:
very few people in the hologram etc camp????
ok maybe your right ive not heard much from there is recent months,
however when there was numerous people in that camp they all swore blind they were correct and that those who didnt believe it were gatekeepers ect.
may i ask why not many people would be in that camp now?
afterall ive been verbally abused on this forum for trying to point out holograms cannot be right in the past and been told i don't know what im talking about.
so are you now saying holograms were wrong all a long and those who believed in them were wrong all along, im just intrested because it was being promoted as 100% truth quite a few months ago.
also if holograms were wrong why should we now listen to the same people who claim they are right about no planes t.v fakery etc?
ive noticed a lot of those who believed holograms have just moved over to other camps without admiting they were wrong about holograms.
OK in return for my humouring you (on another thread) about how you don't know what a plane crash is and don't know how to use Google, please can you humour me a bit. I arrived too late on the scene to catch the pod/hologram stuff - please can you link me to your disputes with the pod/hologram theorists so I can catch up a bit?
you need to be bought up to date about holograms?
it was basically much the same as everything else, the followers swore blind it was true and anyone not seeing the evidence or believing it was a plant and a ******* lots of swear words.
now im being told hardly anyone is in the hologram camp, so im wondering why that is and if it because hardly anyone believes it and it was wrong all along.
im also then saying why should we then be expected to believe a thing anyone else says as some of the hologram believers moved over to some of the other theorys of no planes etc with the same type of evidence being provided, (not very convincing evidence).
also why you think i need to do a google search on something as stupid as someone being extremely picky over the words crash and impact i'll never know. i was asking for an opinon from someone and asking them why they thought i was wrong about what happened when the plane hit the tower, you then turn up and try to divert that conversation by changing the subject and whining on about how it was'nt an impact it was a crash, like i give a nonsense what it was when all i wanted was an actual answer to a post.
Was this idiotic headline generated by a NATO battle computer? Is Fred a real person or an AI chip programmed to eradicate all that is good from the world? How could anyone get so obsessed with something that, even if true, would set the 9/11 Truth movement back decades. Decades it hasn't got!
I've never been on for shill-accusations, and I'm not making them of anyone here, but I have reached the point where I believe people like fred, plane son, cb brooklyn etc, ARE mind controlled.
Take a look at this highly disturbing video (for the strong minded only)-
It sounds silly but there are dozens of videos like this on the internet, flashing colours, layered images, multiple sounds to follow, the "Plane Huggers want Eurasia to win World War 4" message which flashes up several times, the pictures of the loose change crew with evil clown faces super imposed.
I felt slightly dizzy after watching it. I think people who spend all their time watching these videos are being brainwashed, and the intention is pretty clear:
To cause divisions and hatred between 9/11 Truth activists.
To promote a theory which sounds so ludicrous it will destroy the credibility of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
So there I said it- TV Fakery is a mind control Psy-Op. It's intention is to destroy our movement.
Feel free to delete this mods- I know it's unsubstantiated, but I wanted to say it anyway. _________________
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:16 pm Post subject:
Stefan wrote:
To cause divisions and hatred between 9/11 Truth activists.
To promote a theory which sounds so ludicrous it will destroy the credibility of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
So there I said it- TV Fakery is a mind control Psy-Op. It's intention is to destroy our movement.
Feel free to delete this mods- I know it's unsubstantiated, but I wanted to say it anyway.
I see we've seperately come to similar conclusions Stefan (bearing in mind we're all more or less the one person here
The "researchers" display classic tactics - they consider everybody outside their clique a traitor; there is no sense of anybody else's own research being complementary at all. It doesn't matter if you're a physicist, architect, engineer or even a surviving witness - if there's no beamery or cardboard NYC involved you're covering for the 'perps'.
Although it seems that now even the perps are covering for the real perps.
Just how many Dantean circles of perpery there are remain to be seen.
To put this into context - can you imagine how ridiculous it would be if this board regarded anything coming from Loose Change/Pilots for Truth/AE911/911 Blogger with total contempt, and the only interaction with them was vitriolic mass spamming campaigns?
Absolutely ludicrous.
And yet that's exactly the position 911 "researchers" have carved out for themselves.
They're not all dumb either. Mostly uninformed yes, but not dumb.
I've been following Jplotinus (Veronica) and her support crew's efforts (there's always a support crew) defending Wood's DEW 'work' on the Randi Rhodes board, and you have to hand it to them - they work like $10 whores on a $1000 job, even though it's plainly obvious they haven't a clue about the science of what they're defending.
Basically repeating the mantra's that it's all so self evident as to hardly be considered controversial any longer and anyway what do you know is the tactic.
And who knows? Maybe if the only people you regularly encounter all believe this twaddle you can come to believe it. But I don't think the prime movers are that dumb.
My own thoughts liken them somewhat to the RCP group - not at all what their name claims them to be, but with a similar mission to sow chaos and disruption, and attempt to derail what we refer to as the 911 truth movement worldwide.
All we can do is not let them.
Oh dear - more evidence free claims. I'll be getting slapped wrists from admin. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
To cause divisions and hatred between 9/11 Truth activists.
To promote a theory which sounds so ludicrous it will destroy the credibility of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
So there I said it- TV Fakery is a mind control Psy-Op. It's intention is to destroy our movement.
Feel free to delete this mods- I know it's unsubstantiated, but I wanted to say it anyway.
I see we've seperately come to similar conclusions Stefan (bearing in mind we're all more or less the one person here
The "researchers" display classic tactics - they consider everybody outside their clique a traitor; there is no sense of anybody else's own research being complementary at all. It doesn't matter if you're a physicist, architect, engineer or even a surviving witness - if there's no beamery or cardboard NYC involved you're covering for the 'perps'.
Although it seems that now even the perps are covering for the real perps.
Just how many Dantean circles of perpery there are remain to be seen.
To put this into context - can you imagine how ridiculous it would be if this board regarded anything coming from Loose Change/Pilots for Truth/AE911/911 Blogger with total contempt, and the only interaction with them was vitriolic mass spamming campaigns?
Absolutely ludicrous.
And yet that's exactly the position 911 "researchers" have carved out for themselves.
They're not all dumb either. Mostly uninformed yes, but not dumb.
I've been following Jplotinus (Veronica) and her support crew's efforts (there's always a support crew) defending Wood's DEW 'work' on the Randi Rhodes board, and you have to hand it to them - they work like $10 whores on a $1000 job, even though it's plainly obvious they haven't a clue about the science of what they're defending.
Basically repeating the mantra's that it's all so self evident as to hardly be considered controversial any longer and anyway what do you know is the tactic.
And who knows? Maybe if the only people you regularly encounter all believe this twaddle you can come to believe it. But I don't think the prime movers are that dumb.
My own thoughts liken them somewhat to the RCP group - not at all what their name claims them to be, but with a similar mission to sow chaos and disruption, and attempt to derail what we refer to as the 911 truth movement worldwide.
All we can do is not let them.
Oh dear - more evidence free claims. I'll be getting slapped wrists from admin.
Troll. troll. troll. This guy is allowed to troll as much as he wants. He completely ruins this part of the board.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
