| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
egw
Moderate Poster
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 101
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:07 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I'm not sure actually.
Radar? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lockerbie
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"I got a question, where did the officials get the speeds of impact of these alleged planes that hit the towers?"
approximate speeds could be worked out from the videos. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mason-free party
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 765
Location: Staffordshire
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lockerbie wrote: | "I got a question, where did the officials get the speeds of impact of these alleged planes that hit the towers?"
approximate speeds could be worked out from the videos. |
so you agree they are just fake videos and not live shots
_________________
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/pro-freedom.co.uk/part_6.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coconut
Minor Poster
Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 72
Location: Graham, NC
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think you're putting words into lockerbie's mouth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lockerbie
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"I think you're putting words into lockerbie's mouth."
yes he is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why are we still acting as though there is no historical precedent for this?
A large plane hit the Empire States Building, which was not only a steel framed building, but was also clad in stone.
The result: the plane penetrated it like a projectile, leaving a hole in the building face.
"But planes can't cause holes in buildings!"
Yeah, whatever.
"But a plane couldn't be controlled into the towers, by remote, human or computer control!"
Why not?
"Shut up shill! You're a war criminal! You want babies to die blah blah blah!"
Uh-huh...
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newspeak International
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 1158
Location: South Essex
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ace Baker wrote: | If there were real planes, then why all the fake videos? Why not just videotape the real planes, and let the people see that?
Come on. A real aluminum passenger jet would never just slip into the building like that. Never. You'd have wreckage all over the damn place.
If it was really flight UA175, you'd have dead people but no dead hijackers. You'd have had a pilot on the radio screaming for 30 minutes that his plane had been electronically hijacked. Don't forget about cell phones. "Hey mom, I'm on a plane and the pilot says it's been electronically hijacked. Help!'
If it was a drone, you'd have no dead people at all, and the wrong kind of parts being picked up by thousands of random New Yorkers.
Think it through like a perpetrator, and understand that you already have the media in your back pocket. You want to sell a story about hijacked planes, because it is believable, and it creates an excuse to take over the airports and create the gestapo department of homeland security. |
Good points there AB, though there wont be too many agreeing with you. Notice the admins allow too many non 9/11 truth posters on here to try to wear us down and attempt to discredit us for some reason!
There are others that call this npt stuff disinfo that is trying to discredit the movement, as if we're the main topic of discussion in every house in the land.
The media have not spread the npt as ct nonsense,I'm sure they must have heard of it by now!
Some posters write practically word for word the conclusions of the official reports as advertised in the media.
Some here even deny the existance of those long contrails, known as Chem-trails that often last for hours, there's no excuse not to look up(I know it can be embarassing at times) and see for yourselves.
| Quote: | | Think it through like a perpetrator, and understand that you already have the media in your back pocket. You want to sell a story about hijacked planes, because it is believable, and it creates an excuse to take over the airports and create the gestapo department of homeland security |
There's also the more important angle of media collusion that should
put the whole system under pressure, being they're controlled by
all parties.
I guess that's the nwo agenda though! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cybe
New Poster
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 8
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's my friends theory:
| Quote: | If you put yourself in the shoes of the plotters, as they were finalizing the 9-11 plot, is it not plausible that for the last bastion of deceit, as the final "firewall" of protection to prevent the truth from being accepted by ordinary folk... they decided to carry out the attack on the towers in such a manner that were the truth about how they did it, discovered, no-one (very few) would believe it?
They made sure we all "saw" the planes going into the towers. Over and over and over. Perhaps there was another reason for this, besides the "shock and awe" motive. To make sure any truth-seekers who stumbled upon the truth (missiles?) would have a tremendously hard job of convincing others this was how they did it. They would know, that honest truth-seekers, once these knew it was missiles (if indeed that was the case), would not continue to promote the lie that it was planes. And in so doing, the truth would work against them (or so they would believe).
Because, of course, "everyone" saw the planes crashing into the towers.
To me, that's how these people would think. Whether they actually did this or not, I do not know. But that docu sure is food for thought.
Remaining open-minded about this, |
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ace Baker
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 107
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Your friend is smart. If you're going to pull off a gigantic scam like this, and pretend it was something else, you'd better do two things:
Make the cover story as believable as possible.
Make the truth as unbelievable as possible.
Let's not forget Adolph Hitler's prophetic advice to would-be tyrants: People will more easily fall victim to the "big lie". Do something so huge, so outrageous, so technologically advanced, that most will never believe it, even if someone does figure it out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ace Baker wrote: | If there were real planes, then why all the fake videos? Why not just videotape the real planes, and let the people see that?
Umm, did it not occur to you that all the fake videos come from hoaxers and computer geeks - either amateur or in the pay of those keeping a lid on 9/11? That's why, with all the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc generations of 9/11 videos swirling around the internet, it is impossible to judge whether the claimed anomalies in them are authentic or not. And that's why the no-planers cannot prove anything beyond doubt, for they rely upon footage whose provenance is untrustworthy.
Come on. A real aluminum passenger jet would never just slip into the building like that. Never. You'd have wreckage all over the damn place.
Not at all. The walls of each tower were not solid concrete. Their walls were more like a wire mesh, with glass-covered gaps between the bolted steel spandrel plates. Quite easy for a plane to penetrate.
If it was really flight UA175, you'd have dead people but no dead hijackers. You'd have had a pilot on the radio screaming for 30 minutes that his plane had been electronically hijacked. Don't forget about cell phones. "Hey mom, I'm on a plane and the pilot says it's been electronically hijacked. Help!'
But perhaps it was not Flight 175 but a plane masquerading as the commercial jet. You beg the question. That's a weak way of arguing for a radically different kind of explanation!
If it was a drone, you'd have no dead people at all, and the wrong kind of parts being picked up by thousands of random New Yorkers.
Where is the evidence (other than what the government claimed) that passenger body parts really were found in the debris of the towers?! You disbelieve the government's account, yet believe a part of it when it suits you. And there are lots of claims to be found on 9/11 websites for the wrong plane parts being found, although it is a mystery to me why you seem to think "thousands of random New Yorkers" would have been allowed to pick them up! That's a self-serving use of hyperbole, if I ever saw one!
Think it through like a perpetrator, and understand that you already have the media in your back pocket. You want to sell a story about hijacked planes, because it is believable, and it creates an excuse to take over the airports and create the gestapo department of homeland security.
Given that the technology to take over Boeing commercial jet planes was available even in 2001, who needs to invent ghost planes with CGI in order to sell a story about hijacked planes? Totally unnecessary and far more risky than using real, remote-controlled planes, given that many witnesses at the scene would have experienced the explosions without even hearing planes with screaming jet engines first hitting each tower! Anyway, the only reason that made no-planers ever consider the possibility that planes did not hit the towers was their inability to understand the infamous CNN footage of Flight 175 apparently sinking into the South Tower like the proverbial hot knife through butter. The problem vanishes once one understands that the South Tower was not a solid concrete wall but had glass-covered sections between the spandrel plates in its facade, which turned its walls, effectively, into a massive box column with hundreds of small holes cut in it. But, of course, no-planers are not going to admit they totally misunderstood the architectural situation or the problems of poor-resolution, highly compressed videos. So they have to keep bleating for attention so as not to lose face in a lost cause.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ace Baker
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 107
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Umm, did it not occur to you that all the fake videos come from hoaxers and computer geeks - either amateur or in the pay of those keeping a lid on 9/11? That's why, with all the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc generations of 9/11 videos swirling around the internet, it is impossible to judge whether the claimed anomalies in them are authentic or not. And that's why the no-planers cannot prove anything beyond doubt, for they rely upon footage whose provenance is untrustworthy. |
You raise an interesting hypothesis. Perhaps there were real planes, but the videos on the internet are disinfo fakes. This divides into 2 possibilities.
1. The video aired on 9/11 was real, but the internet videos have been fabricated.
2. The videos aired on 9/11 were fake, despite there having been real airplanes.
If 1, then where are the real videos? Could the perps have trusted that nobody was recording the TV broadcasts? Of course not, many people had their VCRs going.
If 2, then why fake the videos? Could the perps have trusted that nobody would videotape the real planes? Of course not, after the WTC1 event, many people in Manhattan had their camcorders going.
What was the best bet? No planes. How can someone video that which is not there? Same logic with NORAD. How can jet fighters intercept that which is not there?
You are simply wrong when you state "it is impossible to judge whether the claimed anomalies in them are authentic or not."
All photos and videos, of any resolution, with any amount or type of compression, will have some limitation on how accurately objects can be measured. The point is to determine what that possible margin of error is for a particular source.
I have done that with Chopper 5. The chain of custody is known. The expected margin of error is too low to account for the variations in velocity. It is a composite video.
I have not published my Chopper 7 paper yet, but I will tell you now that it is also a composite. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ace Baker
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 107
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Where is the evidence (other than what the government claimed) that passenger body parts really were found in the debris of the towers?! You disbelieve the government's account, yet believe a part of it when it suits you. And there are lots of claims to be found on 9/11 websites for the wrong plane parts being found, although it is a mystery to me why you seem to think "thousands of random New Yorkers" would have been allowed to pick them up! That's a self-serving use of hyperbole, if I ever saw one! |
I never said there were passenger body parts in the debris, please. I don't think there were any passenger jets there, why would I think there were passenger bodies?
Prior to the first impact, there is no excuse for officials to cordon off the area. If there were really a jet crash into a twin tower, you would quite likely have many plane parts deflecting off of the very sturdy parts of the walls, especially at the intersections of perimeter columns and floors. The perps and their engineers would know this. You could not possibly guarantee the plane would enter the building and stop inside.
No. Too risky. Far better to leave no evidence, than too much or the wrong kind. Missing evidence can be planted, or simply fabricated into official reports. The wrong kind of evidence is a far, far bigger problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ace Baker
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 107
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Anyway, the only reason that made no-planers ever consider the possibility that planes did not hit the towers was their inability to understand the infamous CNN footage of Flight 175 apparently sinking into the South Tower like the proverbial hot knife through butter. The problem vanishes once one understands that the South Tower was not a solid concrete wall but had glass-covered sections between the spandrel plates in its facade, which turned its walls, effectively, into a massive box column with hundreds of small holes cut in it. But, of course, no-planers are not going to admit they totally misunderstood the architectural situation or the problems of poor-resolution, highly compressed videos. So they have to keep bleating for attention so as not to lose face in a lost cause. |
Ghostplane got us thinking, but is certainly not "the only reason". Not now. My velocity study has not been disproved.
The walls of the towers were vertical steel box columns, with steel spandrel plates connecting them. The planes would also have encountered steel reinforced concrete floors edge on. Whatever force is felt by the wall, is also felt by the plane. The walls and floors were far, far stronger than the aircraft. We might expect engines to break through, but not the wingtips, and not the tail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catfish
Validated Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 430
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
One of the most compelling pieces of evidence that made me really start behaving like a bone-fide conspiraloon was the fact that no plane could be seen at the pentagon. No wreckage outside and no marks on the grass and no damage where the wings should be.
Even the videotape released did not, most would agree, show an aeroplane.
Question) Why not use a real plane?
Answer) They didn't have to. Everyone believes what they're told to beLIEve.
Anyways,
catfish
_________________
Govern : To control
Ment : The mind |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| catfish wrote: | One of the most compelling pieces of evidence that made me really start behaving like a bone-fide conspiraloon was the fact that no plane could be seen at the pentagon. No wreckage outside and no marks on the grass and no damage where the wings should be.
Even the videotape released did not, most would agree, show an aeroplane.
Question) Why not use a real plane?
Answer) They didn't have to. Everyone believes what they're told to beLIEve.
Anyways,
catfish |
A theory for you Catfish:
9/11 was a psyop: on this we all agree, yes?
Well how about this as a psyop mindf*ck technique:
Anyone who believes there were four planes and anyone who believes there were no planes are BOTH wrong, and gaurenteed to waste their energy fighting each other
But: When we deal with what is in front of us objectively:
Evidence for Plane at Pentagon/Shanksville = Weak
Counter evidence = Strong
Evidence for Planes at Towers = Strong
Counter evidence = Weak
Can you see a picture?
I'd appreciate a response to this thought
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catfish
Validated Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 430
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
private message for you John
_________________
Govern : To control
Ment : The mind |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | catfish wrote: | One of the most compelling pieces of evidence that made me really start behaving like a bone-fide conspiraloon was the fact that no plane could be seen at the pentagon. No wreckage outside and no marks on the grass and no damage where the wings should be.
Even the videotape released did not, most would agree, show an aeroplane.
Question) Why not use a real plane?
Answer) They didn't have to. Everyone believes what they're told to beLIEve.
Anyways,
catfish |
A theory for you Catfish:
9/11 was a psyop: on this we all agree, yes?
Well how about this as a psyop mindf*ck technique:
Anyone who believes there were four planes and anyone who believes there were no planes are BOTH wrong, and gaurenteed to waste their energy fighting each other
But: When we deal with what is in front of us objectively:
Evidence for Plane at Pentagon/Shanksville = Weak
Counter evidence = Strong
Evidence for Planes at Towers = Strong
Counter evidence = Weak
Can you see a picture?
I'd appreciate a response to this thought |
Interesting theory, John, and quite plausible.
Regarding the Pentagon, I have wondered whether a trap may have been laid. The deliberate and obviously suspicious withholding of video evidence and the possibly deliberate confusion of evidence from the scene and witnesses may have all been part of a long-term disinfo campaign for use in helping to protect the main "big lie" (ie 911 was an inside job).
Perhaps we have all been sucked in and the perps have an ace up their sleeve when it comes to preventing 911 truth from mainstreaming: the ace (which could be one of several) could be that the Pentagon really was hit by a 757 afterall and the extended disinfo campaign was part of a double bluff to throw investigators off the scent and make the 911 truth movement look foolish when the time was felt most useful for the truth to be revealed. Imagine it: the 911 truth movement continues to build momentum and then just when it's nearing the point of breakthrough the Govt release the video footage amid a frenzy of media hype and prove that the official story regarding teh Pentagon was correct all along. It would be a massive blow to the 911 truth movement...
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Interesting theory, John, and quite plausible.
Regarding the Pentagon, I have wondered whether a trap may have been laid. The deliberate and obviously suspicious withholding of video evidence and the possibly deliberate confusion of evidence from the scene and witnesses may have all been part of a long-term disinfo campaign for use in helping to protect the main "big lie" (ie 911 was an inside job).
Perhaps we have all been sucked in and the perps have an ace up their sleeve when it comes to preventing 911 truth from mainstreaming: the ace (which could be one of several) could be that the Pentagon really was hit by a 757 afterall and the extended disinfo campaign was part of a double bluff to throw investigators off the scent and make the 911 truth movement look foolish when the time was felt most useful for the truth to be revealed. Imagine it: the 911 truth movement continues to build momentum and then just when it's nearing the point of breakthrough the Govt release the video footage amid a frenzy of media hype and prove that the official story regarding teh Pentagon was correct all along. It would be a massive blow to the 911 truth movement...
|
Yes, the Strawman argument hypothesis regarding the Pentagon is well established, and obviously can't be discounted becuase we never know, it might happen! The combination of the hole, the perfect lawn and the pilots for truth analysis of the black box all point to something being decidely wrong: same as shankville, where there literally is no obvious plane and no bodies!
But the evidence for Planes at the towers is very strong, which leads me to hold the above theory as decidely attractive: pull something off in such a peverse way such that no-one will be satisfied with the answer even if they find it... and the inciting conflict divide-and-rule aspect is very clear
IMO its the weakness of the plane evidence at the pentagon and shanksville which suckers people into accepting the wafer thin illusionary evidence for TV fakery, and credence to TV fakery evidence is re-inforced by "the evidence is strong over there, so this MUST be right"
Its a natural function of human psychology to assume that if things arnt completely one way they must be completely another, as we are trained to belive in absolutes by the education system etc. Only a fool would believe military intelligence does not exploit that as a weapon
I just pity any poor b* enmeshed in the researcher community who changes his mind and says "hey guys there were planes at the towers after all" becuase the ridicule and hatred that person would attract to them would make their lives, on the net at least, a living hell. So how ironic that, like JREF'ers, the NPT crowd are policed by the fear of stepping out of line
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | Yes, the Strawman argument hypothesis regarding the Pentagon is well established, and obviously can't be discounted becuase we never know, it might happen! The combination of the hole, the perfect lawn and the pilots for truth analysis of the black box all point to something being decidely wrong: same as shankville, where there literally is no obvious plane and no bodies!
But the evidence for Planes at the towers is very strong, which leads me to hold the above theory as decidely attractive: pull something off in such a peverse way such that no-one will be satisfied with the answer even if they find it... and the inciting conflict divide-and-rule aspect is very clear
IMO its the weakness of the plane evidence at the pentagon and shanksville which suckers people into accepting the wafer thin illusionary evidence for TV fakery, and credence to TV fakery evidence is re-inforced by "the evidence is strong over there, so this MUST be right"
Its a natural function of human psychology to assume that if things arnt completely one way they must be completely another, as we are trained to belive in absolutes by the education system etc. Only a fool would believe military intelligence does not exploit that as a weapon
I just pity any poor b* enmeshed in the researcher community who changes his mind and says "hey guys there were planes at the towers after all" becuase the ridicule and hatred that person would attract to them would make their lives, on the net at least, a living hell. So how ironic that, like JREF'ers, the NPT crowd are policed by the fear of stepping out of line |
Good post, John. Methinks you have a finely tuned nose for such trickery. 
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Good post, John. Methinks you have a finely tuned nose for such trickery. |
LOL mate, well it comes of frying my mind until it can think in two opposing directions at the same time
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catfish
Validated Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 430
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | catfish wrote: | One of the most compelling pieces of evidence that made me really start behaving like a bone-fide conspiraloon was the fact that no plane could be seen at the pentagon. No wreckage outside and no marks on the grass and no damage where the wings should be.
Even the videotape released did not, most would agree, show an aeroplane.
Question) Why not use a real plane?
Answer) They didn't have to. Everyone believes what they're told to beLIEve.
Anyways,
catfish |
A theory for you Catfish:
9/11 was a psyop: on this we all agree, yes?
Well how about this as a psyop mindf*ck technique:
Anyone who believes there were four planes and anyone who believes there were no planes are BOTH wrong, and gaurenteed to waste their energy fighting each other
But: When we deal with what is in front of us objectively:
Evidence for Plane at Pentagon/Shanksville = Weak
Counter evidence = Strong
Evidence for Planes at Towers = Strong
Counter evidence = Weak
Can you see a picture?
I'd appreciate a response to this thought |
I respectfully disagree.
ALL the evidence we have is provided by media or law enforcement sources.
Even the video from the apartment opposite has the actual plane crash edited out New 9/11 Eyewitness see 11min 46.
Afterward you hear a quiet voice say something like, was that a military 'plane?
The film-maker says, "It was a military 'plane!"
We have eyewitnesses saying they saw giant american airlines passenger jets.
We have eyewitnesses saying a grey plane with no windows.
Some people who thought they saw a missile.
In Shanksville, one eyewitness saw a jet with no wings, no wider than her van.
Now for the record I'm not going to throw my cards in either way. Most people I know realise that the 9/11 amusement arcade has just replaced my television as something I can idle over when I'm not doing something less boring instead. see here
Clearly though John you have it all sussed.
| John W wrote: | | Anyone who believes there were four planes and anyone who believes there were no planes are BOTH wrong, and gaurenteed to waste their energy fighting each other |
Does this mean you are right and those people are wrong?
Does this mean they are wasting their energy if they don't subscribe to your view?
All I'm saying is think on..... unless you are privvy to special information the no-planers/no-boeings could be right, and on the other hand you could be right.
But from my point of view as someone with an open mind that can change from time to time, anyone who says they definitely know one way or the other is lying or complicit.
Or how about this for a psyop mindfuck:
There's only three people who will ever read this; everyone else on the net is downloading Paris Hilton videos. (hmm perhaps that's what nico is up to)
love to love you,
David
_________________
Govern : To control
Ment : The mind |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Anyone who believes there were four planes and anyone who believes there were no planes are BOTH wrong, and gaurenteed to waste their energy fighting each other |
Does this mean you are right and those people are wrong?
|
I did preface that with the statement that its a theory: I write in a positive style about what makes most sense to me, as honestly as I can:
Do I think I'm right no matter what? No, I think what i think unless/until superior information comes along. Am I open or closed to further information? Well thats my business and my problem if I am not
But what other people think is entirely their business, just as my style of expression is entirely mine (within the bounds of reasonable behaviour in a net community)
All I could hope or ask is that if somone has made the effort to read my words, they make a similar effort to consider them, as I myself have spent many years doing with the words of many other people
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catfish
Validated Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 430
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| catfish wrote: | | John White wrote: | | catfish wrote: | One of the most compelling pieces of evidence that made me really start behaving like a bone-fide conspiraloon was the fact that no plane could be seen at the pentagon. No wreckage outside and no marks on the grass and no damage where the wings should be.
Even the videotape released did not, most would agree, show an aeroplane.
Question) Why not use a real plane?
Answer) They didn't have to. Everyone believes what they're told to beLIEve.
Anyways,
catfish |
A theory for you Catfish:
9/11 was a psyop: on this we all agree, yes?
Well how about this as a psyop mindf*ck technique:
Anyone who believes there were four planes and anyone who believes there were no planes are BOTH wrong, and gaurenteed to waste their energy fighting each other
But: When we deal with what is in front of us objectively:
Evidence for Plane at Pentagon/Shanksville = Weak
Counter evidence = Strong
Evidence for Planes at Towers = Strong
Counter evidence = Weak
Can you see a picture?
I'd appreciate a response to this thought |
I respectfully disagree.
ALL the evidence we have is provided by media or law enforcement sources.
Even the video from the apartment opposite has the actual plane crash edited out New 9/11 Eyewitness see 11min 46.
Afterward you hear a quiet voice say something like, was that a military 'plane?
The film-maker says, "It was a military 'plane!"
We have eyewitnesses saying they saw giant american airlines passenger jets.
We have eyewitnesses saying a grey plane with no windows.
Some people who thought they saw a missile.
In Shanksville, one eyewitness saw a jet with no wings, no wider than her van.
Now for the record I'm not going to throw my cards in either way. Most people I know realise that the 9/11 amusement arcade has just replaced my television as something I can idle over when I'm not doing something less boring instead. see here
Clearly though John you have it all sussed.
| John W wrote: | | Anyone who believes there were four planes and anyone who believes there were no planes are BOTH wrong, and gaurenteed to waste their energy fighting each other |
Does this mean you are right and those people are wrong?
Does this mean they are wasting their energy if they don't subscribe to your view?
All I'm saying is think on..... unless you are privvy to special information the no-planers/no-boeings could be right, and on the other hand you could be right.
But from my point of view as someone with an open mind that can change from time to time, anyone who says they definitely know one way or the other is lying or complicit.
Or how about this for a psyop mindfuck:
There's only three people who will ever read this; everyone else on the net is downloading Paris Hilton videos. (hmm perhaps that's what nico is up to)
love to love you,
David |
| the right honorable catfish the third wrote: |
| John W wrote: | | Anyone who believes there were four planes and anyone who believes there were no planes are BOTH wrong, and gaurenteed to waste their energy fighting each other |
Does this mean you are right and those people are wrong? |
| JW wrote: | I did preface that with the statement that its a theory: I write in a positive style about what makes most sense to me, as honestly as I can:
Do I think I'm right no matter what? No, I think what i think unless/until superior information comes along. Am I open or closed to further information? Well thats my business and my problem if I am not
But what other people think is entirely their business, just as my style of expression is entirely mine (within the bounds of reasonable behaviour in a net community)
All I could hope or ask is that if somone has made the effort to read my words, they make a similar effort to consider them, as I myself have spent many years doing with the words of many other people |
But do you feel people will waste their energy fighting each other if they don't subscribe to your "theory". I for one will not. I'm friends with all kinds of views. The dangerous view in my opinion is the one that says, "I don't want to hang around with you, you make me look crazy!" That is the one that is divisive, in my humbled opinion.
I'm not having a go at you John, I'm having a go at the attitude that says, "well you think what you like and come back when you've thought about it a bit harder, aw bless." Now I appreciate that certain individuals within the no boeing/plane group behave in this exact way, but that doesn't warrant all of them being tarred with the same brush.
See my point?
Fuck the war, start the peace!
David (yes I do struggle with quotes/]
_________________
Govern : To control
Ment : The mind |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I'm having a go at the attitude that says, "well you think what you like and come back when you've thought about it a bit harder, aw bless." |
I understand that Catfish: but how much of that is in what you percieve in what I have said, and how much is based on what I intended in what I said? When a consensus of rationality fails to progress the issues and exactly the same perspectives are repeated time and time and time again with no redress to counter points, at best all one has left are nudges in a particular direction, at worst outright mockery: and thats a fine line to balance both in expression and in reception too
Its a classic dillema really. Its funny becuase I have just come back here from a discusion about sceptics
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6411
And in part, how I post here in Truth Controversies is based on my resisting the pressure to conform and compromise the integrity and honesty of my expression of my views simple because they are for some challenging and uncomfortable. The whole group think/single think question is at the heart both of human pschology and the essence of truthseeking: the true seeker to his or her own self holds True, whether his or her perspective is in a majority or on its own
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catfish
Validated Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 430
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Quote: | | I'm having a go at the attitude that says, "well you think what you like and come back when you've thought about it a bit harder, aw bless." |
I understand that Catfish: but how much of that is in what you percieve in what I have said, and how much is based on what I intended in what I said? When a consensus of rationality fails to progress the issues and exactly the same perspectives are repeated time and time and time again with no redress to counter points, at best all one has left are nudges in a particular direction, at worst outright mockery: and thats a fine line to balance both in expression and in reception too
Its a classic dillema really. Its funny becuase I have just come back here from a discusion about sceptics
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6411
And in part, how I post here in Truth Controversies is based on my resisting the pressure to conform and compromise the integrity and honesty of my expression of my views simple because they are for some challenging and uncomfortable. The whole group think/single think question is at the heart both of human pschology and the essence of truthseeking: the true seeker to his or her own self holds True, whether his or her perspective is in a majority or on its own |
Okay. For the record, my perception of your posts on this subject as with chek, gruts, fred, mfp, and others is that you are all saying "well you think what you like and come back when you've thought about it a bit harder, aw bless." That's just my perception however.
I'll say again, the dangerous view in my opinion is the one that says, "I don't want to hang around with you, you make me look crazy!" That is the one that is divisive, in my humbled opinion.
This is from a pm I sent to chek:
My advice, embrace the no planes people and then they won't be a problem anymore. Although this sounds backward, you'll soon see that their threads are not at the top of the boards and are no longer the most viewed. When they feel accepted they will not be as manic and preachy don't you think?
I might be wrong...
love from
David
_________________
Govern : To control
Ment : The mind |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | My advice, embrace the no planes people and then they won't be a problem anymore. Although this sounds backward, you'll soon see that their threads are not at the top of the boards and are no longer the most viewed. When they feel accepted they will not be as manic and preachy don't you think?
I might be wrong...
|
Well, intergration has been tried at the loose change forum, 9/11 blogger etc... we know what happened there, complete blanket removal of NPT discussion: and we only have truth controversies becuase of the dreadful spamming this whole forum had before, same as why we made critics corner to adress the mirror issue from the critics
If a member poll could show at least reasonable support for intergration then I'd agree the issue should be considered again... amongst the mod team only AJ would be likely to be in immediate agreement with the suggestion, and it would probably require a clear message from then mebership to shift the current consensus view that controversies stays: especially when the posting across the net comming out of 911 researchers is like it is
I retain my opinion that this section is an opportunity for NPT theory supporters to make the most out of, becuase at least here there is a voice
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nrmis
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Mar 2007
Posts: 294
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmmm, plane at the pentagon and no planes at the towers, now wouldn't that be a *?
I must admit, making the truth as unbelievable as possible would seem to be smart, its an interesting theory that I hadn't thought about before. Are these cnuts that smart? I would geuss so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bobby
New Poster
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry to bring a 6th month old thread back to life. But I wanted to make a point similar to what I opened up with.
I agree that there is some evidence that could show that there weren't any planes. But why bother? Ok no-one was expecting the first plane. But when the second one hit , there were cameras everywhere. People were all over the place in downtown Manhatten. And your telling me that the best idea would be to try and convice every single person around that day that they did see a plane , even though it was a missle.
How do you make a cruise missle create a plane shaped hole?
The point about the plane not being able to penetrate a building - one of the weakest arguements I've heard.
Another plane? Possible I suppose , but then you've got to safely dispose of the original plane.
As for the Pentagon-
I always look at that picture for evidence. Again it doesn't tell the full story. If the plane bounced of the lawn , wouldn't it have shredded before it had gotten to the building.
My point is , is that , they didn't need a missle to bring down the twin towers , so why bother using them. Crash a plane into the building , everyone sees it as a plane , theres no confusion.
Or smash two missles into the building , then. Graphically edit every single camera feed (In real time). And then convice every single person who was present that it definatly was a plane.
Just my thoughts anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fish5133
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2568
Location: One breath from Glory
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just a stupid though thats come to mind re Pentagon hit . Status Quo "Would you like to fly my paper plane" (got a cruise missile wrapped inside)
_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sycorax82
Minor Poster
Joined: 12 Aug 2007
Posts: 57
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 3:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can't believe so many people can't see why they wouldn't want to use real passenger planes. SO much more could have gone wrong.
There is no way in holy hell they could have relied on the 'hijacking' of passenger planes or the subsequent flying of them into buildings. For a start, the planes needed to be hijacked FOR REAL, and whether it was done electronically, or as per the official story, the whole operation could have been blown apart quite easily. Too easily.
And then there's the case of plane maneouvres that could have gone so wrong it's untrue. Just think about the risk of damaging other buildings. What if one of the planes had hit a tower corner and had been sliced in two, half of it ploughing into downtown Manhattan? The risk of something like that happening was surely phenomenally high. They would need countless plans in place taking into account any number of catastrophic scenarios of this nature.
It was far safer to decieve the people en masse. The TV fakery isn't a problem because you can just cut to black at any time. As for eye witnesses...the ones who don't act like sheep and buy the whole passenger planes thing, the ones who said it was a military jet or a missile or no planes at all, their voices aren't listened to because they're not loud enough to overwhelm the 'official' planted story. People want to latch onto a logical human explanation delivered by God (i.e. the media, their leaders).
Missiles can be extremely accurate, particularly if they're homing in on some sort of beacon that could have been placed in each tower at the same time as the explosives were planted. In doing this there would be no chance of the plane-shaped hole and exit fireball explosions going off in the wrong places. All this would be much easier to achieve than hoping and praying to Zion that two hijacked passenger planes would hit their exact mark. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
