From Ridiculous to Absurd - More Failure for Plane Huggers

[Indubitably]

The insurance company of United Airlines says it's in possession of the plane wreckage that was 'planted' (or which survived travel thru the South Tower) of the WTC complex on 9/11/2001.

During enquiries made by Germany's largest television company the insurance company manager happened to be in a meeting. Further phone calls reveal he's now on a 3 day business trip. This later mutates in to a many week intercontinental business trip. During all this time he cannot be reached. Not by email or by phone. The Secretary of the insurance company (one of the largest in the USA) leads callers round and round in circles.

Finally, after weeks of enquiry, a result comes. The wreckage is not in the possession of the insurance company. The German journalists are told that the FBI in Washington are now in charge of the matter.

Approaches are then made to the FBI. An FBI press officer is amazingly reclusive. He doesn't want to give interviews about the subject of 9.11.2001. But he promises to give permission, if requested, to film the wreckage. Especially, he says, because investigations have concluded and there is no reason to exclude the public.

Great - progress, right ?

There's only one problem, the FBI man says.

What's that ?

Well, the FBI is no longer in possession of the wreckage from the United Airlines flight that (allegedly) hit the South Tower WTC on 9/11/2001. It has been returned to, United Airlines.

Got it ?

OK, let's start again.

United Airlines confirms. 'Yes, we have the wreckage'. But, 'No, there can be no permission given to film it'.

Why not ?

No reason.

And thus, believers of planes hitting the Twin Towers are defeated, once again, in providing their long awaited evidence connecting this wreckage with the events that occurred in the South Tower. 6 years later we're still waiting.

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/1/0,1872,7000481,00.html

[chek]

We already suspect the chances of the airliners used being the claimed ones are slim to unlikely and that there is therefore every reason to block access to the wreckage because it will be readily identifiable.

We already know that you no planers are not the full shilling and will leap on anything that has the appearance at first glance of confirming one aspect of your theories.

We already know that you are not interested in discovering the truth as much as confirming your theories.

Your topic is not news. However this is:

"According to 911 Truth action:

"September Clues is turning out to be a great litmus test for how on or off base a local group is. Any group who decides to show these films at one of their open group meetings, where newbies might be, without any explanation or complaint from the rank and file, is compromised on some level.

It doesn't matter if it's infiltration or hideously bad judgment on the part of the leaders--the effect is the same--a group that has so many liabilities will not be effective".
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2413

I'd mostly agree with that - though maybe quibble that 'brainwashed' may be a better word than 'compromised.'
Although having said that, I appreciate their view is more politically centred in the mainstream sense.

It's been suggested that the 'errors' may be honest 'mistakes', but as there are so many 'errors' and the mistakes are always in one direction and are always in favour of an agenda, outright fraud seems a far more likely motive.

Fortunately, using that as the suggested yardstick, it's easy to tell which 'truth' sites are indeed compromised.
If it promotes or features the fraudulant September Clues, the site itself is a fraud.
No question, end of story.

More information on the scale of the 'no planes's deception' can be found at the following links:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11608

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11695

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11664

[telecasterisation]

So do you believe that in addition to all those who took part on the day, we now have both members of the insurance company and United Airlines 'in' on it too?

Whoever can be trusted to keep their mouths shut? The list of those who 'know' is becoming huge.

What keeps the lid on it - money, the threat of having your family killed?Do you honestly believe that this can be contained?

[John White]

From the insurance compnaies POV etc they're not "in on it" at all, they've just had the gov'nment come in and swipe the evidence

* you do know the kind of "national security" powers that now exist?

[Indubitably]

The bottom line is this. There is not a shred of evidence, 6 whole years later, that this plane wreckage belongs to either 'plane' that supposedly hit the Twin Towers. We can therefore discount it as 'proof' that a plane hit the South Tower.

Add this to the unaccountability of plane eyewitnesses and the still ongoing discovery of media fakery in 'plane' footage. It's meltdown.

Not, of course, to dogmatists. But to those who care to examine these matters fairly in the light of the facts. Sounds fine to me.

[chek]

[telecasterisation]

[chek]

[Indubitably]

I really must reply to the substance of your article on "No-Planer conspiracy theory"

You ask, 'how is it that every single video footage available shows us a plane hitting the buildings' ?

Well, they don't. Perhaps amensia is the product of spreading so much misinformation on this issue that you can't tell what is true and what is false ? Here are some simple facts -

'Every single video' ? There are hundreds of videos from 9/11 that do not show any 'plane'. Right ? There are videos of firemen in the street, of crowds in the street, of smoke rising from the Twin Towers, of subjects other than planes. Right ?

Secondly, (and you perhaps forget this), not a single example of a 'plane' hitting the Twin Towers was broadcast live on 9/11/2001

Thirdly, of the 30 or so clips of 'planes' at the WTC, many of them do NOT show a 'plane' hitting the towers. This too you must surely acknowledge.

So you are completely wrong. Not all videos of 9/11 show planes (or 'planes'). Nor do all videos show planes (or 'planes') hitting anything.

But these errors are typical of your post.

You admit (and let me quote you) -

'the no-planers might not all be deliberately trying to spread lies'.

Then, Chek, the same can be true of their critics. The issue is simply this -whether there exists in this footage from 9/11/2001 and the known facts of its broadcast, discrepancies in its content which, on frame by frame analysis, confirm or place reasonable doubt on the reliability of its content.

Of all the video material that shows 'planes' on 9/11 what we have, in fact, is material that is highly contradictory. Some footage shows a 'plane' travelling at 500 miles an hour. Others at nearly 600 miles an hour. Some show the angle of approach to the tower differing considerably from other footage of the same supposed event. Some show parts of the supposed 'plane' (wings etc) missing, or distorted. Others show a plane reflecting the light while others do not. Some show (on frame by frame analysis) pixel evidence of having been manipulated. Still other footage shows that certain frames have been repeated. And so on.

Pioneers in the detailed frame by frame analysis of this material (as you will surely admit) were those who believed these 'planes' had been faked.

Of those who supposedly filmed the first hit (on the North Tower) how many camermen are today available to answer questions on their footage ? None. Missing are, the brothers Naudet and, of course, the Czech construction worker. We have, in fact, not a single cameraman or photographer who, today, is willing to face criticism of his work that day.

The situation does not improve with the footage/stills of the South Tower. Once again, huge discrepancies are found in this material. Once again no cameraman or photographer is available to face criticism.

Not a single media channel (broadcaster of 'plane footage' on 9/11) is available for public criticism. Not a single eyewitness to planes is today publicly available. Not a single evidence has been produced in over 6 years that the plane parts at the WTC are from the Twin Towers 'planes'.

None of the above is wrong.

And, in recent times, we have had clear examples of media fakery being shown in frame by frame analysis - damning evidence of manipulation. The most recent case presented here on this forum is the footage broadcast 'live' of Chopper 5 where smoke rising from the North Tower does so only every second frame - explained by video experts as due to manipulation of the scene on which a plane was later overlaid. To date, no real answer has been provided to this. Yet it was broadcast 'live' on 9/11/2001 by the media corporations. Salter does not address this despite your earlier post. And, as to the broadcasters themselves, no answers.

These are just a few reasons why NPT deserves a fair hearing and why it is, today, being increasingly known as the cutting edge of video research on the events of 9/11/2001.

It is for you to discover the truth just as for everyone else. To act as a misinformant on these issues is the saddest fate that any person could have. Why not admit that on the above grounds there are reasonable grounds for saying that NPT is worthy of your respect ?

[John White]

[chek]

[telecasterisation]

[chek]