| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Killtown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 438
Location: That Yankee country the U.S.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jennifer
Minor Poster
Joined: 03 Nov 2007
Posts: 22
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:19 pm Post subject: Re: The Dummies Guide to "9/11 No-Planer Theory" |
 |
|
| PepeLapiu wrote: | The "No-Planer conspiracy theories" are not the only lies being spread, there is also the "Missile-Pentagon theories", the "Deep Energy Weapons theories", the "David Icke lizard-men from space theories" as well as the "pod-plane theories" and various others all intended to make us look more like "conspiracy theorists" rather then serious researchers, divide the movement, and bury the truth under a large pile of "conspiracy theories" which are illogical and sometimes down right ridiculous. But be careful, even some of the theories which appear more researched, more popular and more documented are often lies or distortions, such is the case of large parts of the three Loose Change versions.
So to you, if you are a new comer to the truth movement or if you are simply trying to research further into the events of 9/11, be warned. You will find a lot of false claims and false evidence pointing to false "conspiracy theories" but do not despair, the truth is somewhere in there. You just need to be careful and think out every single evidence and fact you encounter. But make no mistakes about it, the "no-planers" do not represent the truth movement and should in no way reflect on the rest of the movement .... this goes as well for many other "conspiracy theories" planted into the movement.
Good luck and happy researching!
Cheers,
PepeLapiu  |
Pepe, Pepe, Pepe...
Thankfully people like you don't represent the movement either. People like you, Pepe, divide the movement, not those that research alternative theories.
Stop being a gatekeeper Pepe, let people think for themselves. You are no better than Dylan Avery, Mr. Lapiu. Get over yourself. It is one thing to engage in respectful debate, it is another to be insulting, rude and threatening. The only way to eliminate a theory is for people to discuss it and every single theory you mentioned is worthy of exploration (even the silly POD THEORY).
One thing you are correct about is when you say "the truth is somewhere in there." Now stop acting like controlled opposition and start encouraging people to think for themselves. Your truth is not my truth Pepe, and my thoughts and beliefs are equally valid. Use your research to bring people together and stop fragmenting this movement further.
Cheers,
Jennifer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PepeLapiu
Minor Poster
Joined: 29 Oct 2007
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | | PepeLapiu wrote: | | How did they manage to make sure that nobody catches the building on video exploding without a plane going in? |
Good question. |
Great, thank you, now how about you try and answer it before simply ignoring the question and pushing questions of your own?
NO-PLANERS, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS:
So if there was no planes hitting the towers, how is it that every single video footage available show us a plane hitting the buildings? You can't drive a snowmobile into a shed in cottage country without people seeing it so how is it that we can't find a single video footage that reveals no plane hit the second tower? Surely some people would be on the opposite side of the building and would not see the plane coming in, they would only see the ensuing explosion without the plane. But of all those who were on the proper side, how is it that none of them can tell us that they saw the building explode without a plane going in? How is it that the perpetrators managed to confiscate every conceivable video of the impact and add "digital fakery" to them? How did they manage to make sure that nobody catches the building on video exploding without a plane going in? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PepeLapiu
You asked the question.
| PepiLapui wrote: | | How did they manage to make sure that nobody catches the building on video exploding without a plane going in? |
I don't know the answer to that question.
Your question pre-supposes a number of things.
Two of which I need qualification of before I can embark on the quest to find the answer to your question.
Right now, for me, these questions are:
| Quote: | We've all read about the many cameras that would have been pointed toward the scene ready to record the 2nd event.
Has anyone produced a comprehensive analysis of all of these recordings ?
Also, has anyone produced a comprehensive analysis of the recordings that did not show an aircraft crashing in the 2nd event ? |
Is that clear ?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catfish
Validated Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 430
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey Pepe,
I'm not a no-planer or a pro-planer I can't tell for certain either way. Maybe that makes me stupid right?
But if you assume the mindset of someone who believes that no planes hit the towers and that technologies and tricks exist that could "invent" an event like 9/11 then suddenly your question, "how did they manage to make sure that nobody catches the building on video exploding without a plane going in?" becomes completely irrelevant, because you see anyone with the technology and the ability to deceive on such a grand scale could easily sweep a few dodgy videos under the rug couldn't they?
Hope that goes some way to explaining why you can't get a reply.
David
_________________
Govern : To control
Ment : The mind |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Killtown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 438
Location: That Yankee country the U.S.
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey Cat,
This forum is full of trolls and now death threateners.
My advise is don't feed the trolls and/or death threateners.
_________________
killtown.blogspot.com - 911movement.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PepeLapiu
Minor Poster
Joined: 29 Oct 2007
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | PepeLapiu
You asked the question.
| PepiLapui wrote: | | How did they manage to make sure that nobody catches the building on video exploding without a plane going in? |
I don't know the answer to that question.
Your question pre-supposes a number of things. |
I suppose if I answer your questions you will then answer mine. However we both know you will not do so, you will simply derail and avoid answering my questions. Never the less, for the sake of argument and to show what a fraud you are I will attempt to answer your questions just so that everyone can see you will in turn keep on ignoring my questions.
| Quote: | | We've all read about the many cameras that would have been pointed toward the scene ready to record the 2nd event. |
Yes we all have seen the videos of the second impact and they ALL show an airplane hitting the building.
| Quote: | | Has anyone produced a comprehensive analysis of all of these recordings ? |
2+2=4 ...... we don't need a "comprehensive analysis".
But humor me, are you aware of anyone who has shown that all of the videos of the second strike were faked? I know of no such "comprehensive analysis".
| Quote: | | Also, has anyone produced a comprehensive analysis of the recordings that did not show an aircraft crashing in the 2nd event ? |
No videos available reveal that a plane didn't hit the building. We can not produce a "comprehensive analysis" of things that don't exist. But humor me, show me a video which reveals that no plane hit the building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PepeLapiu
Minor Poster
Joined: 29 Oct 2007
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | PepeLapiu
You asked the question.
| PepiLapui wrote: | | How did they manage to make sure that nobody catches the building on video exploding without a plane going in? |
I don't know the answer to that question.
Your question pre-supposes a number of things. |
I suppose if I answer your questions you will then answer mine. However we both know you will not do so, you will simply derail and avoid answering my questions. Never the less, for the sake of argument and to show what a fraud you are I will attempt to answer your questions just so that everyone can see you will in turn keep on ignoring my questions.
| Quote: | | We've all read about the many cameras that would have been pointed toward the scene ready to record the 2nd event. |
Yes we all have seen the videos of the second impact and they ALL show an airplane hitting the building.
| Quote: | | Has anyone produced a comprehensive analysis of all of these recordings ? |
2+2=4 ...... we don't need a "comprehensive analysis".
But humor me, are you aware of anyone who has shown that all of the videos of the second strike were faked? I know of no such "comprehensive analysis".
| Quote: | | Also, has anyone produced a comprehensive analysis of the recordings that did not show an aircraft crashing in the 2nd event ? |
No videos available reveal that a plane didn't hit the building. We can not produce a "comprehensive analysis" of things that don't exist. But humor me, show me a video which reveals that no plane hit the building.
NO-PLANERS, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS:
So if there was no planes hitting the towers, how is it that every single video footage available show us a plane hitting the buildings? You can't drive a snowmobile into a shed in cottage country without people seeing it so how is it that we can't find a single video footage that reveals no plane hit the second tower? Surely some people would be on the opposite side of the building and would not see the plane coming in, they would only see the ensuing explosion without the plane. But of all those who were on the proper side, how is it that none of them can tell us that they saw the building explode without a plane going in? How is it that the perpetrators managed to confiscate every conceivable video of the impact and add "digital fakery" to them? How did they manage to make sure that nobody catches the building on video exploding without a plane going in? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
PepeLapiu wrote;
| Quote: | | As the wind tries to push the building over the side opposite of the wind, the downwind side, it gets compressed down so those columns get squished down. But the side facing the wind, the upwind side that is, gets stretched out. Those columns get pulled apart if you will, the load is not sideways on those columns, the load is a pulling one..... understand? |
= bending and flexing.
Your credential flourishing means nothing here, try again?
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
