| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mason-free party
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 765
Location: Staffordshire
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 5:48 pm Post subject: How the 911 truth movement is being steered |
 |
|
9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline (DEWS) Add Favourite
Click here for related discussions
P0lanski - 15 Nov'07 - 17:09 edit
9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline
By CB_Brooklyn
Lenin, the first Communist dictator after the takeover of Russia in 1917, is widely credited with the following quotation, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."
There are three basic versions of the 9/11 events. Although differences and/or overlapping may occur, the following three versions generally describe what most people believe:
1. OGCT. This is known as the “Official Government Conspiracy Theory”. This version states that a guy from a cave in Afghanistan conspired with 19 boxcutter-wielding Muslims to hijack airplanes, outwit the USA’s entire multi-trillion dollar defense system, and cause the Twin Towers to collapse. This is the version pushed by the government and media as being the truth of 9/11.
2. APCT. I call this the “Alternate Propaganda Conspiracy Theory”. This version states that, more or less, there were hijackings on 9/11, but the planes might have been taken under remote control to ensure they crashed as planned. Airplanes most likely crashed at the Pentagon and Shanksville, but planes definitely did crash into the Twin Towers. The Twin Towers and WTC 7 collapsed from conventional explosives and thermite, and molten metal was found in the rubble. This is the version pushed by the government and media as being the “wacko conspiracy theory” that the “truth movement” believes.
3. REAL. This, simply, is the REAL version, backed by actual evidence, Laws of Physics, and common sense: There were no hijackings, no plane crashes, the corporate media broadcasted cartoons of an airplane impacting the South Tower, and the WTC complex (not just the Towers and WTC 7) was destroyed with Directed Energy Weapons (DEW). The government and media steer clear of these.
Refer to the Lenin-credited quote above.
Is it possible the “truth movement” has been run by the 9/11 perpetrators since day one?
Is it possible that certain individuals have been planted to steer the “truth movement” away from the perpetrators? Is it possible these plants have affiliations with directed energy weapons (DEW)?
Is it even possible that some of these plants are “in on it” while others got suckered in? You be the judge.
***Former Transportation Secretary, Norman Mineta, has ties to the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS).
Mineta was Vice President of Lockheed Martin, a sponsor of DEPS.
Norman Mineta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
DEPS Sponsors
Mineta ensured minimal interference with the DEW by grounding as many commercial airliners as possible during the timeframe of the towers’ destruction.
Mineta steered the “truth movement” toward hijackings and plane crashes by spreading the “Cheney stand down order” hoax.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/archiv...2003-05-23.htm
Norman Minetta tells 9/11 Commission that Dick Cheney knew the exact flight path of Flight 93 (and did nothing)
***Former BYU physics professor, Steven Jones, has done research at Los Alamos where directed energy weapons are researched.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/...c/jones_cv.htm
Jones steered the “truth movement” toward thermite/conventional explosives/molten metal theories. Jones’ molten metal evidence has been shown to be fabricated.
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cm...d=91&Itemid=60
Jones ridicules the directed energy weapon and TV-Fakery theories with statements such as ”These two are noted for their no-planes-hit-the-Towers theories and for promoting the notion of ray-beams from space knocking down the Towers.”
December 6
***Physicist Greg Jenkins’ has connections to the NSA and DEW:
"This work was supported in part by NSF grant DMR-9705129 and by funding from the NSA."
http://www.physics.buffalo.edu/cerne...s/ybco_prl.pdf
Jenkins’ papers were listed in an annual report which also listed at least one manufacturer of directed energy weapons (Rockwell).
http://www.csr.umd.edu/csrpage/publi...nualreport.pdf
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/...t-overview.htm
Jenkins steered the “truth movement” away from directed energy weapons by conducting an ambush interview of Dr Judy Wood. (However, a read of the transcript reveals Dr Wood won the debate hands down.)
http://drjudywood.com/articles/trans...ranscript.html
***Official at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Van Romero, has ties to the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS).
Romero participated in events at DEPS before and after 9/11.
DE M&S Conference
DEPS Education Workshop 2000
Romero steered the “truth movement” toward standard controlled demolition by stating "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points"
9-11 Research: Van Romero
Romero is a controlled demolitions expert. Scroll down a little and note the photo. Does Romero actually think this was caused by a “relatively small amount of explosives”?
***Former Director of the Star Wars program, Robert Bowman, is about as close to directed energy weapons as one can get.
Bowman steered the “truth movement” toward hijackings, and NORAD standing down.
YouTube - 9/11 Truth: Dr. Robert Bowman Says 9/11 Was Treason
_________________
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/pro-freedom.co.uk/part_6.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mason-free party
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 765
Location: Staffordshire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alwun
Moderate Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 282
Location: london
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:29 am Post subject: coming soon |
|
|
Hey,
they're waiting for further instructions.
They will be along, one two, threee.. like the London bus.
good post - makes a lot of sense..
cheers Al.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mason-free party wrote: | | incredible....no trolls replying...thats a first |
Who are the trolls?
After all, if you dont know their names, how do you know if they turn up?
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mason-free party wrote: | | incredible....no trolls replying...thats a first |
just out of interest - do you actually have an opinion about anything to do with 9/11 that you're capable of expressing in your own words, or are you just andrew johnson's copy & paste gimp?
| mason-free party wrote: | | Lenin, the first Communist dictator after the takeover of Russia in 1917, is widely credited with the following quotation, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." |
perhaps you should give that some thought next time you're obediently swallowing and regurgitating other people's nonsense.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
There has been no response party because it is not written by you, and what’s the point of debating the messenger? If CB_Brooklyn had posted it himself we might have been discussing it by now. It's also because it just seems like such a laughable waste of time. But if you thirst for your slap down - let's play.
| Quote: | Lenin, the first Communist dictator after the takeover of Russia in 1917, is widely credited with the following quotation, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."
There are three basic versions of the 9/11 events. Although differences and/or overlapping may occur, the following three versions generally describe what most people believe:
1. OGCT. This is known as the “Official Government Conspiracy Theory”. This version states that a guy from a cave in Afghanistan conspired with 19 box cutter-wielding Muslims to hijack airplanes, outwit the USA’s entire multi-trillion dollar defence system, and cause the Twin Towers to collapse. This is the version pushed by the government and media as being the truth of 9/11. |
All fine so far - the opening quote perfectly describes the media/fakery operation to destroy this movement. Some good sense up there…
| Quote: | | 2. APCT. I call this the “Alternate Propaganda Conspiracy Theory”. This version states that, more or less, there were hijackings on 9/11, but the planes might have been taken under remote control to ensure they crashed as planned. Airplanes most likely crashed at the Pentagon and Shanksville, but planes definitely did crash into the Twin Towers. The Twin Towers and WTC 7 collapsed from conventional explosives and thermite, and molten metal was found in the rubble. This is the version pushed by the government and media as being the “wacko conspiracy theory” that the “truth movement” believes. |
Sorry, you've gone off the rails already.
What you describe as the "Propaganda" theory is not a "version" as it sums up every theory which does not involve the laughable evidenceless claims you like to forward. In fact the people you would place in this bracket are the hundreds of thousands of people around the world who have questions about 9/11 - we don't agree on everything - some people think there is not enough evidence regarding the Pentagon to speak about it, others are convinced a missile hit it, some think conventional explosives and thermite destroyed the towers, others recognise they don't have the expertise to discuss method and stick to showing how fire and debris and gravity could not do the job we saw. Some simply want to focus on the intelligence warnings and air defence failure. There are room for all views as we all have the same goals, no body is recognised as a leader, it's all just normal people doing what they can wherever they are for justice and truth.
| Quote: | | 3. REAL. This, simply, is the REAL version, backed by actual evidence, Laws of Physics, and common sense: There were no hijackings, no plane crashes, the corporate media broadcasted cartoons of an airplane impacting the South Tower, and the WTC complex (not just the Towers and WTC 7) was destroyed with Directed Energy Weapons (DEW). The government and media steer clear of these. |
Point One:
Now here we DO have a very small group of people, with clear leaders like the appalling Nico Haupt and the bafflingly odd Judy Wood. They act together, rejecting theories and picking up new theories on masse (note how before we were all "shills" because we didn't agree the planes were holograms, once that theory was pulverised we overnight all became "shills" because we didn't agree the planes were cartoons) - they are coordinated, moving in groups from forum to forum, attempting to cause division by claiming to be censored when people disagree with them, immediately attacking the moderators and administrators of the forum for "allowing" theories other than theirs to be discussed, and repeat spam posting the same videos over and over again. Unlike the "Propaganda" truthers, who are eager to debate their claims and back them up, and who focus all their efforts on people who don't yet have any inclination that the OTC of 9/11 is untrue, this lot focus 100% of their efforts on truthers (did you ever see a media/fakery type appeal to anyone but a truther?) and refuse steadfastly to debate and back up their claims, instead insulting anyone who dares to ask them a question about what they are claiming and then disappearing. Their leader Nico Haupt posts videos on the net they watch over and over again - the videos feature no facts - just constantly changing abrasive electronic music, slogans flashed on the screen so fast you can't read them (but your mind takes them in), constantly moving fields of colour, layered imagery and sound and grim readable slogans are repeated continually "Arrest William Rodriguez!" "Planehuggers Hate America" "Planehuggers Want America To Lose WW4 to Eurasia" while a picture of the loose change crew have evil clown faces super imposed on and off their faces. In his special "video blogs" he claims David Ray Griffin is a "Gay Gestapo" who gets sexual pleasure from sniffing Steven Jones’ shoes, and then goes on to plug his latest "Truth T-shirt" he is selling which is a picture of two dogs copulating with the slogan "every dog has his day" - and no mention of 911 at all on it at all. They continually claim things like "we follow the scientific method" "we have actual evidence" "the laws of physics back us" and "we use common sense" when asked to demonstrate it they either disappears, insult you, or post a pixelated you tube video and say "look - that bird's a UFO!". If you go too far in trying to debate them, they will start to name videos with insults towards you, or will start to claim that you like to kill or rape children.
Point Two:
The media have indeed "gone there" - they do so whenever things get tough. The New Statesman picked on a single comment David Shayler made about hologram planes and focussed an entire hit piece on it, ignoring all other evidence discussed. When I first started debating 9/11 on a forum one poster kept posting a video of a comedy TV show where a sceptic interviewed people protesting 9/11 truth - they quickly moved on from the people talking about air defence and focussed most of the segment on someone talking about no planes - other posters commented that while that guy was hilariously stupid, it was unfair to conflate him with what I was saying about demolition. I wonder if he was CB-Brooklyn or Fred?
| Quote: | Refer to the Lenin-credited quote above.
Is it possible the “truth movement” has been run by the 9/11 perpetrators since day one? |
Everything's possible - how likely is it is the question - we have an organically grown amorphous movement of hundreds and thousands, yet this key member of a group consisting of dozens at best thinks we are all "the operation" and this little highly controlled bundle are the only genuine people in the world? Let's see if he comes up with any evidence for it...
| Quote: | | Is it possible that certain individuals have been planted to steer the “truth movement” away from the perpetrators? Is it possible these plants have affiliations with directed energy weapons (DEW)? |
Sure but that only has any relevance if there was evidence DEW were used - otherwise it's a non-issue.
| Quote: | | Is it even possible that some of these plants are “in on it” while others got suckered in? You be the judge. |
Others meaning everyone in the world who questions 9/11 except for your micro-cult? Yes, let's be the judge.
| Quote: | ***Former Transportation Secretary, Norman Mineta, has ties to the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS).
Mineta was Vice President of Lockheed Martin, a sponsor of DEPS.
Norman Mineta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia
DEPS Sponsors
Mineta ensured minimal interference with the DEW by grounding as many commercial airliners as possible during the timeframe of the towers’ destruction.
Mineta steered the “truth movement” toward hijackings and plane crashes by spreading the “Cheney stand down order” hoax.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/archiv...2003-05-23.htm
Norman Minetta tells 9/11 Commission that Dick Cheney knew the exact flight path of Flight 93 (and did nothing) |
What are you???? Are you even a truther??? Were you ever one???
Norman Minetta DID NOT CLAIM Cheney gave a stand down order - neither did he claim he did nothing. He presented this testimony as him being witness to what he assumed was a SHOOT DOWN order being given, one he assumed failed. When questioned he admitted he had only assumed it was a shoot down order and could not confirm what the order in fact was. This has lead people in the Truth movement to conclude that it was in fact more likely a stand down order, as it would have been childsplay to shoot down the plane had that order been given and there would have been no "50 miles, 30 miles etc", and someone would be standing for treason for ignoring Cheney's order.
Christ man - do your research!
Has he done any research on directed energy weapons though?
Well?
Has it? Really? I've read several testimonies from very reliable sources who saw large quantities of molten metal at ground zero. We have it that the metals they were pulling up from the wreckage six weeks later were still glowing red hot. We have NASA thermal images showing a SURFACE TEMPERATURE of 1377degrees 6 days after 9/11. Besides all this we have the video of glowing white/orange molten metal pouring from the face of the South Tower.
| Quote: | Jones ridicules the directed energy weapon and TV-Fakery theories with statements such as ”These two are noted for their no-planes-hit-the-Towers theories and for promoting the notion of ray-beams from space knocking down the Towers.”
December 6 |
Is that not a fair assessment of your position?
Again, this is tenuous in the extreme - his papers were listed in an annual report which also listed… Jesus .. Is this what counts for research in your corner?
Not if anyone sane is reading it!
| Quote: | ***Official at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Van Romero, has ties to the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS).
Romero participated in events at DEPS before and after 9/11.
DE M&S Conference
DEPS Education Workshop 2000
Romero steered the “truth movement” toward standard controlled demolition by stating "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points"
9-11 Research: Van Romero
Romero is a controlled demolitions expert. Scroll down a little and note the photo. Does Romero actually think this was caused by a “relatively small amount of explosives”? |
Gordon Ross has demonstrated how the collapse we saw could have been achieved with a relatively small amount of explosive devices - his lecture on this is online and very interesting.
Why do you "steer" away from noting that Van Romero was leaned on to change his statement, which he did, leading to huge grants for his institution - was this a double bluff from the PTB?
Again, so what? Without evidence that DEW was involved this is all completely irrelevant.
The point you are all missing
I personally don't know if thermate played any part in the destruction of the twin towers, unlike most of your lot I recognise having an interest in a subject does not instantly make me an expert in several fields of science I have never studied, but I recognise that Jones' campaigning has had a positive impact on forwarding 9/11 truth, and the theory is benign. That is to say - it does us no damage if it turns out to be wrong.
Let's say for the sake of argument the towers end up having been destroyed by a DEW from space - what harm has Jones’ theory done? The idea that it was destroyed in an unconventional controlled demolition involving thermate hardly makes us look like wackos even if it doesn't end up being true.
Let's look at it the other way around - we all bow to your dictatorial demand to agree with everything you say - we all start going out on the streets campaigning, organising lectures, starting radio shows, asking questions at events (all the things REAL campaigners do, rather than attacking other campaigners like you lot do) on these arguments.
Then it is demonstrated to be irrevocably false - it will destroy all credibility we and any future movement questioning another false flag attack will ever have (people said 9/11 was a lie as well - you remember them- the guys who thought space beams destroyed the towers and the planes were cartoons? *chortle*). It will be the biggest blow in the campaign for positive change to the world we are all engaged it. It would be the victory of victories for the powers that be.
And let's have a look at those powers that be and their motive.
[b]DESTROYING THE TWIN TOWERS, WTC7, FOUR PLANES AND NEAR THREE THOUSAND LIVES USING A BEAM WEAPON AND DOING SO USING EXPLOSIVES AND THERMATE, OR ANY OTHER METHOD - IS THAT EXACT SAME CRIME. THE EXACT SAME CRIME[b]
What part of the mind of those who parrot this disinfo don't understand that?
Your suggestion above is that they contrived and built up an entire body of REAL CREDIBLE evidence for their having committed this crime in one way, so as to obscure the truth that they committed the same crime in a different way. If 9/11 was discovered to be an inside job it could well result in the collapse of the control of society we are all in the grip of - it shows a government willing to murder its own people, frame a whole religion of people, a media who knowingly joined them in their lie and attacked others who called them on it - the whole system falls apart. At that point it really wont matter to them if their use of a beam weapon was kept secret - the game will be up.
What you are suggesting is much like someone killing a man by cutting their head off with a sword, and then contriving to frame themselves for killing the same person by cutting their head off with a scythe. While there was no evidence for them having done it with a sword in the first place, they planted a scythe with their finger prints on it next to the body, planted witnesses to say they did it with a scythe, and then as a final coup – filmed themselves doing it and using a computer manipulated the footage to superimpose a scythe on top of the sword they used.
Genius.
Pure genius the disinfo agents have managed to round up people gullible enough to forward this clap trap.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | CB_Brooklyn had posted it himself we might have been discussing it by now |
Evidence is suggesting CB Brooklyn is nothing less than the ever delerious "Dr" Judy Wood
And Fred's not happy with her!
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: | | There has been no response party because it is not written by you, and what’s the point of debating the messenger? If CB_Brooklyn had posted it himself we might have been discussing it by now. It's also because it just seems like such a laughable waste of time. But if you thirst for your slap down - let's play. >snip< |
Very well put arguments Stefan.
Let's hope that at least some of your points percolate through to those
who would benefit most.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ningen
Minor Poster
Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 48
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:59 am Post subject: Energy was added |
|
|
In response to Stefan:
Energy was added and that's all that matters for me. Explosives, thermate, nukes, DEW, it was energy far beyond the potential energy of the buildings. I think we should all be able to agree on that, and that should be enough.
The planes are different, though. It does matter. I'm not scared of a directed energy weapon from space, although I guess I should be since I could be zapped anytime. And the idea that the ruling class nuked the WTC doesn't scare me much more than that they used conventional explosives.
What I'm scared of is living in a polity ruled by a military/industrial/media complex that can use television as a mind weapon, and having my fellow citizens, including myself, fooled so deeply for years.
The planes argument comes down to saying that millions of people saw it, so it must be true. That's about it. There's no other "evidence" of planes. The debris is obviously planted, because it was found in physically impossible locations far beyond the buildings, supposedly after passing through the buildings. That's preposterous, and the NIST reports, in close reading, say that clearly.
I wish NPT was not associated with DEW. They are completely separate arguments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:10 pm Post subject: Re: Energy was added |
|
|
| Ningen wrote: | In response to Stefan:
Energy was added and that's all that matters for me. Explosives, thermate, nukes, DEW, it was energy far beyond the potential energy of the buildings. I think we should all be able to agree on that, and that should be enough.
The planes are different, though. It does matter. I'm not scared of a directed energy weapon from space, although I guess I should be since I could be zapped anytime. And the idea that the ruling class nuked the WTC doesn't scare me much more than that they used conventional explosives.
What I'm scared of is living in a polity ruled by a military/industrial/media complex that can use television as a mind weapon, and having my fellow citizens, including myself, fooled so deeply for years.
The planes argument comes down to saying that millions of people saw it, so it must be true. That's about it. There's no other "evidence" of planes. The debris is obviously planted, because it was found in physically impossible locations far beyond the buildings, supposedly after passing through the buildings. That's preposterous, and the NIST reports, in close reading, say that clearly.
I wish NPT was not associated with DEW. They are completely separate arguments. |
Ningen, is there any evidence there weren't planes?
That is my concern, as for all the bluster and conviction of the NPT corwd, I still haven't seen any.
I saw planes hit on TV; witnesses saw planes hit; I've personally met someone who saw the second plane hit with their own eyes; the impact damage matches a plane perfectly.
That is our starting point.
Now if evidence was presented to show that this was not the case; that's one thing, but we can't have everything being faked on computer as our logical starting position - and then prove they weren't.
We start with what is apparent - planes hitting the WTC and if we don't move from that position until it has been logically shown that they did not.
So far, no one has done this.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: | | Ningen, is there any evidence there weren't planes? |
Is there any evidence there were planes?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Of course there is Mark
The eye-witnesess, the TV and amateur footage, the debris, the accounts of the military/air traffic control, etc, etc.
Now of course it is entirely possible to question this evidence, show that it is unreliable and show that other evidence exists that contradicts this evidence, but it can't be denied that this evidence exists.
Perhaps the way to ask this is, 'is there proof beyond any reasonable doubt that planes/no planes were used?' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From what I've researched the reported evidence for planes is:
TV
Eye witnesses
Debris
Radar
Have I missed anything ?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | From what I've researched the reported evidence for planes is:
TV
Eye witnesses
Debris
Radar
Have I missed anything ? |
amateur footage independant from news networks(which TV dos'nt cover, TV suggests only news networks captured the image of a plane).
holes in the towers that seem to match a plane.
thats all i can think of that was not covered, but am stuggling to see what else there could be.
what evidence would you expect apart from what has already been covered?
i think everything mentioned between us is the only possible evidence there is in any plane crash. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would have thought a thorough air accident investigation, or 4, would have cleared it all up by now.
Makes you wonder why they haven't really.
Doesn't it?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | | I would have thought a thorough air accident investigation, or 4, would have cleared it all up by now. |
i would agree interms of proving what plane hit and if they were indeed the said planes ie: flight 11 etc etc.
which could easily be confirmed through serial numbers which they seem reluctent to show for what ever reason.
but where evidence for a plane being involved is concered like you say here:
| Quote: | | From what I've researched the reported evidence for planes is: |
all the evidence you'd expect to see is there and covers all possible evidence you'd expect from a plane crash to come to a conclusion a plane was indeed involved.
the only basis for thinking there were no planes is cherry picked witnesses stood in the wrong place, angles showing no planes but again wrong angle, the presumption and optical illusion of a explosion/dust being a nose out, and very poor quality clips slowed right down to less than 1 frame per second to show "melting" and totally lack of respect for the speed of the impact and design of the towers, that it becomes rock paper scissors science.
other than that all plane evidence is present from every possible form of evidence to conclude a plane of some sort was involved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephen
Moderate Poster
Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 819
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | From what I've researched the reported evidence for planes is:
TV
Eye witnesses
Debris
Radar
Have I missed anything ? |
TV = Faked
Eye Witnesses = Unreliable
Debris = Planted
Radar = Poor evidence |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stephen wrote: | | Mark Gobell wrote: | From what I've researched the reported evidence for planes is:
TV
Eye witnesses
Debris
Radar
Have I missed anything ? |
TV = Faked
Eye Witnesses = Unreliable
Debris = Planted
Radar = Poor evidence |
Coma victims and their keyboard warriors = priceless.
For everything else, there's a proper investigation.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | stephen wrote: | | Mark Gobell wrote: | From what I've researched the reported evidence for planes is:
TV
Eye witnesses
Debris
Radar
Have I missed anything ? |
TV = Faked
Eye Witnesses = Unreliable
Debris = Planted
Radar = Poor evidence |
Coma victims and their keyboard warriors = priceless.
For everything else, there's a proper investigation. |
 
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ningen
Minor Poster
Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 48
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Stefan, the problem is that so much of the evidence for planes has been refuted.
This is my summary of arguments:
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/06/summary-of-this-blogs-argumen ts.html
September Clues does not even address my main argument, that videos showing an impossible event have been presented as real, and faked evidence of planes has been planted. It's icing on the cake of my argument. Whether my cake is edible is another question, and I welcome critique. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paul wright
Moderator
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Excellent material, Ningen
Of course I take Stefan's much earlier point about either which way as very well-argued and one which I follow myself, though without the antagonistic tone. Still, Mark G's excellent idea for a closed or highly structured debate ...where's that at this time?
It's time we got off this repetetive and divisive roundabout
_________________
http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ningen
Minor Poster
Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 48
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks, Paul. I would like to have a debate, though I'm not the best person to take the no planes side, especially if it involves the videos discussed in September Clues. I think I have a pretty good idea of where the debate stands as to the videos that show semaless penetration -- the CBC Cheney video, the Scott Myers video used by NIST, and the Evan Fairbanks video.
Here is an invitation for a debate with Eric Salter, Greg Jenkins, and Steven Jones, which unfortunately was not accepted. The invitation states my criticisms of the arguments they have made.
http://progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=2 18&topic_id=6180 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ningen
Minor Poster
Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 48
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| paul wright wrote: | Still, Mark G's excellent idea for a closed or highly structured debate ...where's that at this time?
It's time we got off this repetetive and divisive roundabout |
Simon Shack hasn't got back to me.
So Ace Baker's offer still stands.
| Ace Baker wrote: | I told Mark I'd be willing to participate in a debate, depending on the actual debate topic.
I would suggest this:
"UA flight 175, a Boeing 767 impacted the South Tower on 9/11".
I'd certainly debate the negative position on that.
I'd also suggest that only people willing to use their real names, and real credentials, be considered. I for one am fed up with anonymous internet personalities making unaccountable assertions.
Good luck finding a video FX person to defend the official story. Eric Salter is the only one I know of who has openly supported the plane theory. Perhaps he'll do it, but I suspect he is quite afraid of debating me. |
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
i found that link intresting, but maybe not in the way you think.
there is a video on the link you provided.
here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQTsiLX3XbA
now watch this one which is on a different network, which shows the same angle and shot which has been provided by webfairy via youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaTs_hSbI8Q
did you notice the difference?
now watch the first clip again and look in the same place at the same moment and follow the flight path it took, you can just make out something moving on the same flight path.
either somebody is trying to blank out the planes somehow to fool people into thinking there was no plane in that shot, or compression made it harder to tell in video 1 than video 2.
either way the plane was there in both shots, however it is being used to prove tv fakery/npt due to no plane.
who's fooling who here? are they trying to fool me or you?
one blatent lie is enough for me, how can i take the rest of their research seriously and trust they have their facts right and they are not just blind to the obvious.
infact i have to wonder why the video where there seems to be no plane has a big black boarder around it yet the other video that shows a plane has not? could it be to hide the plane entering the shot making it harder to pick up and follow?
the boarder certainly seems to be there for that purpose as far as i can tell, therefore that would make it outright cheating and lieing inorder to prove something on false evidence by manipulating the footage by who ever made it, the video proves there was a plane once you see past those who are decieving you, the boarder proves it 100% in my eyes, why do you think they stuck the boarder in???? to fool you all and claim NO PLANE! on a lie!
check the other 9/11 video's i aint seeing big black boarders around those ones.
lets just crop that and crop this, twist that evidence and twist what he said, there we go no plane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yup - the only people who we can definitively prove to be guilty of deliberate deception and faking of images/video of the wtc attacks are the tv fakery "researchers".
and if they have to do this to make their case, it speaks volumes about its credibility and their own. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Marky thanks for your comments.
If I include the amateur footage in a TV / Video / Photo category along with the plane shaped hole videographic record then, we still have these 4 categories:
TV / Amateur Video / Photographs
Eye witnesses
Debris
Radar
Is that OK?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | Marky thanks for your comments.
If I include the amateur footage in a TV / Video / Photo category along with the plane shaped hole videographic record then, we still have these 4 categories:
TV / Amateur Video / Photographs
Eye witnesses
Debris
Radar
Is that OK? |
yes it covers every form of evidence we have been provided with, but you could also argue if the plane shapes are photographic evidence then so are the debris so it would be narrowed down to 3 catergories 
sorry to be a pain, ignore me i agree with what you said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
what about plausibility?
ie can the theory plausibly account for all that happened?
I'd be particularly interested to hear a plausible explanation of how the impact damage to the towers could have been created in the absence of a plane as this is something I've asked over and over again (you can find my questions on many threads in this forum) - so far to no avail....
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=99287#99287 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
