| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
xmasdale
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1959
Location: South London
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:49 am Post subject: plane denial or hugging? |
 |
|
Plane Denial or Hugging?
Wouldn't the PTB just love it if we all fell out with each other over whether there were planes or not?
IMO being accurate about what really happened is not important to convincing the public that we have all been deceived about who was pulling the strings behind the 9/11 attacks. We probably don't have enough evidence to determine what actually happened, though we have masses of evidence to prove we have been told a pack of lies.
It's going to be much harder to convince the public of our credibility if we insist that there is now technology beyond our ken which can give the semblance of planes crashing into buildings. There is already plenty of speculative stuff written on this website which is used by others to discredit us. Oh for a presentable shop window website for the Campaign for 911 truth in this country! When will it be ready?
The common and unifying approach of our campaign should be: there are a large number of facts which contradict the official conspiracy theory and which demonstrate that we are being lied to; there are hundreds of troubling questions which need answering. The fact that no plausible answers to these questions has been offered is highly suspicious. The world needs a public inquiry.
Noel |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 1:30 pm Post subject: Re: plane denial or hugging? |
|
|
| xmasdale wrote: | | Oh for a presentable shop window website for the Campaign for 911 truth in this country! When will it be ready? |
Whilst a presentable shop window website would be helpful, IMO they already exist and no matter which presentation of the evidence we settle on, someone will always find grounds to disagree. See our links page for example: some of the suggestions are excellent, some I have reservations about. No one site will please everyone
So let's feel free to debate the evidence and not feel the need to agree about every last detail. But most of all let's take the message out there: leafletting, DVD copying and sales, stalls in the nearest high street. That is where our energies should be focussed and that is where we have the biggest impact |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflecter
Validated Poster
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 486
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not much to add here but my own current take on things.
Theres a few articles on nomoregames.net of Morgan Reynolds on this debate and lots has been discussed on the Scholars site, with Holmgren and Webfairy. It all got a little hostile and I didnt follow all the discussion. The main idea left for some, is that the planes triggered some of the charges set a split second before entry or if it was thermate then awhile in advance at the planned entry areas which allowed the knife like butter entry and the lack of much discernable deceleration of the planes. I havent seen much discussion of the DU penetrator idea but I personally think it likely as it certainly looks like one ejecting the tower. I dont think it was fired or pod mounted etc however but housed within the nose of the plane to keep it unobserved.
I think they were real planes. remote piloted. possibly swapped for drones camoflaged. I doubt any hijackers were aboard and think the real planes were downed elsewhere, either that or the real planes were the drones that people boarded and they were concussed somehow during the flights.
I think that because we know the hijackers were hardly devout islamics its highly unlikely they sacrificed themselves for this mission as Who Killed John O Reilly suggests. Therefore just a patsy trail and faked items like w199i, Ashcroft, the shootdown order changes etc all providing cover for incompetence if exposed and LIHOP at worst, when MIHOP is what really happened.
Theres far too many different bits of camera footage plus spectators to have done it with CGI and holograms, whilst feasible just seems way to hard to achieve and no-one will believe us without the people who did it confessing exactly how, same for CGI you'd need the exact software routine demonstrated in all its stages of rendering from all angles for anyone to take it seriously.
Regards
_________________
The Peoples United Collective TPUC.ORG
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kookomula
Validated Poster
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 328
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Wouldn't the PTB just love it if we all fell out with each other over whether there were planes or not?"
I am not going to stand shoulder to shoulder with anyone who denies that planes hits the WTCs. The PTB are probably falling about in hysterics reading this rubbish. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ally
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Latest from Morgan Reynolds.
| Quote: | Regarding witnesses, note that the book "102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive inside the Twin Towers" by NYT reporters Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn (Holt 2005) is entirely conventional on 767 airliners crashing into the towers but I could find only two mentions of airplane debris within the towers:
p. 93 "The wing of the jet was jammed into a door, twenty feet from where Praimnath, still alive, huddled beneath his desk." You might consult Gerard H. on the veracity of Praimnath and his alleged dive under his desk at 9:03 am to survive the high-speed arrival of a 140-ton airplane and its fireball on his floor.
p. 97 "On the 81st floor, where part of the wing was lodged in a doorway, Stanley Praimnath crawled..."
Same guy, probably same "wing" jammed or lodged into a door/doorway.
That's it! All those people in the upper floors calling outside and trying to get out of the towers and only one report of a piece of aircraft, despite the fact that the alleged 767s, each with 3.1 million parts, allegedly disappeared within the towers, shattered over many floors. This seems odd, doesn't it? Only one report of plane debris within the towers, with such Big Boeings in the towers. On p. 213 it says, "Indeed, the very fact that the building--both buildings--had been struck by commercial aircraft was not widely known inside the towers." Battalion Chief Orio J. Palmer reached the WTC2 78th floor and famously said, "We've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines." He mentioned no plane debris and unfortunately we can't ask him about it either.
There is no other mention of airplane debris within the towers other than Praimnath's in 102 Minutes but debris outside is mentioned once, allegedly in the WTC plaza:
p. 170 "...the reality in the plaza turned out to be worse. Charred body parts. Shoes. Pieces of plane. Flaming debris. Luggage. A windowpane covered in blood."
I have not heard of plane parts in the plaza. The official theory would have to have debris showering out the south side of WTC1 and the north side of WTC2 after traversing core, floors and a couple of walls. Real interesting. Any information on 767 debris in the plaza out there?
Morgan Reynolds
On Jun 29, 2006 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eckyboy
Validated Poster
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 162
Location: Edinburgh
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 2:48 pm Post subject: Strange things |
|
|
I personally think there were planes and they were remote controlled into the towers however even I admit there are a few things that I find bizarre.
On the Naudet brothers DVD of the first plane impact on the North Tower we can quite clearly hear the plane as it flies overhead but then when it seems to disappear into the building there is no impact noise almost as if there is absolutley ZERO resistance when it hits the building. Many second later we hear a loud explosion after we see the explosion. The sound should have carried but it doesnt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wokeman wrote: | | Yes, look at webfairy's pics. The "planes" are seen hitting and crashing into the WTC, but there is something not right about the way they do it. It's like a knife through butter, and real planes don't crash like that. So, yes, what you saw could have been animations. |
One WTC tower was 500,000 tons and a 757 is 140 tons. What is likely to happen?
Anyway, the builders of the towers said the planes would be the same as a pencil going through a mosquito net.
The idea of trickery is a bit absurd IMO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ally
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:18 am Post subject: Re: Strange things |
|
|
| Rosalee Grable wrote: |
Merely getting rid of the hijackers does not change the fact the "plane" is all sizes and coming from all directions.
When cameras take pictures of the same thing, they all take pictures of the same thing.
Or have until the Doublethink Truthlings take over.
In Truthling Land, the day will come that Mommies pushing baby carriages protest high milk prices, and the BORG Troopers shoot them as mini-terrorists.
If the news chooses to report that baby carriages are little tanks, people will nod, knowing unconsciously that they better nod.
Exploding upon impact is not a feature controlled either by human pilots or remotely.
It is this that the Ghostplane is most negligent in, having the audacity to melt into the building like butter, and explode on the opposite side of the building before any fireball at the site of the alleged impact.
This behavior is well documented
http://thewebfairy.com/911/ghostplane
including by my erstwhile debunkers, Salters, who gave me a lot of my best evidence.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/noplane2
http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/2explosion
http://thewebfairy.com/911/vanishment
has flight simulator "moneyshots" from the Ghostplane angle along with a nice set of closeups from Marcus Icke of the vanishment we were presented with on television.
The snarky visuals are discussed at:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com
http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com |
| Quote: | No planes offically involved with September 11, 2001 seem to be involved with the events of September 11, 2001. I am shocked that this has been ignored.........
Huh? Cancelled? On the same date in 2005? Not destroyed and cancelled
in early 2002? How can American Airlines flights show the planes
destroyed and the registration cancelled, while both United flights
show the planes as simply being cancelled without explanation 4
years after they allegedly were destroyed? Why? |
http://uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/2800b996-f937-4183-a35f-f0bda6d9f76 9 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leiff
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 509
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Has anybody seen the full sequence of the radio controlled airliner that was deliberately crashed near the beginning of LC2E?
How did that airliner react to slamming into a solid object? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ally
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leiff wrote: |
How did that airliner react to slamming into a solid object? |
You'd expect the wings to snap off regardless of the speed.
I'd like to hear Flamesong's opinion on the subject, he tends to be rather clinical in his analysis. What say you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ally
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John Buchanan wrote: | o WebFairy:
1) You are insane if you believe no planes hit WTC.
2) It is fools like you who have destroyed any realistic chance that
the truth of 9/11 will ever emerge.
3) You should take Tom Mattingly's advice and change your online ID.
No one named WebFairy should be taken seriously anyway.
4) Get a life.
For my part, I believe you are being paid, half by the CIA and half by
Comedy Central, as an agent provacatuer/humorist. No one should be as
stupid as you are for free. There's money in it these days.
I also think you must be smokin' some really fine medical marijuana.
You're hallucinating. |
RoseFairy:
Shows we'd be no better off if someone from the 911 Orwellian
Doublethink Cult got in office.
You believe in cartoons, and that's crazy. If the election's rigged
enough, you might even win with that sort of attitude.
It's the Planes that Justify the "War on Terror". It's the planes that
give excuse for taking old ladies knitting needles at airports.
You haven't been paying any attention to the evidence, eh?
Just judging by your own imagination, eh?
The second hit footage they showed us on TV on September 11 2001,
supposedly live, was cartoons.
http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com
Different sizes, different colors, different approaches, but one just as
unrealistic as the next.
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html
These cartoons were made for the wargames and terror drills
coincidentally scheduled for the same day gone live.
The planes they took missing were not retired till years later, the last
one, 93, in 2005.
They were worn out flying renditions and running drugs.
http://wkjo.com
Which would make really good sense considering the actual nature of the
perps.
Pretending that it's crazy to notice the difference between a real plane
http://911closeup.com/planes
and a cartoon
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html
is crazy.
Or maybe worse than crazy. Planehugging is an accompaniment to every
form of global fascism. If they disagree on everything else, their
solidarity of believing in fictional planes holds the plot together.
Everybody chanting the same lie isn't the same thing as truth.
The Doublethink Cult worships planes like they're some kind of god.
Webfairy was my online name since 1999. If I'd of known I'd wind up
spending 4 years and some of 911 research, maybe I'd of picked something
more impressive like 'Truth Candidate".
| Richard Gove wrote: |
(My apologies, when I attempted to send earlier, I encountered "network
problems"; so I have attached this response in MS Word format as well (click
"read only") to ensure that the hyperlinks are preserved, so that we are
communicating clearly- sorry for the inconvenience- Happy Independence Day!)
John:
You're right... Unfortunately, Rosalee's contentions are "crazy"... they're
as crazy as saying that the President's grandfather was a Nazi War Criminal
and was investigated under McCormack Dickstein in 1934... (Yes, I'm a big
fan of your work, your interviews, and especially your cameo in Palast's
Bush Family Fortunes); and by that I don't mean to say that "Rosalee's
right" and "you're wrong", rather, I'm relating that we all have areas where
we are strong, and others where we need to become stronger. We've all seen
unique sights along this journey, so I'm asking everyone to share what's
useful, and try to make each other better, sharper, as the result of our
actions together.
At the weakest points of our cognitive comprehension, the legitimate
observations of one might be seen as "crazy" to others in the group, but
only because of the information-gap that needs to be bridged. In the case
of 9-11, we have to search for the answers in "crazy" sometimes because
that's where these looney-toons are hiding the truth from us (plausibly,
because their actions circumvent conventional logic- and as William
Shakespeare allegedly wrote "Aye, there's the rub".)
In many cases, calling something "crazy" is just a reactionary defense
mechanism, which has been conditioned into every person who grew up with a
TV and/or access to a movie theatre. I'm here to act as a bridge in this
situation, because I do not think that you and Rosalee are on opposite sides
of the fence; I think that you might just want to take in a different
perspective... sometimes these issues are figurative as well as literal
optical illusions, stepping to the side for a moment won't make you crazy;
and you can always step back after you've looked from another view.
Normally, I stay out of these interactions; and just read as a fly on the
wall... but the last message struck accord with me, and in light of
something I published and recorded before today's conversation; I thought
that investing my $.02 here might yield some progress...
First: When my story broke, Rosalee attacked me right out of the gate...
but, upon further thought, she decided to go one step further and give me
the benefit of the doubt... and research me herself; and I would say that
she is now very much satisfied (in hindsight) that she gave my evidence and
documentation a second look. So, I'm not one to discount people based on
first-impressions; because I've found that with a little work and
sensitivity toward (ourselves) AND the group, that we can get through the
Forming and Storming (where people butt-heads) of the four stages of
group-dynamics; and head straight into Norming and Performing- where we come
to work in concert...each offering the BEST of what we have, for the good of
the Objective (which in this case is to identify, and then hold the real
terrorists accountable).
Second: As someone who used to work on the 96th floor of WTC 1, and was
within 1/2 mile when the first plane allegedly hit the tower... in a
convertible, top down; I heard no plane, saw no plane (in either case) and I
certainly am not contending that there was "no plane", however, I have never
seen any evidence of American Airlines Flight 11 near WTC 1... I've never
seen a tail number. Anyone who was in Chicago at the recent conference is
familiar with the phenomenon of a jumbo-jet flying 2,000 feet of less above
their head... you can't even hear each other talk... and on the morning of
9-11 there was stark silence, you could hear the radios in other peoples
cars. This is one of the reasons that I wrote an article over last weekend
about this, instead of going to the beach.
So why don't we all take a break for a few and consider not the
"impossible", rather the evidence which led many of us to question the
veracity of the videos shown over and over to US. I respect you and your
work immensely, but my fiancée and I have also met Rosalee in person; and I
can assure you that if she's on the CIA payroll, then they need to upgrade
her bicycle (though it is a retro aqua-blue classic cruiser, complete with
bell), and replace the light on it (I know, as I purchased batteries and
attempted to fix it myself in Chicago); the Webfairy must be one heck of an
under-cover agent... she works for free, and she doesn't use petroleum to
power her transport... so you may want to give her the benefit of the doubt.
I don't doubt that you are who you have demonstrated yourself to be through
your work, and I empathize with the frustration of a challenging idea like
that of Rosalee's observation...
But consider this: IF she's going in the right direction, what does it mean-
to you, and the rest of us? Shouldn't we at least take a look?
So how about this: take a few minutes to consider what I set forth in my
article (link below) and then I'll let everyone pick on me for a while...
there is merit to consider Rosalee's line of thought- and you have the
complementary information under your hat that would explain the history of
the people behind it.
JB- your work is exemplary, the fact that you were the FIRST journalist to
investigate and search the National Archives for the evidence on Prescott,
GHWB, and the shrub... but regarding the Flight 11 questions- I was there
that morning, so close that I had pieces of that building coming down in ash
all over, especially after the 2nd explosion which took place in WTC 2...
and, I lost many friends and co-workers that morning; and thus I've been
looking at this with a disciplined focus.
My website is www.8thestate.com and the Audio Article: Paramount Propaganda:
Hollywood's Attack on America's Reality (Continues) which beyond information
from Jason Bermas (Loose Change, 2nd Edition) about Flight 93 going to NASA
GLENN RESEARCH CENTER... includes observations that have led me to suspect
for a long time that the Jules Naudet film is the new Zapruder film... but
you'll hear/read all about it, because I know that you have an open mind,
and are a creature of logic; and I hope that we can discuss amiably, because
even if Rosalee is not correct... her suspicions are well placed.
Beyond that, I think that you'd be interested in the
Bush/Greenberg/AIG/Marsh/and EMC Corp connections set forth through my
testimony, court documents, FOIA requests, and audio-recordings of
executives involved (in their own words) related to the extreme amounts of
drug money being laundered via the U.S. Stock Market...
Let it marinate, do some clicking, and then let me know if I've got the
right John Buchanan 
That's it- I spoke my peace, exercised my Liberty to say what someone else
didn't want to hear-...
As Orwell once related: "If liberty means anything at all, it means the
right to tell people what they do not want to hear"...
Rosalee has a right to an opinion without being labeled as "crazy"... so do
you; isn't this a great country? Great. Let's go to work, together.
Looking Forward,
Richard
And just in case we encountered more gremlins... you can read: Paramount
Propaganda (covering Naudet, NASA, and Hollywood v Independence and
Independent Filmmakers) at: http://www.8thestate.com/?page_id=54
|
nuts  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
