THE NEW NO 7X7 DEBATE

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

This is a challenge to those who firmly believe that real large jets were used on 9/11 to take part in a debate to those who believe otherwise.

For thise who do not give a hoot either way - or who think we are damaging the truth movement (Eg Blackcat and Minimauve) please do not take part.

I am going to frame a series of questions that would suggest large jets were not used - let's have a serious debate.

I will post my questions later today.

If anybody wants to frame a different series of questions that would suggest large planes were used - then please volunteer

In the meantime to give some structure to the debate - can we have some indication of who wants to take part in this genuine debate and which camp they fall into.

[mobypaterson]

Okay I will start off by voicing the opinions of (I think) most of us here.

The reason I know big planes were used in the attacks is because I watched, on television two big massive planes crash into the side of towers 1 and 2.

I also believe that that there a number of eye witnesses to attest to this but off hand do not have sources here...


(just so you know where I stand, I do think planes hit the buildings but last night read an interview with Dave Shayler and he believes they didn't. That offered a little bit of credibility I think...)

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Ok Moby - I will put you on the side of the plane huggers

[Roger the Horse]

Moby Paterson said;

Okay I will start off by voicing the opinions of (I think) most of us here.

The reason I know big planes were used in the attacks is because I watched, on television two big massive planes crash into the side of towers 1 and 2.

Yep. That is my opinion and (I hope) most of us here.

Put me down as a 'plane hugger' too Truthwillsetufree!

[marky 54]

i believe planes hit also, although i think the second plane was not an american airliner. it was definatley grey.

[optimus79]

The reason I know that 2 large planes crashed in to the towers is because it would have been absolute lunacy for them to have used this kind of technology in an event which would be given global media scrutiny.

They can easily fly real planes in to the towers, that would not be a problem for them and it would offer the same visual result, which was part of what they wanted.

Also if you look at the speed of the planes as they hit the buildings, they are flying at speed but nothing like the velocity you would expect from a missile.

There was absoultely no reason for them not to use real planes, all this would do would endanger their mission (thats effectively what it was).


This idea is absolute lunacy and sooner this forum moves it aside to an "alternative theories" forum the better.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Ok Optimus - I get your message - you do not want to take part in the debate

[Ally]

[program58]

The debate is superfluous. The buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. No planes theories are in 'Tony Blair’s words, ' a ludicrous diversion'. Those that peddle the need to debate this misinformation should now consider that their actions are in Tony’s best interest.

It is not about debate any more. It is about action. Action that will get us the result we all crave. An inquiry with teeth and justice meted out to those responsible for 9/11.

The truth will set you free indeed. But those children dying in Afghanistan and Iraq experience an everyday truth while you can afford to slow down the truth movement with theories which can never be proven in a court of law.

The focus is myopic and your vanity is almost New Labour in proportion. If I have offended you I apologise, as my harsh words are meant to be compassionate. Maybe your energies would be best spent to create awareness around the collapse of Building 7; helping to bring about peaceful regime change within our 'democratic' governments, thus saving lives rather than the luxury of vain intellectual posturing on a blog.

[Ally]

why do the trolls despise people talking about what hit the towers?

BTW, there's a night on in Leeds tomorrow, hope to see you representing there, bring all your friends, hopefully we can get a few more minds to wake up and smell the fascism.

[graphicequaliser]

Incredible, ain't it? We want to debate the NPT, and we get loads of plane-huggers stifling the show.

Let me toss my hat into the ring. I believe 911 was the first attempt at making people see what the govt. wanted them to see, by them interfering with images with new holographic or stealth technology, so that the mass media unwittingly spread the illusion. Sure, people saw planes flying into the buildings, but I am also deceived by simple optical illusions.

[optimus79]

[chek]

[blackcat]

[marky 54]

ah, doh. didnt realise this was a npt debate. plane shaped holes is a big flaw in the arguement, so would suggest explaining this with some type of evidence, that the holes can be caused by other means other than planes if you want those that dont stand with you to start taking it seriously. just a suggestion not critism, i can see your points you have explained before upto this point. it is hard to believe they were caused by placed explosives unless there some type of evidence. the holes clearly show very slim imprints from the wings. explosives arnt this neat as far as i am aware. if this can be done and proved to be done then it is possible in my mind regardless of if i still think it didnt happened this way.

[Jayhawk]

::yawns::

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

A MESSAGE TO THE MODERATORS

PLEASE SEE THIS THREAD AND THE ABUSE BEING RECEIVED
FROM POSTERS LOOKING TO DISRUPT A SENSIBLE DEBATE

[John White]

[chek]

[paul wright]

I tend to agree with you there John. I'm by no means a planehugger myself, having spent a while communicating with Rosalee Grable back in '03. But I am a little bit irritated by seeing the same old thread being repeated as a new one, and the same old 'don't even look' gatekeepers jumping in at once. What's the point?
Perhaps we need a quite separate board, though retaining friendly links with this where items of interest deemed a bit far out from the central mission statement of the Campaign could be knocked about to everbody's hearts' content.
We could have the no planes stuff, interferometric/mininuke assistance in the destruction of Towers 1 & 2, ufos and orbs on 9/11, to think of 3 forums of merit and interest off the cuff.
It might even draw in supporters from elsewhere who find the mainstream campaign too tame and limited for their liking

It could be knocked out pretty quick

[chek]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

OK Here we go

Question 1.

Why was the Jet that allegedly hit WTC travelling at twice the normal operating for that altitude.

Was it.

(a) To make sure the planes could not be properly captured on film and give the game away that they were not real

(b) They wanted to increase the chances of the operation going wrong by making the planes more difficult to control

(c) They thought that travelling at normal speeds would not allow the plane to penetrate the building

(d) other answer

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Question 2

Some of you plane huggers believe it was a large military plane that hit WTC 2

Why would the perps do this when a military plane contradicts the official story and they would then have the problem of disposing of the original 7x7s and they would also have to somehow hijack the military plane and account for it's absence.

[chek]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Question 3

Given that the media were lined up like preying mantis's after the first hit
please explain why there is not one single clear shot of the plane - was it because

(a) It was just a coincidence that all the camera operators zoomed out at the critical moment

(b) The expert camera operators from ABC news and CNN were all of sick that day - and you know (you just can't get the staff these days)

(c) The weather was very poor , rain, misty, cloudy, hazy sunshine and generally very poor visibility

(d) other

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Question 4

When the alleged plane hit WTC2 the fireball was from the exit wound - why was there no fireball at the collision site?

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Question 5

When the plane that hit WTC in slow motion replays shows no plane wreckage bouncing off the exterior or falling down the side - all you see is smoke and dust - did the entire plane enter the building or are we missing something - can anybody show any visual evidence whatsoever of wreckage on it's way down?

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Question 6

Please explain why different footage is showing inconsistencies of the angle of approach for the same plane?

[chek]

[chek]