Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:00 pm Post subject: Dark days before i saw the light...Amen
911 'No-Planes' Conspirators
Seek To Sabotage Truth
It's now entirely obvious -- no-planes
is false-opposition truth sabotage
By Dick Eastman
11-4-6
Think about it. While the real investigators take the evidence and link them to men in the Defense Department and in Israel -- the no-planers remain stuck on the assertion that all the 45 video recordings were faked and that all the witnesses who saw the planes are liars and the just make the vaguest totally detached references to "the perps" or just "perps".
They have never linked all the alleged graphics work -- the cartoons we supposedly are all seeing -- to any angency or individual i.e., they never point fingers at anybody specific or to any organization -- just to the magical word "perps" -- but they know all the "truthling" "planehuggers" -- they slander David Ray Griffith and Prof Steven Jones and Russell Pickering and Alex Jones -- in fact, everyone who doesn't agree with them on this one issue they attack by name -- whereas we, the real investigators, will identify Dov Zakheim as being involved with equipment for totally remote controlled air combat and his fanatical Zionism and his dual citizenship -- and the fact that EgyptAir990 -- filled with high Egyptian officers returning from the US to Egypt was taken over so that the pilot and co-pilot could not control it -- a voice is actually heard in English say "control it" after the pilot left the cabin to use the restroom (the pilot and co-pilot spoke Arabic throughout) -- at which time the plane lost control -- and went into a dive (you can hear the co-pilot panicing and calling on Allah when this happened) -- etc. -- all of this is ignored and pushed aside by the no-planers.
You will note also that the no-planers never show doubt -- 45 videos against them, all the witnesses against them, the forensics of the holes made in the buildings against them -- the fact that they have no recordings and no witnesses who where looking at the wall on the south side of the South Tower suddenly explode without a plane hitting it -- not one -- despite this the no-planers have no doubts about their conclusions?
I show them where they have misrepresented (slandered) the witnesses -- all the firemen who say they saw the plane crash, for example -- calling them liars. Even a man who was targeted for death, Stanley Praimnath who saw the United Plane coming right at him from his office window in South Tower -- they accuse him of lying -- and do so all on totally false misquotations of what Praimnath actually said.
No planers are propaganda agents out to discredit and sabotage those who want the truth out.
And they make it clear that one reason they "hate" all the "truthlings" -- whom they slander as "racists" and "white supremacists" (always totally wrong -- a lie that is the exact opposite of the truth) -- they always heap their contempt on anyone whose findings point to Zionists or Israel being involved in 9-11.
And we find that Holmgren is closely associated with Jared Israel -- has been since 2001 as I well remember -- Jared Israel who dedicates his emperorsclothes site to the thesis that Israel and Jews are innocent of 9-11 -- forget the laughing Israelis, Silverstien, the 87 Israelis who were in the country illegally and who had top security clearance badges at Dulles and Reagan National airports on 9-11 and the months leading up to 9-11 (Ashcroft deported them back to Israel a few months after 9-11 - one said on Israeli radio "we went to photograph the event" -- plus the Israeli (Mossad) movers -- etc. etc. the links are endless -- and yet we must argue "no-planes" -- that all the videos and witnesses are liars -- while Paul Wolfowitz instead of getting life in prison for mass murder and crimes against himanity -- goes on to head the International Monetary Fund -- showing his links and trust by the Merchant Bankers who are profiteering from war finance borrowing (Iraq will cost 2 trillion when all costs are added up) and who are each Zionists and sociopaths who do not care about lives of the little people when those lives stand in the way of their gaining more power and money.
People are afraid to agree with me (Dick Eastman) because they they know I have fingered the right people -- people fear the people I have fingered.
And so you sit there reading all of my posts exposing the "no-planer" cointelpro -- and yet you are too afraid to speak up and say Yes, Eastman is done -- lets denounce and blackball these proven disinformation agents working against us -- let's get on with going after the people we have already proven are responsible.
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
Last edited by mason-free party on Sun Jul 01, 2007 10:05 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:24 am Post subject: No-Planes
I think its a bit rough to say everyone who belives in no-planes is a stooge.
Thats really the trouble with 9/11 investigation, if one accepts all we knew about this world to be false then its very easy to fall "a little TOO far down the rabbithole" as it were.
That said no-planes/holograms/video fakery is a school of thought that falls well outside the bounds of sensible forensic investiagtion.
C. _________________ The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
Joined: 23 Dec 2005 Posts: 500 Location: South London
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:13 am Post subject: Re: No-Planes
Snowygrouch wrote:
I think its a bit rough to say everyone who belives in no-planes is a stooge.
Thats really the trouble with 9/11 investigation, if one accepts all we knew about this world to be false then its very easy to fall "a little TOO far down the rabbithole" as it were.
That said no-planes/holograms/video fakery is a school of thought that falls well outside the bounds of sensible forensic investiagtion.
C.
Not logical, Snowygrouch. If, as you say, one accepts all we knew about this world to be false then how can you say how far down the rabbithole is too far.
Outside the bounds of sensible forensic investigation? Again, completely illogical. No planes is an empirical hypothesis. It cannot possibly be outside those bounds. _________________ Follow the numbers
if these images of planes flying into the twin towers were created by holograms or whatever why didn't they create one flying into the Pentagon...in a nutshell its all disinfo bollox
if these images of planes flying into the twin towers were created by holograms or whatever why didn't they create one flying into the Pentagon...in a nutshell its all disinfo bollox
I can't agree with this. Some of us on the forum here have been on an e-mail list with this Eastman character.
I deleted it most of the messages written by him. Why? Because most of them did not really address points of evidence (such as the inflated tyre under the scaffolding) and the far-too-small amount of wreckage which bounced off the WTC when the plane crashed.
He was rude, abusive and derrogatory in almost all cases. One of his group made something approaching death threats.
I get very suspicious of people who resort to these sorts of tactics to try and win arguments - esp. as the move further and further away from specific points of evidence. _________________ Andrew
if these images of planes flying into the twin towers were created by holograms or whatever why didn't they create one flying into the Pentagon...in a nutshell its all disinfo bollox
I can't agree with this. Some of us on the forum here have been on an e-mail list with this Eastman character.
I deleted it most of the messages written by him. Why? Because most of them did not really address points of evidence (such as the inflated tyre under the scaffolding) and the far-too-small amount of wreckage which bounced off the WTC when the plane crashed.
He was rude, abusive and derrogatory in almost all cases. One of his group made something approaching death threats.
I get very suspicious of people who resort to these sorts of tactics to try and win arguments - esp. as the move further and further away from specific points of evidence.
So Andrew how do you explain the imprint of a plane in the TWIN TOWER building ..if it was a missile then there would be no imprint.Also what about the plane that hit the Empire State in 1945..did wreckage fall to the ground in that case?..big difference in speed though from jet to propellor driven
Here's a summary on that event http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm
One of the engines and part of the landing gear hurtled across the 79th floor, through wall partitions and two fire walls, and out the south wall's windows to fall onto a twelve-story building across 33rd Street. The other engine flew into an elevator shaft and landed on an elevator car. The car began to plummet, slowed somewhat by emergency safety devices. Miraculously, when help arrived at the remains of the elevator car in the basement, the two women inside the car were still alive.
Some debris from the crash fell to the streets below, sending pedestrians scurrying for cover, but most fell onto the buildings setbacks at the fifth floor. Still, a bulk of the wreckage remained stuck in the side of the building. After the flames were extinguished and the remains of the victims removed, the rest of the wreckage was removed through the building.
Can we have this post locked as I'm sure I'm not the only one that's sick to death of this sh*t. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
So Andrew how do you explain the imprint of a plane in the TWIN TOWER building ..if it was a missile then there would be no imprint.Also what about the plane that hit the Empire State in 1945..did wreckage fall to the ground in that case?..big difference in speed though from jet to propellor driven
Yes - I think this can be explained. Many explanations have already been posted here.
Eastman is an unpleasant character - despite how reasonable his articles may sound. I will certainly look at the empire state stuff. However, off the top of my head, I am pretty sure that the empire state didn't have a steel frame - hence I can understand the plane smashing through brickwork - i.e. physically the crash can only be partly compared to WTC
The façade is composed of more than 200,000 cubic feet of Indiana limestone and granite, and utilizes several setbacks to offset the optical distortion of its 102-story height. _________________ Andrew
I'd like to see the plane huggers explain why there is no plane in the wide shot at the start of the clip. And the ALUMINIUM nose of the plane emerges from the otherside of the WTC which demonstrates more fakery at work. _________________
Alleged NY 9/11 Plane Part missing in Satellite Pic
Quote:
Judy Wood writes:
"...I've added a locater diagram for Figure 62....
..This paper isn't about "no-big-Boeing," but it seemed worthwhile to point out this image. Also, (currently numbered) Figure 9 on this page, shows where the "landing gear" had to have flown. Note the intersection in the lower right corner of that photo. The "landing gear" piece would have had to clear all those buildings then plop down into that last canyon. Note how far the lightweight aluminum cladding flew. I only found two pieces on that building behind the Postal Bldg. So, how is the "landing gear" going to make it over that high hurdle beyond the next block?..."
Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 431 Location: North East England
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 6:44 pm Post subject:
Ally wrote:
I'd like to see the plane huggers explain why there is no plane in the wide shot at the start of the clip. And the ALUMINIUM nose of the plane emerges from the otherside of the WTC which demonstrates more fakery at work.
I'd like to see the plane huggers explain why there is no plane in the wide shot at the start of the clip. And the ALUMINIUM nose of the plane emerges from the otherside of the WTC which demonstrates more fakery at work.
.....Yawn..... So whats your explanation then?
yawn, is that all you got to offer? You're the one who should explain to me why the plane isn't visible at the start of the clip yet they manage to zoom in on cue for the money shot which clearly contradicts what Fox had shown live seconds earlier. _________________
Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 431 Location: North East England
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 7:16 pm Post subject:
Ally wrote:
wepmob2000 wrote:
Ally wrote:
I'd like to see the plane huggers explain why there is no plane in the wide shot at the start of the clip. And the ALUMINIUM nose of the plane emerges from the otherside of the WTC which demonstrates more fakery at work.
.....Yawn..... So whats your explanation then?
yawn, is that all you got to offer? You're the one who should explain to me why the plane isn't visible at the start of the clip yet they manage to zoom in on cue for the money shot which clearly contradicts what Fox had shown live seconds earlier.
Perhaps the holographic projector flickered for a second while the operator changed the video tape?
Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 431 Location: North East England
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 7:20 pm Post subject:
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
Yes Wepmob - you really are pathetic
Does this count as an ad-hominen attack? Like I've said before I really have my doubts about you THETRUTHWILLSETUS3 and what your true intentions are? Are you some kind of double agent?
Hmm, give you two (especially TTWSU3) the merest whiff of a 'no plane' thread and you're there like a pair of slobbering bloodhounds. Is this really the kind of pseudo-'evidence' thats going to convince the wider public? More likely it hijacks yet another thread, whilst giving a very strange first impression to any interested newcomer who is browsing the site........
Perhaps the holographic projector flickered for a second while the operator changed the video tape?
This is pretty much standard fare - assuming that the badly labelled "No planes" which should be "No Big Boeings" revolves around the supposed use of holograms.
If people took time to address the evidence, they would find a mixture of opinion and the hologram position (which I do not currently subscribe to myself) is in the minority.
So there are some implicit assumptions in your statement. Like 9/11 truth as a whole, you have to spend time looking at the evidence and decide who, if the NBB evidence is valid, would benefit and how it would work better in practice if it were correct that only missiles were used along with media fakery (as was done with the Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination)
Doubtless people will continue to vigorously trade insults over the issue - which doesn't really seem to change opinions on either side, in my experience. _________________ Andrew
More likely it hijacks yet another thread, whilst giving a very strange first impression to any interested newcomer who is browsing the site........
hijacking a thred? the aim of this thred was to brand anyone suggesting we were shown fakes on 911 as being 'disinfo bollox'.
I'm still waiting for you to intelligently refute what's been put forward by me instead of repeating the usual garbage about 'harming the movement' and putting 'newcomers' off. _________________
Is this really the kind of pseudo-'evidence' thats going to convince the wider public?
It is only "pseudo evidence" in your opinion - it isn't "pseudo evidence" in the opinion of several academics.
However, I don't think it will convince the wider public and many NBB'ers accept this anyway (I certainly do). Most people don't seem to have recognised controlled demolition when they saw it (I didn't - until 3 years later), so I agree (and have always said this), they are unlikely to spot certain subtleties about NBB non-pseudo evidence. Which is why I rarely discuss it with "the uninitiated" _________________ Andrew
Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 431 Location: North East England
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 8:58 pm Post subject:
Ally wrote:
wepmob2000 wrote:
More likely it hijacks yet another thread, whilst giving a very strange first impression to any interested newcomer who is browsing the site........
hijacking a thred? the aim of this thred was to brand anyone suggesting we were shown fakes on 911 as being 'disinfo bollox'.
I'm still waiting for you to intelligently refute what's been put forward by me instead of repeating the usual garbage about 'harming the movement' and putting 'newcomers' off.
Well I certainly don't see any evidence, however I do see the following.....
1)A grainy lo-res youtube video version of some well known footage, superimposed with.........
2)An advert for an imaging turret optimised for use on aircraft, the "change the way you see the world" is a reference to the Wescam's presumably superior optical performance when compared to previous types of this equipment. These imaging turrets are not anything special, pretty standard equipment on most surveillance aircraft. Have a close look at your local constabulary's helicoptor next time it flies near you.
Putting these two parts together proves...... well....... absolutely nothing as per usual.
Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 431 Location: North East England
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 9:05 pm Post subject:
Ally wrote:
wepmob2000 wrote:
Ally wrote:
I'd like to see the plane huggers explain why there is no plane in the wide shot at the start of the clip. And the ALUMINIUM nose of the plane emerges from the otherside of the WTC which demonstrates more fakery at work.
.....Yawn..... So whats your explanation then?
yawn, is that all you got to offer? You're the one who should explain to me why the plane isn't visible at the start of the clip yet they manage to zoom in on cue for the money shot which clearly contradicts what Fox had shown live seconds earlier.
Do you think the video-camera operator was on his own, with no-one to bring an aircraft to his attention? Do you think that through the lense of his video camera he had an equivalent visual acuity to the resolution offered in a youtube video?
Your still avoiding the question of where is the plane in the wide shot on the live Fox feed?
Ally..so you are saying Naudet brothers film was a fake?...and all those eye witnesses who saw the planes fly into the twin towers really saw holograms?
So why didn't we see a plane hologram or faked video of a plane hitting the Pentagon?
Your still avoiding the question of where is the plane in the wide shot on the live Fox feed?
Ally..so you are saying Naudet brothers film was a fake?...and all those eye witnesses who saw the planes fly into the twin towers really saw holograms?
So why didn't we see a plane hologram or faked video of a plane hitting the Pentagon?
Again avoiding the question. I'll try answer yours so return the favour.
Did you examine the second hit on the Naudet documentary frame by frame, you'll see it's edited/spliced in a weird way and the nose emerges from the other side of the building so IMO that's fake.
I have no idea why we haven't seen a fake video from the Pentagon, maybe because the 'official' flightpath it took into the building was too absurd to replicate or maybe they need a 'bluescreen' like at the WTC on which to imprint it? ;-> _________________
Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 431 Location: North East England
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 9:58 pm Post subject:
Ally wrote:
Your still avoiding the question of where is the plane in the wide shot on the live Fox feed?
Nah, I'll address it head on, its true you can't see the aircraft in the first grainy lo-res wide-angle shot that covers a distance of skyline of what.... 2 miles perhaps, we'll ignore the evident city smog and general haze.
Also if I'm not mistaken the aircraft performed a violent bank to the right in its last few seconds of flight, therefore from that angle at that time, the aircraft in any case would have presented a lower frontal aspect (as compared to the final zoomed-in shot. Would you reasonably expect to be able to see an aircraft moving at high speed in such conditions, on a grainy lo-res video, not forgetting the aircraft was covering at least a mile every ten seconds so was probably not even in shot, I could go on if you wish?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
