Evidence Top 20 for NPT

[Fallious]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

I was being specific to the certainty of the plane hitting the target and not the other issues you are raising which have already been addressed elsewhere.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

But for the purpose of this debate, I will answer them myself.

1. Witnesses which should have seen planes but did not. This happened, there are several instances of witnesses seeing just an explosion.

2. Witnesses which should have heard the planes but did not. Again we have witnesses who only heard the explosion.

3. Video photos which should have featured planes did not. Again this happened.

4. The live special effect fails. Well this certainly did fail because the planes did not look real and defied the laws of physics.

5. Members of the press in the loop leak the story. No chance of that happening for obvious reasons.

6. Witnesses see the planting of evidence. You mean for example the engine by the scaffolding. This could have been placed there the day before, covered with a tarpaulin and guarded by one of the 911 perps.

The alleged plane parts on the roof could have been covered with tarpaulins and guarded in the same way.

7. Image experts analyze the film and find the planes to be composited -- Yes this happened.

8. Problems with the timing of the impact explosion - well you could argue the same with the explosives used to bring the building down. Not much chance of that happening -- you press the button ---- BANG.

9. Explosives discovered before the event. Again this could have happened with the explosives used to bring the building down -- they would obviously well guarded and anybody who discovered them would be silenced.

10. General risk of more people in the loopwho might talk --- there would be more people with the trickery but less with those associated with the planes if there were no planes

The fact is anyone who was in on it would know the ways of the perps and if they valued their life they would not talk.

11. If the plane missed the building it is not just the terrorist's fcking up because it might be interpretated as simply a plane crash --- The mission would fail because of the loss of the huge psychological effect on those who witnessed events on tv.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

The fact is that the one thing they needed absolute certainty about was the planes hitting the buildings-- any problems with events after the impact would be covered up by the media and the perps on the ground.

[Fallious]

Yes, exactly, that was my point.

You continue to attribute some god like quality of foresight and puppet master like manipulation to the perps, when in fact the body of evidence you roll out for NPT apparently demonstrates why 'No Planes' would be an unfathomably risky plot to execute.

So we are returned to the original point: the least risky way to carry out the operation being to simply fly planes (with a chance of missing!) into the WTC's. There is no critical failure in this scenario, beyond one or both planes possibly missing, it's still a terrorist attack of unimaginable proportions and it's significantly more difficult to trace the plot back to the original perps even if it does 'fail'.

This, opposed to the multiple likely critical failures possible with NPT, each one potentially resulting in a total unmasking of the plot on the day or at any point in the future. Perhaps you can see my confusion?

[marky 54]

TWSU3 is the only npt'er taking any intrest in this. unless you are to mark gobell, so have to say thanks to twsu3 for at least enaging in this and being able to take critism and debate. he has his belief and i have mine at the moment, the only way for me to believe npt is to see the proof and twsu3 is the only one attempting to debate and prove this theory.

[telecasterisation]

One must pose the question. is it really the lack of interest or something else?

I have watched the NPT camp pitch their tents, light a huge bonfire and start dancing in its very obvious glare. Unfortunately, the material to keep the flames burning have all but been exhausted.

The top 3 would have been a tall order, let alone the top 20!

[telecasterisation]

[telecasterisation]

[telecasterisation]

[telecasterisation]

[Stefan]

"No seriously 9/11 Truth is not some crazy out there conspiracy theory, it's a theory of evidence, our supporters come from every social background, age, gender, religion, race, physicists, engineers and scholars of many kinds have signed up, just take a look at the evidence and make your own mind up"

"Really?"

"Really!"

"Well OK do you have a website where I could discuss this with some of your members"

"Well... I mean... we do but it's not the best place to..."

"I just want to get a good cross section of opinion in the movement"

"There are some very good books out there I could recommend, and documentaries, I mean the forum... it's you know freedom of speech and that you get a few... well"

"Do you have a forum on the website or not"

"Well we do but it's best to take a lot of that stuff with a pinch of salt..."

"What stuff?"

"Well.... no planes. Listen, I could lend you a really good book it's..."

"No planes? you mean people believe there were no planes involved in the attack?"

"Well yeah there's some... some debate but actually they're quite rational compared to the..."

"The what"

"Nothing"

"What were you going to say?"

"The Beam Weapon People"

"I didn't hear you?"

"The Beam Weapon People"

"What? The Beam Weapon People???????"

"Like I say you know, freedom of speech and all that, we need to you know let everyone have their opinion aired and it's not really reflective of the majority view and..."

"The Beam Weapon People???????????????"

"sigh..... yes"

"Forget about it mate"

[marky 54]

and with avoidance of proof or even to debate and the fact anyone disagreing with the theorys and questioning them is a crime(not talking about this thread but almost all the others) its not even like you can say
"yes no planes" "check the evidence for yourself it actually makes more sense once you read it"

[MadgeB]

Marky54,

Have you read Gerard Holmgren's stuff on this website and others?
http://www.911closeup.com/

Holmgren has done very detailed research analysing what exactly was shown when on TV on the morning of 9/11, the 'chain of custody' of the videos shown, the background to the 'witnesses', what they actually said they saw as opposed to what was reported they saw, etc. etc.

I also saw a kind of video lecture by him but unfortunately I can't find the link.

I presume that even if we can't use images we can still use information about those images. You seem to know even less than I do (!), as I'm just catching up with this and am now tending towards 'no boeings', but I suspect that if you read his stuff you'll have some questions answered, plus lots more questions to post here!

[marky 54]

[MadgeB]

I now have the link for the GH video - IMO it's well worth watching.

http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/holmgren/index.htm

There are NO images of planes or alleged planes in this video - only discussion about them!

It's an explanation of how the myth of 'boeings into towers' came into existence. And people who believe 'there were hundreds or thousands of witnesses to the plane crash(es)' should check out the rest of GH's research...

http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/

[telecasterisation]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

More evidence

Umpteen videos and photographs but................................................

Not one clear image of a plane from which one can identify the livery of the airline company.

[marky 54]

[Patrick Brown]

[thought criminal]

[marky 54]

hard evidence is something that can be proved without doubt.
if you have that hard evidence please share it.

you tube video's are nothing on there own without a explaination and back up evidence and examples of why you come to those conclusions.
the reason why is because nothing stops people tampering with video and reposting it on youtube. all though i cannot say any footage i see is faked i also cannot be sure they are not. so links to places that lay out all the information along with explainations and the sort goes a lot ferther to explaining NPT. be warned however if i see a problem with anything i will be asking the questions free for anyone to answer, as i will not be bullied into believing something i see no evidence for and i will be honest about what i think, just like i am about youtube vids.

[thought criminal]

[marky 54]

[thought criminal]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[marky 54]

[thought criminal]

[thought criminal]

One reason why they would never have used real planes was the fact if the plane had bropken up and landed in the street.

1: If it was a 'switched plane' it would have been empty.

2: If it was a real Boeing with passengers and it had crashed open in the street there is a chance that there may have been survivors.

[Fallious]