So if it is faked or a hologram or a sheeps bladder what bloody difference does it make in the grand scheme of things?
Does your knowledge hold the key to preventing anything? No, the only thing likely is that people wouldn't run even if it was a real plane _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
So if it is faked or a hologram or a sheeps bladder what bloody difference does it make in the grand scheme of things?
Does your knowledge hold the key to preventing anything? No, the only thing likely is that people wouldn't run even if it was a real plane
By demonstrating it was fakery you chop out ALL the bs arguments about hijackers, jet fuel causing fires, etc etc etc etc etc...
Anyone who looks at that footage and says they still see a plane is either a very mindwashed individual or a shill. _________________
chek wrote:
look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
I do agree with that though too much time is being wasted on unproveable stories, but I do also believe that the proven physical data is enough People just have to be shown controlled demolition material and lots of Fred Dibnah _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
I do agree with that though too much time is being wasted on unproveable stories, but I do also believe that the proven physical data is enough People just have to be shown controlled demolition material and lots of Fred Dibnah
DD, listen mate, you show people that footage and think about all the questions they can longer throw at you. _________________
chek wrote:
look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
I do agree with that though too much time is being wasted on unproveable stories, but I do also believe that the proven physical data is enough People just have to be shown controlled demolition material and lots of Fred Dibnah
The problem with that is that people get bored easily, they are maybe not as 'obsessed' enough to just rant about this to all and sundry for years and take the sort of abuse ALL 9/11 truthseekers get thrown at them.
Seriously, all you have to do is prove that no jets hit the towers or conventional looking planes and that's it, it's cracked. Think about it, the jetfuel fires trail is a pied piper diversion and it burns up massive swathes of time, energy and focus. _________________
chek wrote:
look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:04 pm Post subject:
So thought criminal, you are saying that no planes theory appeals to you becuase it simplifies a very complex psy-op into an easy to digest single picture for you and is therefore a lot less stressful than trying to grapple with a far more complex picture?
Thats VERY interesting, and thanks, becuase truly, you say a lot more than you know _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
You know that moving object seems to change shape in every frame. Also the towers change shape as well. And as someone pointed out, there is a heavy fall of snow on the roof of Tower 1. These are all new facts to me and will totally change the way I view 911.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:55 pm Post subject:
KP50 wrote:
Do you have that in hi-res?
Careful KP - hi-res would spoil the magic.
Just the same as it's far more exciting to believe 'newscasters' were 'in on it' rather than the more mundane reality of the 10 word vocabulary of the tabloid speak media. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:07 pm Post subject:
John White wrote:
So thought criminal, you are saying that no planes theory appeals to you becuase it simplifies a very complex psy-op into an easy to digest single picture for you and is therefore a lot less stressful than trying to grapple with a far more complex picture?
Thats VERY interesting, and thanks, becuase truly, you say a lot more than you know
It makes sense really.
The noplanes team would be back home, feet up, biscuit, cuppa tea and wait for the whole thing to blow over before the CIA could even process a dozen patsies through Jeddah and get the drones repainted.
And ... no weekend working. Sorted. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
This low resolution footage showing a distant fast moving object appearing blurred and indistinct proves...what exactly?
a)That crappy video can produce visual anomalies and doesn't accurately reflect the physical reality of what happened.
OR
b) According to NPT, that the film is was somehow doctored to insert the image of a plane with 1 wing, or
c) That a three dimensional holographic projection (with sound effects!) that was just convincing enough to fool eyewitnesses was betrayed by the infallibility of the video camera?
Cameras and film are not infallible. They say 'the camera doesn't lie' but at the end of the day they're just devices for collecting light, not unlike your own eyes. If an object moves quickly in front of your eyes, or is viewed from a long way away it can appear blurred or indistinct, or to even fade in and out of existence. These are optical illusions - our eyes are not giving us a perfect representation of reality. If you see something moving so fast that it is processed by the brain as a blur, do you assume what you saw is, in fact a blur when stationary too? Seeing is believing right? Or does that statement need a few qualifications? Sight is nothing without a brain to make sense of what you see. Bottom line: we can all see this video image just fine. Can we all interpret it accurately? Apparently not. _________________ "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
So if it is faked or a hologram or a sheeps bladder what bloody difference does it make in the grand scheme of things?
Does your knowledge hold the key to preventing anything? No, the only thing likely is that people wouldn't run even if it was a real plane
By demonstrating it was fakery you chop out ALL the bs arguments about hijackers, jet fuel causing fires, etc etc etc etc etc...
Anyone who looks at that footage and says they still see a plane is either a very mindwashed individual or a shill.
ok
nobody believes there were highjackers and even less than nobody believes the fires caused the collapses.
u have made a good case regard NPT but now its time to diversify.
Who did 911 and 7/7
why
what can we do to bring them to account
ps were u at the london meeting today?
i didnt see anyone with your eyes!! _________________
You might want to ask yourself how the entirety population of Manhattan was deceived when they were physically present at the scene, not watching it on TV like the rest of the world. The second impact was apparently caught on video from 40 DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. That's just the folks with video cameras. There must have been thousands of people who saw and heard the planes with their own eyes and ears. Why does all the NPT crowd rest on interpretations of video evidence? Why no hordes of eyewitnesses asking 'planes? what planes?'
Take this video uploaded to Google Video: it's an eyewitness video of the attacks from a building to the north of the Twin Towers - not a very good angle of the South Tower at all, as it's entirely obscured by the North Tower, to the extent that when the second plane impacts - (not caught on camera unfortunately) the eyewitnesses in the video seem to believe that the second plane struck the same building.
The 26 minute film catches only the immediate aftermath of the attacks and the collapses (with substantial gaps) it's not very good evidence of anything we don't already know from other sources. Nonetheless the audio is quite compelling (sirens and choppers), and there a good shot of the hole in the north tower, which is dwelt on quite a bit in the first segment of the film.
However - note the comments after the first strike there are already people reporting a plane strike - not a bomb. In their description of the second strike - which they apparently saw but did not quite catch on film (recording recommences immediately after the impact) they describe a plane. They describe it as a 'military plane', and 'huge'. Not exactly consistent with the consensus on TV, but close enough - they saw a plane.
Now this film could conceivably been faked. There is, after all, no footage of the planes, only commentary. There is however footage of flashes of light - like explosions - coming from the North Tower, an interesting detail for a fraudulent video if it was concocted in support of the OCT.
Is it a conspiracy that all the video evidence and eyewitness evidence we have in the public domain all seems to confirm that people saw planes? No videos showing no planes. Videos showing blurry or indistinct planes certainly - but no videos just showing a big bang coming out of nowhere. That leads to me to conclude this - either the dozens of videos currently known showing a plane are ALL doctored or they are showing something real. Something that actually happened. Given that many many of these videos were filmed by the public, not the mass media, that would have to imply that the FBI or whoever had complete control over all the video taken that day. Otherwise people could have uploaded and distributed video showing an explosion and no plane if they had it. Is the whole of New York 'in on it?' This is not a question that can be answered with the retort that they are under 'media mind control'. They were actually there - thousands of people - all communicating to each other what they were seeing with their own eyes as it happened.
You see this is the problem I have with NPT - the assumptions required to believe it just multiply and multiply the more evidence you examine - much as with the official conspiracy theory - it collapses under the weight of its internal contradictions.
Why so many people seem to irresistibly attracted to NPT seems baffling - but I suppose that as with the OCT there's a certain superficial simplicity to NPT that makes it attractive to people who shy away from the complexities underlying 9/11. NPT fans seem to bang on endlessly about the apparently self-evident non-existence of planes in the the same way that OCT supporters bang on endlessly about jihadists. Simple lies have a certain potency that complicated truths do not. Repeat them enough and sooner or later you'll win converts. Their internal coherence is essentially irrelevant - if you just hang on to the core lie firmly enough, if it takes root at an emotional level (as all effective propaganda does) then no amount of rational persuasion is capable of dislodging it because it has become an article of faith. It seems tragic to me that people manage to reject and escape the OCT only to rush into another delusional belief in NPT - and they believe in the importance of NPT so fervently that they'll repeat it until they're blue in the face, ignoring the tremendous amount of coherent, credible research done by people like Paul Thompson, Michael Ruppert, Webster Tarpley and David Ray Griffin in favour of endlessly poring over videos that prove nothing besides their own capacity for self-deception. "LOOK NO PLANES LOOK NO PLANES NO PLANES LOOK NO PLANES NO PLANES!!!!" _________________ "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:38 am Post subject: A reply to empty bee
Hi Empty Bee
I have the following questions in reponse to your posting
1. You say the second impact was apparently caught on video from 40 different locations. If you cannot provide any evidence of this then we will have to conclude you are making it up. So please provide the evidence.
2. The google video you linked does not show the second impact despite the camera being trained on the building. How can this be? Was there a sudden malfunction of the camera at the crucial moment? Isn't this very convenient just like all the cctv cameras failing on the London undergound on 7/7?
3. You say all the video evidence in the public domain confirms planes and therefore you contradict yourself because you admit that the video link you provided shows no plane.
4. You go on to say that"many many of these videos were filmed by the public" Many is obviously more than one, so show us just 5 live videos filmed by the public showing the second impact.
If aired live at the time on CNN, though... then the NPT case is solid--- they should abandon all other arguments in favor of FORCING a government media explanation on the 19 Rector St/Black Building combo.
Also... it's NOT going to change the conclusion of that analysis...
...but the key TO PUTTING THE final nail in the coffin of the media/government propoganda effort(if indeed that was aired "live" in real-time)...
..is not to look for any possible building where the CNN camera person could have been stationed... No!
Any CAD Drafting Technician or Quality Technician in a manufacturing facility COULD TELL you....
...the foreshortened distance on the right side JUST NEEDS to be matched in a subsequent camera shooting event.
The cameraman can take his camera and start right at the foot of the building and walk in a straight line back to the river...
..making sure to keep that same foreshortened length the same throughout his walk from the foot of the building to the river (visible length of the right side of the building).
Like I said, it's not going to change the conclusion AS EVIDENCED BY the immense amount of "blue sky clearance" from the arched building to the buildings on the right side of the viewing screen shown in the CNN video.
I'm a "thermate" guy.... that yellow molten stuff flowing down the side of the building was not "molten aluminum with impurities which made it glow yellow"...
...but there is no denying that Part III of that CNN Video footage was faked(ostensibly by the 2-D animation process the video's author talked about).
The NPT thesis is back within the realm of discussion by virtue of Part III alone.
Were the floors hit on each floor IN EACH OF THE WTC BUILDINGS limited access due to large battery arrays and computer equipment?
Then you have a real possibility of homing equipment guiding a cruise missile(or "remote-controlled plane") OTHERWISE HOW COULD the damage area be predicted in a CNN video that would obviously have been made prior to 9/11.
As the mechanical engineer said about the witnesses and the absence of an exit hole in WTC II.
"The 'impossible' trumps the 'highly improbable' 100% of the time.... becuase with the "highly improbable" there is still a "small possibility" WHICH one does not find in the "impossible".
I want to know EXACTLY when that CNN video was aired..and anyone so inclined can go out again to that park-like area with a camera and put the final nail in the coffin if they wish.
Last edited by david carmichael on Tue Apr 17, 2007 11:36 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 11:18 am Post subject: Re: A reply to empty bee
Witchfinder General wrote:
Hi Empty Bee
I have the following questions in reponse to your posting
1. You say the second impact was apparently caught on video from 40 different locations. If you cannot provide any evidence of this then we will have to conclude you are making it up. So please provide the evidence.
Your fellow No-planer Killtown has the best compilation of them that I can find. I love how he puts "amateur" in inverted commas like every single one of them is a plant.
Quote:
2. The google video you linked does not show the second impact despite the camera being trained on the building. How can this be? Was there a sudden malfunction of the camera at the crucial moment? Isn't this very convenient just like all the cctv cameras failing on the London undergound on 7/7?
3. You say all the video evidence in the public domain confirms planes and therefore you contradict yourself because you admit that the video link you provided shows no plane.
What's the most likely explanation?
a) They got tired of holding the camera at the same shot, or worried that they might run out of film/memory and turned it off, only turning it on again when something was happening
Or
b) The film has been edited by malicious fraudsters to remove the evidence.
I have to question the logic of someone who gives the reply "faked" or "edited" to every single video that shows a plane or refers to a plane.
To do so assumes total control over the denizens of Manhattan - which seems to me absurd.
Quote:
4. You go on to say that"many many of these videos were filmed by the public" Many is obviously more than one, so show us just 5 live videos filmed by the public showing the second impact.
See above. _________________ "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
You might want to ask yourself how the entirety population of Manhattan was deceived when they were physically present at the scene, not watching it on TV like the rest of the world. The second impact was apparently caught on video from 40 DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. That's just the folks with video cameras.
The missing 19 Rector Street building.. That is all the NPTers should concentrate on at the moment.
No slow-motion replays needed.... nor frame-by-frame analysis
If shown live on CNN... then 9/11 was an inside job
what then is the correct address of the building shown then?
I believe this could be one of the strongest pieces of evidence for the NPT crowd or "remote-controlled plane" crowd, IF INDEED that was shown "live" in real-time on CNN...
a) What is the correct address of the building that was previously claimed to be 19 Rector Street and....
b).. how many stories high is it?
c) What is the correct address of that black bulding behind what was previously claimed to be 19 Rector Street and.....
d)... how many stories high is that?
e) How many stories high is the arched building on the left side of the screen?
Quote:
secondly, hes standing in the wrong place! numpty
Agreed... but he's not NEARLY that far out of place... I accounted for all of those discrepancies in my analysis posted here...
..and yet the conclusion is the same--- the CNN video is faked
ALSO....
In the post THAT FOLLOWS MY ORIGINAL posting in that thread, I've explained how to re-shoot the camera sequence... but it won't make any difference in the conclusion drawn... it'll only drive the "final nail in the coffin" , as it were.
Since the viewing screen is a 2-D representation of a 3-D building... the right side of that arched building appears in 2-D representation as a foreshortened length.
An accurate camera re-shoot (which would mimic the CNN shooting perspective) ONLY needs to hold that foreshortened length constant WALKING BACKWARDS fgrom the FOOT OF THE BUILDING to the RIVER.
It's not going to render the conclusion ANY DIFFERENT but indeed it should be re-shot with a video camera.
The killer for proving CNN fakery is the amount of "blue sky clearance" over the treetops till the buildings on the right side of the screen re-surface.
Anyone who looks at that footage and says they still see a plane is either a very mindwashed individual or a shill.
Uh-huh... what does it look MORE like- a plane or a missile?
It is impossible to see any detail on the object because it is represented by so few pixels and has then been distorted further by compression for the internet.
What I do see far more easily conforms to a plane than a missile.
Or do you think there was no missile, and it was a "fakery and bomb" scenario?
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
People just have to be shown controlled demolition material and lots of Fred Dibnah
enough to just rant about this to all and sundry for years and take the sort of abuse ALL 9/11 truthseekers get thrown at them.
