FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
CGI / Hologram / No Planes
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 42, 43, 44 ... 46, 47, 48  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Lord Carpainter



Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 268
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fintan wrote:
Quote:
The Planes Theory is TOTAL, unmitigated drivel that requires us to
believe that aluminum airplanes can fly through steel buildings like
ghosts.

Yeah, fo' sure. Here's another faked video requiring us to believe
that a puny bird weighing ounces can take out a multi-ton jet engine.
Who do they think they are fooling?!

Quote:

Here's news.
If I hit your head with a plastic bag full of water --at 500 mph.
It'd break your frikkin head right off your body.
Think about it.

For more than a few seconds.

Yeah, I know your skull is harder than water.
But em..... Ya wanna try it out and let's see?

Ever stand at the side of a Grand Prix circuit when a Fomula 1
goes by at about 170 mph? It almost sucks your eyeballs out.

Now image the same thing only three times faster, and the thing
that is going that fast ....is a plane weighing something over 200,000 lbs.

Kapoowww!!

Quote:
The Planes Theory is facile gibberish that requires us to believe that four
plane crashes can occur with no positively identifiable wreckage left
behind (excluding shoddy engines under scaffolding and plantable,
undamaged four-windowed fuselage piece on some roof, right beside
a stairway).

Yeah, I know what you mean. No positively identifiable
wreckage, except for the positively identifiable wreckage.

More news. When a jet hits a building at 500 mph, the impact
and explosion shatter it into literally thousands of tiny pieces.

Go figger, eh?

Quote:
The Planes Theory is delusional dribble that buys the idea that numerous
videos of the same event showing contradictory flight paths can all be
real.

There were numerous videos of the plane strikes, yeah?

Lucky all the videographers were working for the government then.

I bet the people who pulled off 9/11 must have breathed a sigh of
relief after it was all over. "Phew," one of them must have said to
the other. But the other guy just answered. "Told you not to worry,
chances of anyone in NYC having a video camera were slim to nil."

Lucky there were no eyewitnesses too. Whadda break.

Ever consider that foreshortening, camera angle, and parallax
might explain the so-called contradictory flight paths?

Ever consider that you've been carefully set up with a few
deliberately flaky videos to kick-start the No Planes Theory?

Quote:
The Planes Theory is spew from disturbed minds that have this
bizarre idea that the Perps would risk using remote control technology
to fly hard-to-control jumbo jets into small targets.

Who needs remote control?!?
Don't tell me you bought that disinfo?

Ever hear of cruise missiles? They use a computerised terrain map
to hit targets with an accuracy of a couple of feet. Better than any
human being can do. Lots better.

Quote:
The Planes Theory is worthy of a particularly dim four-year-old who
believes in fairies, unicorns, and the fantasy that aluminum airplanes
create cartoon holes in steel buildings without leaving any wreckage
on the inside of the hole.

Reckon it must be one of those crazy twists of physics that when
you hit a large building with a plane, it tends to leave a hole in the
building of same shape as the plane that hit it.

Last I heard, there are teams of physicists working on the problem
to try and explain why that is. We may never know.

Same problem with the wreckage. For some wierd reason, planes
that impact buildings at 500mph and then explode thunderously
seem to break up into tiny pieces. Fuk knows. Mystery, I suppose.

Quote:
The Planes Theory is DEAD.

Yeah, I mentioned that.


Quote:
Yeah, fo' sure. Here's another faked video requiring us to believe
that a puny bird weighing ounces can take out a multi-ton jet engine.
Who do they think they are fooling?!


That's not all them puny birds can do to planes, Fintan. Observe:



..And they want us to believe that planes that can't resist a puny bird without a hole being punched in it..



^Did that. Sorry, I'm not buying it. I can't afford it.

Quote:

PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 8:32 pm Post subject:
Quote:
The Planes Theory is TOTAL, unmitigated drivel that requires us to
believe that aluminum airplanes can fly through steel buildings like
ghosts.

Yeah, fo' sure. Here's another faked video requiring us to believe
that a puny bird weighing ounces can take out a multi-ton jet engine.
Who do they think they are fooling?!

Quote:

Here's news.
If I hit your head with a plastic bag full of water --at 500 mph.
It'd break your frikkin head right off your body.
Think about it.

For more than a few seconds.

Yeah, I know your skull is harder than water.
But em..... Ya wanna try it out and let's see?

Ever stand at the side of a Grand Prix circuit when a Fomula 1
goes by at about 170 mph? It almost sucks your eyeballs out.

Now image the same thing only three times faster, and the thing
that is going that fast ....is a plane weighing something over 200,000 lbs.

Kapoowww!!


Yeah, "Kapoowww!"..



..smack into cold, hard structural steel. Quite a bit of it, too. Does a bug hitting your car window go through it?

No one is saying that it wouldn't go in. No one is saying that it would 'Splat' like a bug on the outer wall. I'm quite sure that the engines would go in. Maybe the fuselage, too..

But the whole frikkin thing flies in like a ghost????
Without any crumpling, breaking, slowing, etc.???

Sorry, I can't afford that one either.

A bag of water has water in it. A commercial airplane is a hollow tube of lightweight aluminum.

Quote:
Yeah, I know what you mean. No positively identifiable
wreckage, except for the positively identifiable wreckage.


I don't call some shoddy engine that isn't even the right size 'positively identifiable'..

I don't call some shoddy fuselage piece beside a stairway that could have come from any frikkin commercial airplane in existence 'positively identifiable'..

Do you? I know I don't.

Quote:
More news. When a jet hits a building at 500 mph, the impact
and explosion shatter it into literally thousands of tiny pieces.


Here's a real interesting site: http://www.planecrashinfo.com/

It records airplane crashes as they happen. Find me a crash site that didn't have wreckage. I can provide you about 50 examples of airplane crashes that did produce quite a bit of wreckage. Wreckage that can be seen in photographs.

Quote:

There were numerous videos of the plane strikes, yeah?

Lucky all the videographers were working for the government then.


List'em. I don't know about the ones you know, but the ones I know aren't very credible witnesses. They either got their video from someone else, won't talk about it at all, or have connections to the MSM.

Then again, that's nothing suspicious. Michael Hezarkhani didn't want to give his shot location because it's a place where he likes to think. Who are we to intrude? Look no further. Move on, move on.

Strange how you didn't address the content of my "contradictory flight paths" comment, but instead opted to say "So they were all in on it?". Then again, going after the contradictory flight paths is a little to hard.

The endless road of circular arguments maybe tiresome, but it is a lot easier.

Quote:

I bet the people who pulled off 9/11 must have breathed a sigh of
relief after it was all over. "Phew," one of them must have said to
the other. But the other guy just answered. "Told you not to worry,
chances of anyone in NYC having a video camera were slim to nil."


Funny how all the cell phones blacked out..

Funny how the NY police went around confiscating camera footage..

Funny how CameraPlanet has hours and hours of amateur footage that they 'collected'..

Funny how everyone focused their cameras on the frikkin Tower that got hit instead of the other one..

Downright hilarious.

Quote:
Lucky there were no eyewitnesses too. Whadda break.


Whoa, them perps must be feeling pretty down now when they found out they were wrong about that..

The Original No Planers:
Most Witnesses at the WTC Heard And Saw No Planes

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=original_no_planers

What Witnesses?
http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=84

..So much for their lucky break. Well, they had their boys Mark Obenhaus (ABC Producer) and Sean Murtagh (CNN VP of Finance) as on-the-phone 911liars to reinforce the 'plane' myth.

Quote:
Ever consider that foreshortening, camera angle, and parallax
might explain the so-called contradictory flight paths?

Ever consider that you've been carefully set up with a few
deliberately flaky videos to kick-start the No Planes Theory?


First, foreshortening/angle/parallax doesn't account for the flight path contradictions. Some show a straight approach, while others show a dive.

The problem is that all of the videos are flaky.

Quote:

Who needs remote control?!?
Don't tell me you bought that disinfo?

Ever hear of cruise missiles? They use a computerised terrain map
to hit targets with an accuracy of a couple of feet. Better than any
human being can do. Lots better.


There you go. I'm not sure that missiles were used, but whatever happened had to have more reliability than a remote-controlled commercial airplane. And, if you don't have remote control, then you have to have hijackers, and that's just BS. The only 'inside job' that can happen with hijackers is that 'the government financed/trained them to do it'. That's absolute smokescreen/distraction like all of the other 'hijackers evidence' (as you yourself have exposed).

Quote:
Reckon it must be one of those crazy twists of physics that when
you hit a large building with a plane, it tends to leave a hole in the
building of same shape as the plane that hit it.

Last I heard, there are teams of physicists working on the problem
to try and explain why that is. We may never know.




The hole fits a 767 exactly. This would require the plane to have completely flown through the wall of the building without any parts breaking off. Further, there are no airplane parts visible inside the hole.. So it went entirely through the wall.. no parts broke off on it's way in and no parts were visible inside the hole it left.

Once again.. I can't afford it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lord Carpainter



Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 268
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pakistani Press:

Quote:

Did any Planes ever strike the Towers? The researchers after detailed study and analysis have come to a conclusion that no planes ever struck the WTC towers. What was shown by BBC and CNN on TV on 9/11 was a doctored film prepared in a studio. With the technological advancement it is a child’s play. A comparison between the films actually prepared on the site and those transmitted by BBC and CNN can be seen on the website. It was shown on TV that the nose of a plane that struck the tower penetrated through the concrete structure come out on the other side of the tower in tact an impossibility. While a film was shown on the TV and the Towers did actually collapse, there is no eye witness of any planes striking the Towers. The evidence of eye-witnesses was suppressed under the orchestra of ‘Attacks on America’.


http://www.pakobserver.net/200809/11/Articles04.asp
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
911conspiracytv



Joined: 11 Oct 2008
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fintan wrote:
Quote:
911conspiracytv:
Let's say that a "few deliberately flaky videos" were made to "kick-start"
the no planes theory, as Fintan said. Which ones are we talking about?

Well that could be done with any of the 9/11 WTC videos.


Thanks, Fintan. We agree, then, that any of the 9/11 plane videos could have been altered, even in real time.

Can we speak hypothetically, that the live TV broadcasts DID air fake videos? (Let's say a cruise missile was covered up by this trickery. We won't go all-out with the no flying object theory. No holograms, either.) AND what if a bunch of actor/witnesses were placed around the WTC site, some armed with videocameras, in order to foster the "plane myth" by shouting down the "missile/bomb" reports with their plane reports (and videos). Do you think that IF this plan was set up, that it could be pulled off? That is, of course, taking into account the numerous videos and witness testimonials that would pop up around the NYC metro area? Could they all be prevented from circulating widely enough - i.e. given enough attention and trust - to bust the relentless TV-media-enforced plane myth? (To argue that point in reality I would point out the WTC demolition/"collapse" videos being stripped of audio, Evan Fairbanks reportedly.)

I know you don't think it happened like that. But do you think it could be POSSIBLE with a limitless budget?

The best example demonstrating the fake witness part of this hypothesis is featured in the video "The 9/11 Solution," where the "witness" in a Harley shirt talks about how the towers "collapsed" due to "structural failure" because the fire was "too intense?" Do you think he was a fake? Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nVFWevtIyk

Also, do you think 50 videos depicting the plane are enough to represent an accurate estimate of extant NYC WTC video recordings, considering the population? Wouldn't hundreds of videocameras have been trained on the WTC? (Remember the video you linked above, with the "plane" cut out. There are a few more just like it.)

I realize this same population argument is used AGAINST NPT, insomuch as the plenitude of eyewitnesses without cameras. Hypothetically speaking, though, how many witnesses testifying to NO plane would actually be given the microphone on major news networks, considering 1. The assumed absurdity of such a testimony from the perspective of those brainwashed by the repeating TV-media-plane crash images... i.e. 99.99 percent of people and 2. Those elite few at the top of the corporate ladder who could prevent those broadcasts in the unlikely situation and 3. Memories of the event could easily have changed, considering the environment of panic and confusion at the time, in tandem with fake photography. It wouldn't be the first time details of memories changed, studies show.

Recently several WTC crash videos were released by the FBI/powers that be/et. al. in response to a FOIA request by Scott Bingham of flight77.info. See http://www.penttbom.com Before this November the video count was 44. Now it's up to about 50. (Note that the famous 1st plane video was "borrowed" by the FBI before being broadcast, according to testimony by the camera operator Jules Naudet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71eKhC1oqr4 -- this could also been where the demolition evidence was removed from the tape.)



Thanks for reading, if you got this far without answering "no." It is undeniable that the argument holds some merit. Even without going into the crash physics argument, the impossible speed/control/plane integrity argument and the flight path/NTSB report discrepancy debates. Not all no plane theorists are like Nico Haupt in regard to the belief that the TV (and many amateur) plane videos are totally computer rendered or "layered." September Clues isn't a Bible for NPT. ...although those who argue against its weaker points are often labeled heretics (shills). Recently a video series has surfaced with the expressed purpose of demonstrating Simon Shack's fraud: http://www.youtube.com/user/genghis6l99 -- And funny as it may be, I think there are shills in the NPT community not only to screw over 9/11 Truth in general, but also to ruin NPT with YouTube spam and unbelievably irresponsible behavior.




I had planned on responding to moylan's post (top of the page right before your rant above) with a theory explaining the video/film roundup that took place that day. All I could possibly say on the subject is in the videos: THE BIRDS: Morphing Stealth UAVs of the 9/11 False Flag Attack - which definitely require an open mind while watching. That is not to imply that they are part of a NO PLANES video series. Part 5 gets into that a bit, in order to demonstrate how the fake video adherents sabotage the UAV evidence.

Ok, here goes...

_________________
http://www.911conspiracy.tv
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8523

PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Did any Planes ever strike the Towers? The researchers after detailed study and analysis have come to a conclusion that no planes ever struck the WTC towers. What was shown by BBC and CNN on TV on 9/11 was a doctored film prepared in a studio. With the technological advancement it is a child’s play. A comparison between the films actually prepared on the site and those transmitted by BBC and CNN can be seen on the website. It was shown on TV that the nose of a plane that struck the tower penetrated through the concrete structure come out on the other side of the tower in tact an impossibility. While a film was shown on the TV and the Towers did actually collapse, there is no eye witness of any planes striking the Towers. The evidence of eye-witnesses was suppressed under the orchestra of ‘Attacks on America’.

http://www.pakobserver.net/200809/11/Articles04.asp


Here's Ace Baker getting shredded in a discussion of this:

Quote:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4669137903152322593


Have fun playing your games.

But if you guys think I am going to get sucked
into the No-Planes-Theory.... then think again.

I am a serious researcher who has been on the job since 9:30am
on the 11th September, 2001. I saw all the evidence live. I read
all the eyewitness reports live. Watched the footage live. Examined
the photo record live. Much of that material has faded off the net
with time. But I got a very good look at it all live.

I have a skeptical mind. I am open to any angle on 9/11.

But this NPTheory is mindless rubbish.
The people pushing it are out to discredit 9/11 Truth.

I know them. I know their M.O. Like the rest of the CIA Fakes,
they are expert at making bullshit look semi-plausible.

Fuck them.

I have better ways to spend my time.

But here's this much:

Quote:
But the whole frikkin thing flies in like a ghost????
Without any crumpling, breaking, slowing, etc.???

Sorry, I can't afford that one either.

A bag of water has water in it. A commercial airplane
is a hollow tube of lightweight aluminum.


When a plane hits a stationary steel structure at 500mph
it does not slow; does not crumple; does not break.

There isn't time at 750 feet per second.

The leading edge of the wings is impacting a hollow steel structure
two to three feet thick. It wants to move through that structure
in a time of ONE 250th OF A SECOND. Are you getting it??

The steel doesn't want it to move through at all.

One 250th OF A SECOND later...... another few feet of wing moving at
500mph....... arrives to back up the intention of the first few feet.

The steel is trying to decellerate the plane by 32 G's.

The steel loses.

It just gets cut right through like a knife through butter.

The steel hardly gets time to even bend.


By the way, a jetliner is NOT a "hollow tube of lightweight aluminum."

It is 200,000+ lbs of metals, plastics, electronics, fibres and fuel.

This mass smashes into the Tower. It does not fly "in like a ghost."

Stop repeating NPT mantras like they are truth.

They are mindeless mantras.

Take this to Infowars or Above Top Secret or Godlike.

We are too smart here to buy it.
Quote:

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
junglelord



Joined: 03 Nov 2008
Posts: 56

PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NO Planes is No Brains.
Embarassed

Real planes, end of story.
Full False Flag, end of story.
The new 9/11 is the Bank Bailout.
High Treason in broad daylight!

_________________
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla

Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8523

PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


http://filestreams.com/northwood/1258766488_e28a0e5c83_b.jpg
http://filestreams.com/northwood/tornado2.html

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Lord Carpainter



Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 268
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Here's Ace Baker getting shredded in a discussion of this:


It's confirmed to be the nose: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ

And why bring up disinfo artists like Ace Baker, Ron Weick, and Steve Wright?

Whichever theory you have about what caused the 'nose out', it's the impossibility that exposes media fakery on 9-11. An aluminum plane nose is not a bunker-buster. It cannot fly through steel floor pans and emerge on the other side in shape.

Quote:
I am a serious researcher who has been on the job since 9:30am
on the 11th September, 2001. I saw all the evidence live. I read
all the eyewitness reports live. Watched the footage live. Examined
the photo record live. Much of that material has faded off the net
with time. But I got a very good look at it all live.


I assume you saw the many initial accounts of a smaller aircraft, then. I also assume that you saw MSM reporters/producers posing as 'witnesses' on the phones. Maybe you forgot these guys. Understandable.

Yes, yes, we've all heard the people who say they saw an airplane after having the replay shoved in their face hundreds of times in the days and weeks after the attacks..

Now go check out some other after-the-fact witnesses:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/world/02/september_11/where_were_you_when/html/1.stm
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=original_no_planers
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=134&Itemid=60

Quote:
I have a skeptical mind. I am open to any angle on 9/11.

But this NPTheory is mindless rubbish.
The people pushing it are out to discredit 9/11 Truth.

I know them. I know their M.O. Like the rest of the CIA Fakes,
they are expert at making bullshit look semi-plausible.

Fuck them.


Doesn't "I am open to any angle on 9/11." contradict your "Fuck them." opinion? Honestly, Fintan, a lot of your work regarding the 911fakes, political theater, and operations is gold, but your closed-mindedness towards the no-planes issue is just 'plane' unreasonable. Can't you see that the no-planes issue is censored from virtually every known fake site?

Quote:
When a plane hits a stationary steel structure at 500mph
it does not slow; does not crumple; does not break.

There isn't time at 750 feet per second.

The leading edge of the wings is impacting a hollow steel structure
two to three feet thick. It wants to move through that structure
in a time of ONE 250th OF A SECOND. Are you getting it??

The steel doesn't want it to move through at all.

One 250th OF A SECOND later...... another few feet of wing moving at
500mph....... arrives to back up the intention of the first few feet.

The steel is trying to decellerate the plane by 32 G's.

The steel loses.

It just gets cut right through like a knife through butter.

The steel hardly gets time to even bend.


You act as if that steel is the only steel that the airplane must go through for the plane theory to be correct. This is false. The airplane would have had to fly through steel the whole way.

When you throw a beer can at your car door, does it damage the car door? Of course not. The fact that the beer can is going fast and that the car door is stationary doesn't matter at all.

Quote:
By the way, a jetliner is NOT a "hollow tube of lightweight aluminum."

It is 200,000+ lbs of metals, plastics, electronics, fibres and fuel.


What do you think is in that fuselage, Fintan? Do you think it's a big metal bullet? No, dude, it's designed to carry passengers (not to crash through steel) and it's hollow. For, if it wasn't, where would the passengers be? On the top of the plane? Strapped to the bottom?

It has fuel-laden wings, two big engines, and quite a tall tail.. but in terms of the fuselage.. it's hollow. The wings are known to be not-so-tough in collisions. Same with the tail. Regardless..



Quote:
This mass smashes into the Tower. It does not fly "in like a ghost."


Oh really? It 'smashes'? No, dude. It flies through it as if it's flying through air:



Quote:
We are too smart here to buy it.


Smarter than pilots/aerospace engineers and too smart for physics. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lord Carpainter



Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 268
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fintan wrote:

http://filestreams.com/northwood/1258766488_e28a0e5c83_b.jpg
http://filestreams.com/northwood/tornado2.html


Did the stick go all the way through? Did the front end of the stick penetrate the other side of the concrete in shape? Are there numerous videos of the stick flying into the concrete in complete contradictory paths?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lord Carpainter



Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 268
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

junglelord wrote:
NO Planes is No Brains.
Embarassed

Real planes, end of story.
Full False Flag, end of story.
The new 9/11 is the Bank Bailout.
High Treason in broad daylight!


Real open-minded, intelligent investigator, right here. Laughing You definitely don't sound like they picked you up straight off the Prison Planet forums. Laughing Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8523

PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Lord Carpainter:
An aluminum plane nose is not a bunker-buster. It cannot fly
through steel floor pans and emerge on the other side in shape.

I agree. It can't. And it didn't.
And one lousy quality vid doesn't prove it did.

Quote:
It's confirmed to be the nose:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ

No it's not "confirmed".
No matter how many fancy frame analysis
tricks are done, it's still totally inconclusive
shitty quality video footage. Tough.

As to the speed issue.
Every last bit of the plane is gonna pierce that building.
Nothing is going to bounce off.
You been watching too many slo-mo's.

Replay this as many times as you need until you get it.
This is 500mph:

Quote:

If you don't get it. Ok.
I'm done with it.

Quote:
Lord Carpainter:
Doesn't "I am open to any angle on 9/11."
contradict your "Fuck them." opinion?

Dude, maybe I haven't stressed this enough,
but you're not bringing me news. I do research
ALL the time.

I've been following the No-Planers since they first
appeared. Who said what and when. Every detail.
I've seen all the vids. Read the arguments.

I don't reject a theory because of who is pushing it.
After all - assholes could be pushing a basically
sound theory in order to put people off looking at it.

I tend to be non-knee-jerk like that. Always.
I keep a very open mind until I see the whole
picture emerge. Always.

My "Fuk them" statement is a conclusion.

A well-considered conclusion.

You bought in. Ok.
But think again and get bought out.

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Hombre



Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 967

PostPosted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 9:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Something sinister is going on here. In reading the last few posts I get the feeling that NPT is a touchy subject reaching beyond common sense on both sides.

Any serious researcher would/does consider both sides of the coin before taking a stance, or a stand if you will. You guys seem, in taking your stance, that you'd be willing to defend your turf with violence. Am I correct, is this the true sense I feel in reading the text?

I'm amazed the ire drawn by NPT and it's quick dismissal as rubbish, or in my language, BULLSHIT. Whether or not they faked footage, planes, had planted witnesses ( THAT THEY DID AND IT WAS OBVIOUS ) changed their story ( JAMIE MAC ) did in fact change his story, or anything else that some like to claim, ISN'T THE FREAKING POINT. The point is that it is POSSIBLE and can't be dismissed completely. One reason all of you, EVERYONE INTERESTED in defending, or attacking this issue is over looking and underestimating is the ENVIRONMENT immediately near and surrounding the entire area on Sept 11 2001. IT WAS A CONTROLLED AND LIMITED ENVIRONMENT albeit in a CONFUSED STATE. Camera crews/REPORTERS-- INTERVIEW who they want and very very rarely is it 100% live footage, they usually employ a delay of sorts for various reason. Regardless it's a fact that most everyone saw a plane impact Tower 2 on TV yet not everyone near the towers on 9-11 actually saw or most IMPORTANTLY heard a plane hit tower 2. YES some claim that they did, those numbers in total are very very small.

The reasons for this are many, yet they seem to be dismissed as RUBBISH or BULLSHIT quickly because the world saw a plane presented by networks on their respective broadcasts. The TV never lies, kind of like Harry Potter and that fancy map Shocked

I'm not 100% sold on NPT yet I keep an open mind about all of it with exception of the things that were not NECESSARY to use on 9-11. Like magic birds, morphing things and the like. That does not mean I consider those that push it NUTS or WHACK JOBS although one, I'll not name, does have some pretty deep seated issues ( IMHO )

Fintan: I'm a fan of your work and enjoy the reads, opinions, banter ETC. But I get the sense that you've completely dismissed NPT as being a vehicle or tool used to fracture the movement, or at least label it as something other than a real movement seeking the real truth, such as " THOSE LOONY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS " When you reference ACE BAKER and his shredding I must question that example because Baker, ( IMHO ) isn't up to par on many levels of the common person seeking " ACTUAL TRUTH " he should have gotten shredded especially when it's 2 against 1. I watched that clip and had a hard time getting through it due to it's obvious set up style slant. Ace was like a fish out of water only he has ONE VERY VERY VALID point or opinion that neither of the other two were too anxious to expound upon. WHERE ARE/IS the real untouched unedited video from that CHOPPER?????

I've said many times that some photographic evidence of 9-11 has been seized, altered, or destroyed and I believe such is the case with much of the CHOPPER FOOTAGE, photos, and the eyewitness accounts of those in said choppers. There are numerous pics taken by foreign agencies on the web which few in the states have seen. They are very clear photos as they should be given that they were taken by professional photogs with expensive hi-tech gear. Most of the pics on American web servers are of lesser quality written off as typical grainy military crap. That's a cover, one Baker wants to expose but he seems to be hampered, either by the lack of skills or on he's doing it on purpose. Wink

One would think SERIOUSNESS would have a conclusion given 7 years has passed, Yet the beat goes on with no signs of letting up anytime soon. Someone asking the right questions in that Baker clip would have been kicked from the show in a few minutes. The right questions have correct answers and those are the ones NO ONE wants to touch.

The thought that 9-11 and all of it's " COULD GO WRONG SCENARIOS " would be left to a small group radical human Islamic Arab terrorist Pilots is indeed the real lunacy front and center behind 9-11. Most who believe that can only source someone who told them that on TV or RADIO. So maybe they feel it's better to believe that than to explore the other avenue. Not much gray area there to ponder over, and a clear unobstructed view into the reality of the 9-11 cover story. That in my humble opinion is why there are so many theories surrounding 9-11. There must be obstruction in order to bury the real aspects of 9-11 and divide those brave enough to question into to small pockets of manageable resistance no matter what they push or believe.

As for NPT I personally do not believe that actual passenger planes hit the Towers. I believe that they were dressed up, made to look like planes, cruise missiles and were guided in by GPS or homing devices planted in the buildings and activated via remote from some location on ground or by air.

ALL JMHO~

Hombre'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

IMO, the thing that bursts from the far side of the building in the 'nose out' video isn't a jumbo's nose-cone at all. I think it's far more likely that it's some piece of the building that's been ripped off and accelerated outwards.
_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 42, 43, 44 ... 46, 47, 48  Next
Page 43 of 48

 
Jump to:  
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


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.