It was holograms after all.

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · Post by **THETRUTHWILLSETU3** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:51 pm

Why don't you answer the questions Jim?

jim303 · Post by **jim303** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:52 pm

Scott wrote:the most important thing to remeber is that this campaign isn't about convincing people whether it was an inside job or not..........................the only way we'll get to the bottom of this is with a full, independent public inquiry that isn't afraid to suspect those who benefited most. That's what the campaign is about. Less speculation, more pressure for an inquiry.

Right you are, thanks.

JimB · Post by **JimB** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:49 pm

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: NO EXPLOSION

I assume you mean no immediate explosion. So we can conclude the fuel doesn't ignite immediately.

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:NO BITS DROPPING OFF

Dropping off? It slams into the tower at high speed. Debris is ejected from each side of the tower visible in the clip.

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:AND NO DAMAGE TO THE SIDE THE PLANE WENT IN

So where does the cloud of smoke/dust/debris emerge from? A ghost hole? It couldn't be that the hole isn't apparent because of the poor quality of the video clip, could it?

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:ONLY A GHOST PLANE COULD DO THIS

Move the clip on and you see an explosion coming out the other side of the building

Like the debris, the explosion emerges from each side of the tower visible in the clip.

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: - the explosion should have been at the entry point when the wings which store the fuel hit the building

Really? What makes you so sure?

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:Why don't you answer the questions Jim?

Answered.

fixuplooksharp · Post by **fixuplooksharp** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:25 pm

david ray griffin said some very important things regarding the hologram theory and unproveable theories....they are pointless and detremental.

i am getting * pissed off with all this no plane *!!!

divide and conqour you fools, thats how the gov works...........

im not saying your all shills.....but seriously....if you actually believe this/and or are telling other people about this, im oretty sure you are just getting off on your little trip that other people cant work out the greater conspiracy, giving you a sense of superiority.

get over yourselves....stop looking for the unproveable.

we cannot prove that this ever happened, even if it did....

im guna start tearing my hair out soon!

im praying 4 u guys

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · Post by **THETRUTHWILLSETU3** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:32 pm

JimB wrote:
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: NO EXPLOSION
I assume you mean no immediate explosion. So we can conclude the fuel doesn't ignite immediately.

On what basis

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:NO BITS DROPPING OFF
Dropping off? It slams into the tower at high speed. Debris is ejected from each side of the tower visible in the clip.

There is no debris evident

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:AND NO DAMAGE TO THE SIDE THE PLANE WENT IN
So where does the cloud of smoke/dust/debris emerge from? A ghost hole? It couldn't be that the hole isn't apparent because of the poor quality of the video clip, could it?

The dust comes out later after the bombs have gone off

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:ONLY A GHOST PLANE COULD DO THIS

Move the clip on and you see an explosion coming out the other side of the building
Like the debris, the explosion emerges from each side of the tower visible in the clip.

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: - the explosion should have been at the entry point when the wings which store the fuel hit the building
Really? What makes you so sure?

That's obvious

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:Why don't you answer the questions Jim?
Answered.

JimB · Post by **JimB** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:49 pm

TRUTH: NO EXPLOSION
ME: I assume you mean no immediate explosion. So we can conclude the fuel doesn't ignite immediately.
TRUTH: On what basis

On the basis that a 7x7 laden with fuel has just flown into the building and there's no immediate explosion.

TRUTH:NO BITS DROPPING OFF
ME: Dropping off? It slams into the tower at high speed. Debris is ejected from each side of the tower visible in the clip.
TRUTH: There is no debris evident

Right, it's a poor quality clip and it's not clear what the emerging clouds consists of. So how can you be so sure there are no plane bits? You can't.

TUTH: AND NO DAMAGE TO THE SIDE THE PLANE WENT IN
ME: So where does the cloud of smoke/dust/debris emerge from? A ghost hole? It couldn't be that the hole isn't apparent because of the poor quality of the video clip, could it?
TRUTH: The dust comes out later after the bombs have gone off

It's a poor quality clip and there's no way to determine from it the extent of the damage to the building.

TRUTH: - the explosion should have been at the entry point when the wings which store the fuel hit the building
ME: Really? What makes you so sure?
TRUTH: That's obvious

Really? What makes it so obvious? Was it full of Insta-Kombust fuel? (j/k)

Woodee · Post by **Woodee** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:52 pm

JimB wrote:
TRUTH: - the explosion should have been at the entry point when the wings which store the fuel hit the building
ME: Really? What makes you so sure?
TRUTH: That's obvious

Really? What makes it so obvious? Was it full of Insta-Kombust fuel? (j/k)

Shouldn't all the electronics in the cockpit create a few sparks to set off an explosion?

JimB · Post by **JimB** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:19 pm

Woodee wrote:
JimB wrote:
TRUTH: - the explosion should have been at the entry point when the wings which store the fuel hit the building
ME: Really? What makes you so sure?
TRUTH: That's obvious

Really? What makes it so obvious? Was it full of Insta-Kombust fuel? (j/k)
Shouldn't all the electronics in the cockpit create a few sparks to set off an explosion?

Perhaps they did. But TRUTH finds it suspect that there was no immediate explosion. Can you guarantee that there would be sparks immediately on impact?

Bushwacker · Post by **Bushwacker** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:16 am

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:Why don't you answer the questions Bushwacker?

Sorry, Jim had answered them by the time I got back to this. But I do not understand why you say there is no hole. Obviously because of the angle a hole is not going to be very obvious, but if you look immediately after the plane went in and before the smoke comes out, you can clearly see a black line, which is the hole from this very oblique angle. Anyway, the hole is clearly visible on video and photos taken from a better angle.

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · Post by **THETRUTHWILLSETU3** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:22 am

not this one bushwacker - the fatal flaws one - please counter my points

Bushwacker · Post by **Bushwacker** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:22 am

Lots of debris falling visible in this video from another angle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0Qu6eyy ... ed&search=

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · Post by **THETRUTHWILLSETU3** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:30 am

wrong kind of debris bushwacker - looks like dust and fragments of the skin of the building - cannot see any plane debris

paul wright · Post by **paul wright** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:33 am

fixuplooksharp wrote:david ray griffin said some very important things regarding the hologram theory and unproveable theories....they are pointless and detremental.

i am getting * pissed off with all this no plane *!!!

divide and conqour you fools, thats how the gov works...........

im not saying your all shills.....but seriously....if you actually believe this/and or are telling other people about this, im oretty sure you are just getting off on your little trip that other people cant work out the greater conspiracy, giving you a sense of superiority.

get over yourselves....stop looking for the unproveable.

we cannot prove that this ever happened, even if it did....

im guna start tearing my hair out soon!

im praying 4 u guys

I agree with you, tho a veteran NP myself
This is all self-indulgent w*nk for those with nothing better to do
It gets as irritating as those jref shills ever were
It's been done to death, now are you suggesting we include it in our publicity?
ffs put up, ie put it out yourselves, or shut up

Bushwacker · Post by **Bushwacker** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:52 am

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:wrong kind of debris bushwacker - looks like dust and fragments of the skin of the building - cannot see any plane debris

The wrong kind of debris - did you use to work for British Rail?
Seriously, you cannot possibly tell what kind of debris that is, and of course the skin of the building and the skin of the plane are both aluminium sheet.

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · Post by **THETRUTHWILLSETU3** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 1:07 am

Well bush cannot see any plane bits at all - like wings, tails, engines - point me in the right direction - you can obviously see summat that I cannot

Bushwacker · Post by **Bushwacker** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 1:20 am

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:not this one bushwacker - the fatal flaws one - please counter my points

You were asking me why I had not answered questions on a thread I had not contributed to? Sorry, didn't guess that one!
Here goes then, assuming these are the right questions:

You have already said they would want to minimise the risk - so why were the alleged planes flow at twice the normal operating speed for that altitude? - seriously compromising the handling of the planes and the cances of the mission succeeding.

The planes were surely high enough for there to be no ground effects, so I don't see a problem. Normal operating procedures are set for all sorts of reasons and are unlikely to show the limits of an aircraft's capability.

How could they be sure they would hit the target? They have had no practice of flying a plane by remote control - even at normal speeds into a Skyscraper.

They were huge targets, and how do you know what practice they had?

If they were real planes - how could they we sure the Air Force would stand down?

They couldn't, but giving them a short time to respond and sending four planes at once maximised their chances

If they were real planes (with passengers on board) how could they be sure the passengers wouldn't try something? - people facing their demise would try anything

Again they couldn't, and we are told they did on one plane, but if patsy Arabs were used they had muscle on the planes as well as pilots.

And finally and most importantly - how could they be sure that the planes would not trigger off all the explosives in the buildings upon impact and ruin the whole operation - nobody would believe a plane could knock a skyscraper down in 10 seconds flat

I assume the charges would be detonated wirelessly to avoid trailing wires round the building, and to avoid this problem. The impact might dislodge or detonate a small number of charges but that would not set off the whole lot

Bushwacker · Post by **Bushwacker** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 7:15 am

And please in turn, Truth, answer these:
Is there any evidence whatever of a hologram generator powerful enough to produce 7X7 size images at a great distance?
If not why would one be developed in total secrecy?
How could they risk not having, or alternatively generate, for the hologram the appropriate noise, radar image and shadow?
Why does the hologram reflect sunlight?
When the hologram was directed with pin-point accuracy and timing on to the precise spot on the buildings where the exposives were ready to blast a plane shaped hole, why did that blast not throw any debris outwards?

Ally · Post by **Ally** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:30 am

please drop this hologram nonsense, you're just trying to give people a bad name through cheap labels so certain issues remain undiscussed and marred in controversy. Ain't that the point of forums - using debate to uncover the truth?

scar · Post by **scar** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:18 am

Ally wrote:please drop this hologram nonsense, you're just trying to give people a bad name through cheap labels so certain issues remain undiscussed and marred in controversy. Ain't that the point of forums - using debate to uncover the truth?

One would hope so yes. Sadly when you cannot surmount an argument you attack the messenger, throw your dummy out of your pram and leave the thread. Trying to gatekeep people from discussing holograms whilst saying "Ain't that the point of forums - using debate to uncover the truth?" is highly amusing. You're so arrogant.
Pushing debunked cgiNPT belief systems like it was monotheism.
Holograms of this type cannot be proven to exist so i agree with you on the hologram, you dont want to debate or examine the other side you wish to push your beliefs and tell people to shut up when they conflict with those same beliefs. Hypocrite.

graphicequaliser · Post by **graphicequaliser** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:50 am

I think you're missing the point of this thread which is to discuss :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMT4REHBvFk&NR

The main problem with that video is this inconceivable fact that is clearly visible in this film (and others too) :-

Since when does a light, hollow aluminium tube and wings, enter the equivalent of a giant steel grating, and come out on the other side almost unscathed. There is no way - this is so obviously a hoax, and I am sure the physicists amongst us here will agree, the nose of the aluminium tube would certainly not appear out the other side of the grating mesh without blemish. Who are you trying to kid? Come on now, we are not that stupid (although certain posters are being unbelievably obtuse).

LBC · Post by **LBC** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 1:27 pm

prole art threat wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMT4REHBvFk&NR

Awesome '100% proof' of 'no planes' there. Keep up the good work.

graphicequaliser · Post by **graphicequaliser** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 1:48 pm

LBC, how do you explain the question I posed, about the thin, aluminium chassis going straight through loads of steel girders to come out unscathed the other side of the building?

JimB · Post by **JimB** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 4:13 pm

graphicequaliser wrote:LBC, how do you explain the question I posed, about the thin, aluminium chassis going straight through loads of steel girders to come out unscathed the other side of the building?

You must have great eyesight to be able to tell that that's unscathed thin, aluminium chassis. I see debris of type unknown, condition unknown.

Bicnarok · Post by **Bicnarok** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 7:16 pm

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
JimB wrote:
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:That is only your explanation for the delay in the man looking up - and that relies on your unproved theory that he could not hear the plane approaching - I agree with you - he could not hear something that was not there
Unproved? Sound travels slower than light. Fact. It can be demonstrated with the simplest of experiments. How the hell does this provide evidence for holograms?
Well Jim

Play the clip again

Freeze it at 45 seconds - you will see that the plane has completely entered the building -NO EXPLOSION, NO BITS DROPPING OFF
AND NO DAMAGE TO THE SIDE THE PLANE WENT IN

ONLY A GHOST PLANE COULD DO THIS

Move the clip on and you see an explosion coming out the other side of the building - the explosion should have been at the entry point when the wings which store the fuel hit the building

So answer these points if you can

I´d like to add a few points to this debate.

The video is low quatliy is played slowed down and there are many frames missing so the explosion and actual hit effect seems delayed. Simple trick!!

The plane was going very fast and the wall of the tower has lot of glass in it, low resistance, so the plane entered the entire building taking the debris with it due to the momentum.

The explosion is the worrying thing imo. Dunno why it should have happened like that, plus the flash or beam hitting the building just before the airplane is also a very interesting thing. The most possible reason could be that a missile was attached under the plane and launched just before the plane hit the bulding. The flash would be the missile going in. Why this would be done is rathr confusing.

None of this though gives any credibility to a hologram plane.

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · Post by **THETRUTHWILLSETU3** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:07 pm

Hi Bicnarok

Do it detect the slightest concession from you that something is amiss?

If you play the sequence again - and freeze it at 45/46 seconds you will see that the plane has completely entered the building - there is nothing to see - no damage - no explosion - and no plane

Now ask yourself this question and be honest with yourself

- is this possible with a real plane?

- is this possible with a ghost plane?

Which is the most likely answer ? Please post your honest answer to this one question

This footage is courtesy of ABC news

Justin · Post by **Justin** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:29 pm

I posted this last Friday but it is still very relevant:

This morning I had a long telephone conversation with David Icke and when I asked him for his view about the 'No Plane' theories concerning the Twin Towers he said 'Don't go there!. In his opinion this is being used to damage the 9/11 Truth movement at this extraordinarily important time for us and, whilst he accepts that the PTB/Illuminati/NeoCons are capable of almost anything, our campaign must stick to the basics. He said that the most important thing is for a new impartial inquiry into 9/11 to take place and that it is not up to us to come up with the detail as to how the PTB actually carried out the day's attacks. So please, those of you who champion the NPT, just stop and think what likely damage you are doing to the greater cause. I can totally understand your fascination in wanting to find out how they actually pulled the whole thing off, but please keep these theories 'entre nous'!

And for those who believe a plane entering a skyscraper would not behave the way the two planes did on 9/11, I posted this:

David doesn't think that a plane flew into the Pentagon and likewise, concerning Flight 93, the crash site is missing any serious debris. As regards the Twin Towers, I'm sorry but both he and I believe they were planes that went into the buildings - in fact IMHO (and I studied plane crashes at Cranfield University as part of an International Disaster Management Course) the planes entered the Towers exactly as I would expect them to do - after all they were not made from reinforced concrete like the Pentagon. At the Pentagon you would expect the plane to crash against it leaving substantial wreckage on the outside of the building - and it seems realistic IMHO to expect the opposite when crashing into a skyscraper.

Sorry to sound heavy on this but a lot is now riding on what we are doing and we must present our case in the best possible light if we are going to win quickly. Just remember please, whilst you have the luxury of debating all this in a safe and peaceful environment, innocent people are dying in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere on a daily basis. Iran is likely to be next with possibly thousands of innocent lives being lost. The sooner the NeoCons/PTB are exposed for 9/11, the sooner these people can live in the sort of peace you take totally for granted. Please don't be so selfish.

lostpomme · Post by **lostpomme** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:27 pm

I'm still undecided on the NPT (though leaning towards its implausability) but i'm with Justin on this. Even if we had concrete proof to back the theory i would still be wary.
If we dont ride the current media wave and do so with the most compelling evidence, we could miss an oportunity that wont return.
I've already witnessed potential converts scared off by talk of holograms not to mention "new guys" wondering if it's all going a bit Elvis. Our best weapon is the undeniable quality of our argument and evidence.
Obviously, the whole truth is the ultimate goal, but right now the continued good results of the movement are the priority. And the NPT is hurting our credibility.

Dan

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · Post by **THETRUTHWILLSETU3** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:10 pm

Justin said

Please don't be so selfish.

I will not be bullied into dropping no planes

If the committee think it's so bad they can move it to critics corner

Bushwacker · Post by **Bushwacker** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:16 pm

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:Justin said

Please don't be so selfish.

I will not be bullied into dropping no planes

If the committee think it's so bad they can move it to critics corner

How about answering my questions above?

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · Post by **THETRUTHWILLSETU3** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:20 pm

Bushwacker wrote:
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:Justin said

Please don't be so selfish.

I will not be bullied into dropping no planes

If the committee think it's so bad they can move it to critics corner
How about answering my questions above?

What questions Bushwacker? - there are none in your last post

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom

It was holograms after all.

Re: Star Trek ain't real, you know - Hologram? - pah!

Re: It was holograms after all.