NO PLANERS EXPOSED----->INSIDE+WeAreChangeColorado

[Protean]

That's because there is none.

You know you have more posts on this thread, than just about anyone else...

You trying to convince us, or yourself?
 

Methinks thou doest protest too loudly.

[Voskhod3]

You know you have more posts on this thread, than just about anyone else...

You trying to convince us, or yourself?
 

Methinks thou doest protest too loudly.

Show me a doctored video.

[Protean]

Show me a doctored video.

Just watch September Clues--I've been mentioning it in my previous posts as an example of showing the questionable video that the MSM broadcast. The narrator breaks it down and walks through the pieces.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6407548186293238834&ei=izQ7Soz8GYGerQPj292WCg&q=september+clues&hl=en

[smoofness2k8]

Voskhod3, tell me that you've watched the video... several times... jotted down notes... gave it a chance...
I have watched it maybe 20 times or so... which is similar to alot of other videos... I dont dismiss anything from others words... I watch, I think, I gather my OWN opinions...

It's easy to just dismiss something, be closed minded... but it's another thing to really study what you see and make your own mind up on what you believe...

[Southern Patriot]

Check this video out....18 witnesses at the Pentagon who all saw the plane on the wrong side of the gas station....3 of them police officers...None saw the impact....2 witnesses that saw the plane fly away from the "point of impact".....1 cab driver admitting he lied about what happened with the light pole in the windshield....This is the best evidence I have seen from any source.
If we are to go on witness testimony then here it is!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o

[smoofness2k8]

watched it as soon as it was posted yesterday morning... you do realize that it's right below this thread...?

It shows that some people saw something... others saw another thing... and what some saw and what others thought are contradictory to what could have actually happened...

[grapecrusher1]

You know you have more posts on this thread, than just about anyone else...

You trying to convince us, or yourself?
 

Methinks thou doest protest too loudly.

Voshcod (sp?) is the only one with the patience and tenacity to continue this sort of discourse which I see as pointless because the "scrutinizing" jury is out:  planes hit buildings -- 3 buildings collapsed because of planted explosives.

To all No-Planers:
WHERE ARE YOUR EXPERTS WHO SUPPORT YOUR idiot CLAIMS???  (please note I am calling your claims idiocy not you)  wood, fetzer and other obvious COINTELPRO assets have already been shot down.  Nor does Kleist qualify as an expert.  If you didnt know he is the one who did Sept clues  -- which is crap.  How come you havent talked about pods and flashes or are you holding your cards back?  Because the same 3 cards have been played repetitively again and again.

Show me your experts --- show me your experts ---- show me your experts  -- show me your experts  ---- show me your experts

[sekular]

experts ?

you don't need to be an expert to see that i have made some good points in this thread.

voskhod3 you want us to give up ? why would you want us to give up ?

[Protean]

Voshcod (sp?) is the only one with the patience and tenacity to continue this sort of discourse which I see as pointless because the "scrutinizing" jury is out:  planes hit buildings -- 3 buildings collapsed because of planted explosives.

To all No-Planers:
WHERE ARE YOUR EXPERTS WHO SUPPORT YOUR idiot CLAIMS???  (please note I am calling your claims idiocy not you)  wood, fetzer and other obvious COINTELPRO assets have already been shot down.  Nor does Kleist qualify as an expert.  If you didnt know he is the one who did Sept clues  -- which is crap.  How come you havent talked about pods and flashes or are you holding your cards back?  Because the same 3 cards have been played repetitively again and again.

Show me your experts --- show me your experts ---- show me your experts  -- show me your experts  ---- show me your experts

 

This deserves repeating: Methinks thou doest protest too loudly.

[Voskhod3]

Just watch September Clues

September Clues is pure nonsense.

How can you compare images without discussing focal length, field depth, distance or parallax?

September Clues is a crock.

[Voskhod3]

voskhod3 you want us to give up ? why would you want us to give up ?

Because your sh*t stinks out the real 9/11 issues as can be found in "9/11: Press for Truth".

But maybe that's the point.

[Protean]

Because your sh*t stinks out the real 9/11 issues as can be found in "9/11: Press for Truth".

But maybe that's the point.

No the point is: you want us to agree with you and say you are right.

Sorry bud. I'm not making up my mind yet on what happened on 911, I like to consider all theories.

[Voskhod3]

No the point is: you want us to agree with you and say you are right.

Explain how the alleged fakers hoped to control the witnesses and their images of the impact 20 minutes after the first one (the 20 minutes being ENTIRELY THEIR DECISION).

Thousands were watching, they didn't know who they were, where they were from, where they were going after, or what recording equipment they were carrying.

Why would that fake a second impact under those conditions?

[Protean]

Explain how the alleged fakers hoped to control the witnesses and their images of the impact 20 minutes after the first one (the 20 minutes being ENTIRELY THEIR DECISION).

Thousands were watching, they didn't know who they were, where they were from, where they were going after, or what recording equipment they were carrying.

Why would that fake a second impact under those conditions?

Buddy, give it a rest. Believe what you want--okay? It's okay to have different opinions.
I'm cool with it.
 

[Voskhod3]

Buddy, give it a rest. Believe what you want--okay? It's okay to have different opinions.

Do you think I make a valid point?

[smoofness2k8]

Do you think I make a valid point?

not really...

will you see my post above and give an answer please...

[Voskhod3]

not really...

You don't think I have a valid point?

Then you must think it is feasible to have been able to control the thousands unknown witnesses and the unknown number of their images for the second impact.

Can you tell me how?

[sekular]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1148-computer-program-raises-possibility-of-voice-theft.html

something else to consider

[grapecrusher1]

This deserves repeating: Methinks thou doest protest too loudly.

Did you say that in a Yoda voice to yourself when you typed it.
Very profound nonetheless.

Buddy, give it a rest. Believe what you want--okay? It's okay to have different opinions.
I'm cool with it.
 

You are probably cool with jellybeans and drool dripping off your chin, too.

experts ?

you don't need to be an expert to see that i have made some good points in this thread.

voskhod3 you want us to give up ? why would you want us to give up ?

Experts are key in the pursuit of truth.  We are all not architects, engineers, chemists, physicists, film engineers and therefore we are obligated to defer our opinions to their counsel.  Now in my circumstance the official theory expert accounts are highly conflicted with those that are equally qualified and in my opinion are working for more altruistic reasons(ie. AE truth, Jones, Ryan, et al)
The silly no-plane theory has no experts.  Good Points? that is your opinion.  Example: Some guy at the base of the towers said he thought it might be a missile.  Yeah he might have thought that because he didnt see it and was arriving at conclusions.  Plenty of plausible explanations.  No-plane theorists claims hold no water.

where are your experts --- where are your experts --- where are your experts ----where are your experts   --- where are your experts
 

[9/11FalseFlag]

1 expert that comes to mind immediately is Professor Morgan Renolds

No Boeing 747/757s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q8tA2iqaXo

[grapecrusher1]

Morgan Reynolds is another one who has been highly criticised for lofty thoughts although I havent arrived at my own conclusion of his work.  But i do appreciate your point and what does he say in regards to planes crashing into the twin towers?   

[9/11FalseFlag]

Well if you watch that video you'll see he agrees the video footage from that day has been heavily tampered with

[grapecrusher1]

Well if you watch that video you'll see he agrees the video footage from that day has been heavily tampered with

I watched it --painfully.
First he is no expert - he is a professor of economics -- he may think that there has been tampering with the film but nowhere in this clip was there any analysis at all..
I must admit i felt sorry for him and sorrier for the damage he does to the movement.  If the mainstream keeps people like him in the limelight we are foresaken. 

There are no shortage of film experts out there please show me one who corroborates the no-plane theory.  Seems they are as hard to find as experts to debate the experts of 911 truth, or harder.

 

[Voskhod3]

Well if you watch that video you'll see he agrees the video footage from that day has been heavily tampered with

No it wasn't.

Does it discuss focal length, field depth, distance or parallax?

If the discussion doesn't mention these then it's a crock.

[Protean]

Did you say that in a Yoda voice to yourself when you typed it.
Very profound nonetheless.

You are probably cool with jellybeans and drool dripping off your chin, too.
Experts are key in the pursuit of truth.  We are all not architects, engineers, chemists, physicists, film engineers and therefore we are obligated to defer our opinions to their counsel.  Now in my circumstance the official theory expert accounts are highly conflicted with those that are equally qualified and in my opinion are working for more altruistic reasons(ie. AE truth, Jones, Ryan, et al)
The silly no-plane theory has no experts.  Good Points? that is your opinion.  Example: Some guy at the base of the towers said he thought it might be a missile.  Yeah he might have thought that because he didnt see it and was arriving at conclusions.  Plenty of plausible explanations.  No-plane theorists claims hold no water.

where are your experts --- where are your experts --- where are your experts ----where are your experts   --- where are your experts
 

Well, you got me convinced of one thing: you have nothing constructive to provide.
Congrats!
 

[grapecrusher1]

Well, you got me convinced of one thing: you have nothing constructive to provide.

If that is the case we are even.

[Protean]

If that is the case we are even.

Nope--now we are.
 

[sekular]

Another point about the media is that they just have to control what comes out of AP, reuters, bloomberg. As they will all feed information to the rest of the news.  As well as the small amount of sources that they will have.

[Infokrieger]

The no-planers have a few things right: There was no plane at the Pentagon. The video footage on TV has been tampered with. But that doesn't mean there were no planes crashing into the WTC towers. It just means they've shown you doctored footage and that's it.

Let me turn this sentence around once more, to make sure everybody gets what I meant: There were planes, but for some reason, the footage shown on TV was doctored anyway.

[Voskhod3]

The no-planers have a few things right: There was no plane at the Pentagon.

There is a subtle game going on here about planes.

There were planes at the WTC for sure, absolutely 100% stone cold fact.

There was at least one commercial aircraft at the Pentagon which may or may not have crashed into it. They are credible witnesses that put it on a flight path different to the official one and perhaps it overshot the building.

Whatever these witness accounts deserve some attention.

It is my belief that the no-planes sh*t at the WTC is to obscure the plane issue at the Pentagon.

[kushfiend]

There is a subtle game going on here about planes.

There were planes at the WTC for sure, absolutely 100% stone cold fact.

That is not a "stone cold fact."  Many of us understand how the media manipulated people like you into believing that so that the govt's story of arabian hijackers would fly.

There was at least one commercial aircraft at the Pentagon which may or may not have crashed into it. They are credible witnesses that put it on a flight path different to the official one and perhaps it overshot the building.

Whatever these witness accounts deserve some attention.

It is my belief that the no-planes sh*t at the WTC is to obscure the plane issue at the Pentagon.

It is my belief that the mainstream media helped Cheney and his cabal take over the U.S. govt on 9/11. 

[Voskhod3]

That is not a "stone cold fact."  Many of us understand how the media manipulated people like you into believing that so that the govt's story of arabian hijackers would fly.

Tell me how they even thought they could control the unknown witnesses and the unknown number of recorded images for an impact staged 20 minutes after the first one?

They couldn't possibly.

It is a stone cold fact that planes flew in the WTC.

[sekular]

sure

[Voskhod3]

sure

You have an explanation on how they did that?

Please tell us.

[kushfiend]

Here's proof of TV fakery for the 3rd time vok

First, I want to preface this by saying that I do not believe in NPT [No Plane Theory].

It is my belief that military aircraft and/or missiles hit the twin towers on 9/11 and the MSM [Main Stream Media] covered it up by splicing in footage of civilian airliners.


*AIRPLANE PARTS*


Claim: Airplane wreckage proves planes hit the towers.

FACT: The available evidence does not add up.



As you can clearly see, these engine parts did NOT come from a Boeing 767 aircraft.  To me, it looks like the engine for a cruise missile, seen here:




*TV NETWORKS & MILITARY PSYOPS CONNECTION*


Claim: Just the idea the TV Networks and military would work together to deceive the public is wacky cookoo!

FACT: The TV Networks/Military/PSYOPS connection was reported by the media before 9/11.

*TV-FAKERY*


Claim: Just the idea the TV Networks would broadcast fake footage is nutcase kooky!

FACT: This technology was reported in the media before 9/11 as being available by TV Networks and the military for the purpose of altering world politics.

Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion: “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

High school physics states that the force an airplane exerts on a building is the same as the force a building exerts on an airplane.  Now check out these images, and ask yourself, do they match up with Newton's third law of motion?




Even Peter Jennings knew the 9/11 airplane video was fake. Note his nervousness and word fumbling when ABC plays this amateur clip back in slow motion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCDu2V3yjS4

As retired Aerospace Engineer Joseph Keith says: "The video is phony because airliners don’t meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them!"
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&..._planer_resigns

Probably the most damning evidence can be seen with Fox 5's infamous "Nose out" video


This is my personal favorite.  Check out CNN's cartoon plane 


A real plane would crash against the building.  The tail should of ripped off, not melted into the building

*DEBUNKED?*


Claim: TV-Fakery has been debunked time and time again.

FACT:The violation of Newton’s Laws of Motion has never been explained.

Several “papers” claiming to debunk TV-Fakery have surfaced. However, not one of them approaches the obvious violation of Newton’s Laws regarding an aluminum airplane with a plastic nosecone gliding through a steel/concrete building. Instead, these strawman papers attempt to discredit TV-Fakery by “explaining away” a few points. Neither Steven Jones nor anyone in his team has ever addressed Newton’s Laws as it applies to TV-Fakery. (I wonder why…)

[grapecrusher1]

It is my belief that the no-planes sh*t at the WTC is to obscure the plane issue at the Pentagon.

It is my belief that the No-plane dog and pony show is a spin-off from the legitimate questions surrounding the Pentagon.  COINTELPRO disinfo combined with the unwittingly misinformed has blossomed into a heavy credibility blow to the Truth movement.

[Voskhod3]

It is my belief that the No-plane dog and pony show is a spin-off from the legitimate questions surrounding the Pentagon.  COINTELPRO disinfo combined with the unwittingly misinformed has blossomed into a heavy credibility blow to the Truth movement.

Absolutely.

[sekular]

It is my belief that the No-plane dog and pony show is a spin-off from the legitimate questions surrounding the Pentagon.  COINTELPRO disinfo combined with the unwittingly misinformed has blossomed into a heavy credibility blow to the Truth movement.

i disagree. if we were to stop as to fear of humiliation we would not have gotten this far.

[Voskhod3]

i disagree. if we were to stop as to fear of humiliation we would not have gotten this far.

Of course you disagree.

You're a no-planer.

Someone who can't explain just how they controlled the thousands of witnesses and any images they recorded.

But hey... "nose out".

[grapecrusher1]

i disagree. if we were to stop as to fear of humiliation we would not have gotten this far.

It should be obvious that i don't fear the condemnation I face with my 911 convictions because they are supported by experts and hold up to rational scrutiny.  Now I would be embarrassed to share a collective voice with people that believe No Planes were involved in the WTC attack in a legitimate effort to get a real investigation because IT DOES NOT HOLD UP TO RATIONAL SCRUTINY OR HAVE VETTED EXPERTS.