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

[kushfiend]

"Withstand" as in "not collapse" yes. "Withstand" as in "the plane would not crash into it but be deflected somehow".. erm.. no.

I wouldn't call it crashing as much as "fusing into" the WTC building

[Voskhod3]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibtV8yITqa4

So.. you don't want to continue discussing video compression.

Is that because you have no idea how your videos have been compressed/expanded?

And now you move on to a youtube person explaining how to create CGI planes.

Listen.. WE KNOW it's possible to create CGI planes.

However you have to explain why any supposed faker would fake an impact 20 minutes after the first one, thus drawing the attention to thousands of people to the towers, and think they could control all their witness statements and recorded images!

Well?

[sekular]

ofcourse it would impact the towers but it would not make a massive hole.

that picture you posted voskhod3 is from the side of the building where no plane impacted. the impact areas show big holes.



the damage is only consistent with a missile impact and/or military grade/demolition grade explosives.

[kushfiend]

So.. you don't want to continue discussing video compression.

Is that because you have no idea how your videos have been compressed/expanded?

And now you move on to a youtube person explaining how to create CGI planes.

Listen.. WE KNOW it's possible to create CGI planes.

However you have to explain why any supposed faker would fake an impact 20 minutes after the first one, thus drawing the attention to thousands of people to the towers, and think they could control all their witness statements and recorded images!

Well?

No one knows why the govt. did 9/11, tons of things don't make sense about that day. We'll prolly never know "why" the NWO agents and provocateurs did what they did.

All I know is, is that this is an obvious forgery:

[Voskhod3]

All I know is, is that this is an obvious forgery:

I don't know which of the 50+ videos that is (if it is one of those).. why is it an obvious forgery?

[sekular]

So.. you don't want to continue discussing video compression.

Is that because you have no idea how your videos have been compressed/expanded?

And now you move on to a youtube person explaining how to create CGI planes.

Listen.. WE KNOW it's possible to create CGI planes.

However you have to explain why any supposed faker would fake an impact 20 minutes after the first one, thus drawing the attention to thousands of people to the towers, and think they could control all their witness statements and recorded images!

Well?

what information do you require regarding video compression?

why would they fake an impact ? well if you had actually read all my posts maybe you wouldn't need to keep asking the same questions. you ask me why they did it that way, well that was their plan and that is what they did. why did they destroy the buildings ? cause they are crazy ? they want to turn everyone against muslims and take away our rights ?

your logic is this, why would they do all that when it would be "easier" to fly actual planes into the buildings is not sufficient justification for it not to be true.

[Infokrieger]

All I know is, is that this is an obvious forgery:

That looks like a nose and not like an airplane engine, does it?

Voskhod, are you saying, this image is fake? No, you don't because you would be admitting to TV fakery. Have you checked the TV archives to disprove the authencity of this image?

Voskhod are you saying, this is an airplane engine? Are you blind? Does that look like an engine to you?

Voskhod, are you saying, this is not a "nose-out"? What is it then? Hint: a plane flew into the building. Guess.

Pick one.

Voskhod where are your facts? Have you provided one single piece of factual evidence in this thread? Nope. You keep spouting rhetoric, hypotheticals, your opinions, your beliefs, but no facts at all.

[Infokrieger]

I wouldn't call it crashing as much as "fusing into" the WTC building

Anyway, "withstand" doesn't mean "not damaged" but "not collapse". You were taking the architects quote out of context.

[sekular]

regardless of the fact that the building is made to withstand impacts. i am saying the damage is not consistent with a plane impact at all.

the picture shown, the reason why that is fake, well killtown pointed this out. is that that object sticking out the building does not move for a couple of frames while the explosion grows. thus it is not a real object.

[Infokrieger]

Pictures were being doctored, the TV studios do it all the time, have been caught doing it in the past.

But that doesn't mean there were no planes. It just does not logically follow. Is there nobody in the movement on either side of the discussion who understands logic just a bit and can grasp that argument?

"No-planers" don't seem to get it, they see the fake pictures and think, "if the planes on TV were fake that means there were no planes". Please, study logic. It does NOT follow.

"Mainstream-truthers" don't get it, they become aggressive and all self righteous and throw all reason and logic out of the window when confronted with TV fakery. Apparently you guys can't think logically, either. "you speak of TV fakery? You must be a no planer then. Because everything you see on TV is the truth".

Anybody here who has not been brainwashed by either side? It's sad, really.

Let me elaborate for you.

For a no-planer the argument goes like this:

1. If the images on TV were faked that means there were no planes. (which is a fallacy in itself, it's the logical mistake I'm talking about)

2. The images on TV were faked

Conclusion: There were no planes


For a mainstream-truther it goes like this:

1. If the images on TV were faked that means there were no planes. (which is a fallacy in itself)

2. There were planes

Conclusion: The images on TV were not faked.

Both are wrong, wrong, wrong.


here's what I think:

1. There is plenty of evidence for planes hitting the WTC.

2. There is plenty of evidence for TV fakery.

Conclusion: 1 and 2 are most probably true. There were planes AND the images were doctored. IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

ALEX? anyone?

[Voskhod3]

what information do you require regarding video compression?

why would they fake an impact ? well if you had actually read all my posts maybe you wouldn't need to keep asking the same questions. you ask me why they did it that way, well that was their plan and that is what they did. why did they destroy the buildings ? cause they are crazy ? they want to turn everyone against muslims and take away our rights ?

your logic is this, why would they do all that when it would be "easier" to fly actual planes into the buildings is not sufficient justification for it not to be true.

You have to tell me how they controlled the thousands of witnesses and their recorded images.

There is absolutely no way they could do that.. unless you can tell me how.

[White Rose Sophie]

Pictures were being doctored, the TV studios do it all the time, have been caught doing it in the past.

But that doesn't mean there were no planes. It just does not logically follow. Is there nobody in the movement on either side of the discussion who understands logic just a bit and can grasp that argument?

"No-planers" don't seem to get it, they see the fake pictures and think, "if the planes on TV were fake that means there were no planes". Please, study logic. It does NOT follow.

"Mainstream-truthers" don't get it, they become aggressive and all self righteous and throw all reason and logic out of the window when confronted with TV fakery. Apparently you guys can't think logically, either. "you speak of TV fakery? You must be a no planer then. Because everything you see on TV is the truth".

Anybody here who has not been brainwashed by either side? It's sad, really.

Let me elaborate for you.

For a no-planer the argument goes like this:

1. If the images on TV were faked that means there were no planes. (which is a fallacy in itself, it's the logical mistake I'm talking about)

2. The images on TV were faked

Conclusion: There were no planes


For a mainstream-truther it goes like this:

1. If the images on TV were faked that means there were no planes. (which is a fallacy in itself)

2. There were planes

Conclusion: The images on TV were not faked.

Both are wrong, wrong, wrong.


here's what I think:

1. There is plenty of evidence for planes hitting the WTC.

2. There is plenty of evidence for TV fakery.

Conclusion: 1 and 2 are most probably true. There were planes AND the images were doctored. IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

ALEX? anyone?

Thank you.

It's not an either/or scenario, in my opinion.  Why WOULDN'T there be video fakes, produced in advance, just in case?  Any military commander worth his salt would plan for ALL contingencies, especially in an operation of this magnitude.

I don't get it either.  Network 'news' has been faked and KNOWN to have been faked many times in the past, why wouldn't it be this time?  That doesn't mean there were NO PLANES at all, just means the footage could be enhanced or fake too.

There are other issues that I would like to see addressed more thoroughly about the 'passengers' on those planes. 

[Voskhod3]

That looks like a nose and not like an airplane engine, does it?

No it is what it is, you are projecting your wished onto it.

It looks like a debris plume to me.

It looks the same in many other videos.

Voskhod, are you saying, this image is fake? No, you don't because you would be admitting to TV fakery. Have you checked the TV archives to disprove the authencity of this image?

Can you prove it is a fake?

Voskhod are you saying, this is an airplane engine? Are you blind? Does that look like an engine to you?

It looks like a plume of debris.

Play the whole video.

Voskhod, are you saying, this is not a "nose-out"? What is it then? Hint: a plane flew into the building. Guess.

It's debris and the engine that landed in Murray street is part of it.

Voskhod where are your facts?

Thousands of people saw the second impact, it was on live TV from several angles and it was recorded on video 50+ times.
No member of the public has come forward and said "they faked my picture/video".
FACT!

[DAVIDENGLAND]

This ‘nose out’ business is incredibly stupid and so easy to disprove. The no planers say that the ‘nose out’ is the nose of a fake plane which was overlaid onto the TV footage. So if this correct that would mean that the ’nose out’ image only exists on that particular fake TV footage but as we know there is other footage which shows the ’nose out’ from different angles so there’s really nothing to discuss. The ‘nose out’ theory is nonsense.

[sekular]

my logic does not go, tv fakery = no planes, my logic goes: we have manufactured footage showing fake planes hitting the towers, why would they need to fake planes if there was actual planes hitting the towers. my logic goes, why is there no one at the airports waiting for the passengers of the flights when the media went their. why is there confusion in the media as to what actually hit the towers. why is the damage not consistent with a plane impact.

it is easier to fly missiles into all four locations and fake planes than it is to actually hijack planes and fly them into the four locations.

we have military jets spotted at shanksville, we have obvious missile impact at pentagon, we have two more missile impacts at wtc towers.

http://udn1.com/lets be open to the possiblity this was a missile attack.avi

[Infokrieger]

It looks like a debris plume to me.

If that was the case, where is that same plume of debris in the next frame of the video? Can you show it to me, please?

[sekular]

This ‘nose out’ business is incredibly stupid and so easy to disprove. The no planers say that the ‘nose out’ is the nose of a fake plane which was overlaid onto the TV footage. So if this correct that would mean that the ’nose out’ image only exists on that particular fake TV footage but as we know there is other footage which shows the ’nose out’ from different angles so there’s really nothing to discuss. The ‘nose out’ theory is nonsense.

the nose out is but one point with many many others available. just because another video has what looks like something that could be considered a nose out, does not in anyway prove that the video is not fake.

you must realize that the wabc and wnyw footage has completely vanished. i am refering to abc and fox new york. the only scrapings of footage we have is via cross feeds onto other stations, and the famous 2nd impact that nico came across on youtube which he used in september clues. that specific footage is shown in the footage i just posted above. but this time on cnn with a massive banner across it. you must realize that the wnyw footage that was found on youtube does not just contain the nose out problem. it has more problems...

[Infokrieger]

my logic goes, why is there no one at the airports waiting for the passengers of the flights when the media went their.

Sounds like a good argument there. Got reliable, primary sources for that?

[Infokrieger]

it was on live TV from several angles and it was recorded on video 50+ times.

Ooooh so it was live on TV, yeah, of course it must be true then. That's your FACTS?!
Thanks for illustrating my point. Do you believe everything you see and hear on TV?

[sekular]

well i think your attempt at being argumentative is futile.

i mean come on, you pick one point and then use some sort of reverse psychology on the matter.

what can i say to that, uhh ofcourse the media lies. no i don't believe everything the media says... uhh f**k..

well when i say the media, i am talking about footage of a man standing at the airport with mic saying, there are no people waiting for these passengers...

[sekular]

four missiles and three controlled demos

[9/11FalseFlag]

How do they control 1000s of witnesses?
Well to start off imagine the shock people are in on that day, they think they saw this and that, so much is going on, then the huge TVs in Times Square, radio, news reporters (as shown in the vid below) are all immediately saying plane plane plane.  Immediately most who think they saw something, and it happened so fast, will go along with the 757 plane theory.

I've seen dozens of videos where people report seeing other things besides a 757. 

So to address your statement "How did they control 1000s of witnesses?" please check the assorted videos below, all show witnesses claiming something other then a 757 hit.  Keep in mind these are just the ones I can think of off the top of the head.

Here is one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AfTyOyKEEQ

"No second plane, it was a bomb! Bomb in the building, no second plane.  I saw everything."

Another:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3cpHxbIIV4

"Were getting REPORTS that a plane hit the building"
"OH? I didn't even know that."

Another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SXIxbhgUDw

BG: Alright, so tell us what you saw if you would?

S: I literally, I was waiting a table and I literally saw a -- it seemed to be like the small plane. I just heard a couple of noises. It looked like it bounced off the building and then I heard, uh, I saw a huge like ball of fire on top and then the smoke seemed to simmer down and it just stunned -- you know a lot of smoke was coming out and that's pretty much the extent of what I saw.

BG: A private aircraft?

S: I'm not sure, if it was a -- it just seemed like a smaller plane. I don't think it was anything commercial.

Another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS5lFVxr4A8

"Some people said they THOUGHT THEY SAW A MISSILE"  Magically cut out from news footage.

Another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49deDpOyfHA

"That was NOT and American Airline!"

And to top it off a collection of witness accounts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5o_-KItOZU

I'll try to post more as they come to mind, but until then, here you are Voskhod3

[DAVIDENGLAND]

we have military jets spotted at shanksville, we have obvious missile impact at pentagon, we have two more missile impacts at wtc towers.

Why do you write stuff like that? Don't you feel stupid?

[sekular]

refering to the camera planet footage, all that footage is edited, you can not trust one single clip.

[sekular]

Why do you write stuff like that? Don't you feel stupid?

why would i feel stupid, forgive me for trying to push my point of view on this event. please explain to me why i would feel stupid?

[DAVIDENGLAND]

Lots of people have gone on the record to say that when the second plane crashed into the towers hundreds of body parts rained down onto the street below. Some described the street as looking like a butchers shop. Amongst the body parts was a shoe, a child's shoe which had the child's severed foot still in it.

How do you no planers explain that?  

[DAVIDENGLAND]

why would i feel stupid, forgive me for trying to push my point of view on this event. please explain to me why i would feel stupid?

If you seriously think that missiles hit the towers you must be crazy.

[sekular]

please supply the source for your claims.

i do not think i am crazy, you are crazy.

[DAVIDENGLAND]

please supply the source for your claims.

i do not think i am crazy, you are crazy.

My source is the Oral Histories. Try reading them yourself it will stop you looking foolish.

[sekular]

the oral histories is nothing more transcripts that came out years afterwards, you have to be joking if you think that proves anything hahaha

[DAVIDENGLAND]

the oral histories is nothing more transcripts that came out years afterwards, you have to be joking if you think that proves anything hahaha

You really are a piece of work. So far on this page you've mentioned Nico, Killtown and now you're dissing the first responders you should be ashamed of yourself. Do you really think we are as stupid as you are?

[Infokrieger]

i am talking about footage of a man standing at the airport with mic saying, there are no people waiting for these passengers...

In other words, you saw it on TV? Details please!

Who is this man?
At which airport is he standing?
When is the man standing there?
Where did you see it?
Who produced the footage?

[sekular]

sure nico and killtown or who ever they are very eccentric individuals, but the best characters always are. i do not agree with some of the ways they produce their videos and ofcourse they have made mistakes in pointing out certain issues with the footage, but their general opinion on the footage looks sincere.

i do not appreciate your anger regarding this issue, like i have said previously on this thread, it takes humility to accept that you have been fooled, it was not instantly that i was convinced. this is why i have spent so much time on this to see if this theory has any validity.

[sekular]

In other words, you saw it on TV? Details please!

Who is this man?
At which airport is he standing?
When is the man standing there?
Where did you see it?
Who produced the footage?

allow me time to generate this footage for you.

[DAVIDENGLAND]

WTF is going on on these boards these days? What about the statement that was issued which stated that the NPT would not be tolereted on here because it's obviously cointel?? When did that get reversed? Jim goes on the missing list and suddenly the no planers come crawling out of the woodwork. I'm sick of this bullshit it's getting like the David Icke 911 forum on here now.

[sekular]

why do you treat this theory with such disgust?

[grapecrusher1]

WTF is going on on these boards these days? What about the statement that was issued which stated that the NPT would not be tolereted on here because it's obviously cointel?? When did that get reversed? Jim goes on the missing list and suddenly the no planers come crawling out of the woodwork. I'm sick of this bullshit it's getting like the David Icke 911 forum on here now.

I hear you.  What a farce.  In the entire thread there has been one link that provides "some" evidence to bolster the NPT in the form of taped diced up phone calls by somebody in Canada questioning people who apparently had filmed or photographed the strikes.  That is all there is and it is quite unsubstantiated.  People using Nico and Killtown as reliable sources are suffering from a serious lack of deductive reasoning.  Discrediting the oral histories of the fire dept taken within 3 months of the event is indicative of the lack of knowledge exhibited by those arguing this nonsense.  Sekular if you dont know who Graeme Macqueen is do some investigation -- why not go look at what accreditted individuals have to say instead of unstable delusional ranters??

Give us some experts that corroborate your claims Give us some experts that corroborate your claims Give us some experts that corroborate your claims Give us some experts that corroborate your claims Give us some experts that corroborate your claims Give us some experts that corroborate your claims Give us some experts that corroborate your claims Give us some experts that corroborate your claims Give us some experts that corroborate your claims

They cant so they wont.

[grapecrusher1]

why do you treat this theory with such disgust?

Because it defies rational thought.  Why dont you research the work of people who have credentials instead of the spoutings of those that neurons are misfiring.

[DAVIDENGLAND]

why do you treat this theory with such disgust?

Are you kidding? When the 911 truth movement first came about it was us against the world. Every forum that you went on and tried to discuss that it was an inside job would turn on you and rain down the insults. Over time this started to change and you'd find others coming to back you up and then more and more people would be on your side and there was hope, the movement was really started to grow. Than along come the no planers. These lot were different to the 911 truthers and would attack anyone who didn't go along with their bullshit. They attacked the first responders like you just have, they attacked Luke and the We Are Change guys. They were intent on causing a split in the 911 truth movement which they have done a splendid job of. You say that Nico and Killtown are eccentrics well that kind of gives your hand away because anyone who's been around for a while knows full well that they are Co Intel.

[sekular]

oh please.

your perception is kinder garden logic.

the movement has continued to grow regardless of the no planers. don't blame them for some sort of split that you have created in your mind.

no planers do not insult the first responders, the fact that transcripts are not proof does not insult the first responders it merely asks why hasn't the original audio of the interviews been released, hell it took years before they released any of the audio from the day, fire fighter audio, norad tapes, 911 calls tapes etc. you try and get footage from the day from any radio station in new york, you will find the same difficulty you will find trying to locate any more msm footage.

they only "attacked" luke and wearechange because they get hostile and started calling them co intel pro, they still to this day struggle with all their might against the no plane theory. now this i struggle to understand. i would not be surprised if you are a member of wearechange uk. you guys think you are the final voice in the 911 truth movement, like if you don't agree then it is co intel pro. well i have news for you, there are 10000s of people that investigated the events on that day and they are not members of your little gang.

now don't get me wrong, i have the up most respect for luke and what he has done for 911 truth and i appreciate the work done by we are change across the globe and i continue to check their video and watch their live broadcast on a sunday evening. on a side note, we are change first edition was on the right track, who ever got involved on the 2nd edition definitely got you to disregard the missile aspect...