DISINFO CORNER: NO PLANES / VIDEO FAKERY / SPACE LASERS

[TheGoodFight1984]

Oh Cmon!  

This has gone far beyond a joke.

Try looking at other footage of the 2nd plane and it's a 747 mmmk?

Geezus.

Mr. A they were both 767's!

or were you joking and I didn't get it?  

[kushfiend]

military plane is still a plane
double think much?

Please read my earlier posts.  I've already explained that my version of NPT is just that there were no jumbo jets.  I have stated earlier that I believe a modified military jet or missile was used.  If this is the case, then the official story is torn to shreds!!

How could Al-Queda hijack a military issue jet?  They couldn't!

That's why this is so important.  It's another huge hole in the official story.

[mr anderson]

Mr. A they were both 767's!

or were you joking and I didn't get it?  

?? Eh? I didn't even realise 767 were the model. I always thought 747 was the norm plane these days.

[TheGoodFight1984]

Hey, the military had aircraft flying all around New York on 9/11, and that's admitted.  White military issue aircraft was spotted circling the Pentagon before and after the attack.

I don't think jumbo jets flew into the WTC building, because the video of those attacks are forged.  Which means they had to edit something out, and splice the planes in.  What that first thing was, I'm trying to figure out.

I'm not trying to insult people or call them stupid.  But people can make mistakes in the fraction of a second it would take for a missile or military issued modified plane to crash into the WTC, that's all I'm saying.

aye I'm aware of the E4B's above NYC and the Whitehouse anomalie.. 

And I know you're not trying to insult nyone or call them stupid, but you are doing so anyway in suggesting that hundreds of eyewitnesses all made mistakes at exactly the same time.. almost sounds like an implication of the general public into this conspiracy.

How would you explain this picture?

[kushfiend]

aye I'm aware of the E4B's above NYC and the Whitehouse anomalie.. 

And I know you're not trying to insult nyone or call them stupid, but you are doing so anyway in suggesting that hundreds of eyewitnesses all made mistakes at exactly the same time.. almost sounds like an implication of the general public into this conspiracy.

How dwould you explain this picture?

That wreckage could be from any aircraft, but we'll never know thanks to Giuliani shipping all the WTC debris to China.  We'll never be able to know for certain what happened on 9/11, because all the physical evidence has been destroyed.

I can only go on the news clips that MSM ran on 9/11 and the couple days following it.  Most, if not all, of these news clips contain anomalies. 

And as far as your eye witness accounts go, I could pull a bunch of eye witness accounts of people, who quote "thought they saw a missile."

So what does that mean?  It means we'll never know, because like I said, the evidence was destroyed.  But what we can do is look at the news forgeries and piece together what really happened.  At least, that's what I'm trying to do.

[TheGoodFight1984]

Fair enough, well good luck with that.

[kushfiend]

Fair enough, well good luck with that.

I'm still under the notion, that if we can just Freedom of Information Act the Govt to release the video clips of whatever struck the Pentagon, then we'll all know for sure what struck the twin towers on 9/11, or at least, have a very good idea.

But that's not likely to occur with more than half the country still in denial.

[TheGoodFight1984]

I'm still under the notion, that if we can just Freedom of Information Act the Govt to release the video clips of whatever struck the Pentagon, then we'll all know for sure what struck the twin towers on 9/11, or at least, have a very good idea.

But that's not likely to occur with more than half the country still in denial.

We agree on the FOIA request, can't think of one 9/11 researcher that doesn't want them released.

The masses in denial will start looking at 9/11 more seriously if you hit them with verifiable evidence, not fringe speculation.

There are so many avenues to be used in exposing 9/11, and this video fakery thing is a pretty much the only one that results in a dead end for helping people understand the real nature of 9/11, that and space lasers / ufos.

[kushfiend]

We agree on the FOIA request, can't think of one 9/11 researcher that doesn't want them released.

The masses in denial will start looking at 9/11 more seriously if you hit them with verifiable evidence, not fringe speculation.

There are so many avenues to be used in exposing 9/11, and this video fakery thing is a pretty much the only one that results in a dead end for helping people understand the real nature of 9/11, that and space lasers / ufos.

True.  I agree that this topic is only for advanced researchers, which is why I brought it up on this site. 

We will expose these bastards...some day

[Dig]

Please read my earlier posts.  I've already explained that my version of NPT is just that there were no jumbo jets.  I have stated earlier that I believe a modified military jet or missile was used.  If this is the case, then the official story is torn to shreds!!

How could Al-Queda hijack a military issue jet?  They couldn't!

That's why this is so important.  It's another huge hole in the official story.

"How could Al-Queda hijack a military issue jet?  They couldn't!"

How could they hijack 767's for more than 10 minutes without F-16 escorts? They couldn't!

[Scootle]

"How could Al-Queda hijack a military issue jet?  They couldn't!"

How could they hijack 767's for more than 10 minutes without F-16 escorts? They couldn't!

How could they crash them into a 63 meter wide target at 500 miles an hour, while bank turning on their first attempt ... twice!? The couldn't!

How could they convince the captain of flight 77, an ex navy pilot, to just hand over the controls of a 200 tonne aircraft with 60 people on board using only box cutters? They couldn't

How could they fly into the most heavily restricted airspace on earth without being shot down... after two planes had already crashed? They couldn't

How could they crash into the first floor of the pentagon without touching the lawn? They couldn't!

Isn't the official story of 9/11 rediculous?

[kushfiend]

How could they crash them into a 63 meter wide target at 500 miles an hour, while bank turning on their first attempt ... twice!? The couldn't!

How could they convince the captain of flight 77, an ex navy pilot, to just hand over the controls of a 200 tonne aircraft with 60 people on board using only box cutters? They couldn't

How could they fly into the most heavily restricted airspace on earth without being shot down... after two planes had already crashed? They couldn't

How could they crash into the first floor of the pentagon without touching the lawn? They couldn't!

Isn't the official story of 9/11 rediculous?

Haha indeed it is my friend.  But the point i was trying to get at, is if there is video evidence of a military grade aircraft / missile being used against the Pentagon, that would beyond a shadow of a doubt, prove that the official story is complete horse sh*t.

All I know is, civilian jumbo jets were def not what was used on 9/11.

As far as the other glaring inconsitencies with the official story, since when do logic and critical thinking make it to mainstream tv?

 

[iks83]

I cant understand how anyone is still arguing with those noplane people... yeah there are anomalies on those video clips for those who have no clue about cameras and cinematics. And why cant a aluminum plane fully enter the towers? You still have hundreds of tons of mass moving at 500 mph or whatever speed they went into the towers. Also you dont have a plane steel front like some tank armor. There are windows ffs and that means lots of space between the steelbeams the plane can shred into. Take some play dough and shoot it at 500 mph at a sieve and see how it will bounce off half way through.... geez some people are so stupid.

If you are so smart and really think the plane should have bounced off then grab a physics book and do the damn calculations. Mass, speed, friction, density of materials, space between the steelbeams, how the material would react and so on.... like... its always said the towers couldnt have been falling at free fall speed because in a collapse the material goes the path of the least resistance... now guess what... when a plane crashes into the buiding it will also choose the path of least resistance meaning the f**king space between the steelbeams. But you think the facade is like some tank armor and walls all around with no windows, no offices behind them... just steel and concrete so nuhuh the planes couldnt have entered the buildings like they did. Grow yourself a f**kin brain... sorry but no planers make me mad.

[kushfiend]

I am convinced that all of the footage we saw on mainstream tv news channels on 9/11 and on the following two days is a forgery to hide what really hit the WTC buildings.

Why would the MSM take this huge risk?  What is the point?

The entire official story completely hinged on the fact that terrorists had hijacked civilian aircraft.  If a military jet and/or missile was videotaped it would clearly show the official story to be a fraud, for even the most ardent establishment corporate shill.  This being the case, the Pentagon doctored several different shots, splicing in airplanes in some shots that I will prove to be obvious forgeries.

How could all the live footage be altered?  How could everyone in the media be in on 9/11?

Not everyone in the media was in on 9/11, but some key media faces, [Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, etc.] were given doctored film from the Pentagon and told the official story, and they played along.  However, at the onset, you could tell their initial reaction was astonishment at the obviousness of the forgeries!


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


So, What did hit the WTC buildings if not 2 jumbo jets hijacked by arabs with box cutters?

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 planes. 


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



How does aluminum penetrate 20 layers of steel and emerge intact?  It can't, and this footage is an obvious fake!  Believe what your eyes are seeing!  Fox News is obviously trying to hide a missile/military modified aircraft here! 

Other Media Stations engaged in TV Fakery too!

check out this CNN shot of the 2nd plane getting ABSORBED by the tower.  Pay attention to the wingtips of the plane, as the ends will penetrate from inside the building, while the entire middle section of the wing does not damage the building!!!



There is much more footage that I will disect later.

[xTruthSeekerx]

you are the most disrespectful person i have ever ranted to here

[kushfiend]

you are the most disrespectful person i have ever ranted to here

?

[xTruthSeekerx]

will you drop the cointel BS, if people saw a f**king commercial jet fly into the buildings thats enough said and instantly shuits this argument up

[Amd304912]

will you drop the cointel BS

damn, and you have to say others partake in your bs?

hey coldfusion how ya doin>

[TheGoodFight1984]

You seem very keen to push the video fakery thing..

what's wrong with keeping it in the 4 page thread that you've already been posting this stuff in?

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=945.0

[kushfiend]

So, how do you all explain the video clips I posted?

[xTruthSeekerx]

maybe SOMEBODY altered them to make us look nuts
hmm hmm ever think of that

[TheGoodFight1984]

So, how do you all explain the video clips I posted?

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=945.0

[Amd304912]

maybe SOMEBODY altered them to make us look nuts
hmm hmm ever think of that

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?board=130.0

fixed.

[kushfiend]

maybe SOMEBODY altered them to make us look nuts
hmm hmm ever think of that

except these were shown on CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News to millions and millions of Americans!  It wasn't just shown on youtube by some guy in his parent's basement!

These clips are pulled directly from CNN and Fox News archives.

[Dig]

So, how do you all explain the video clips I posted?

The Trolling Formula to Push No Plane Disinfo Onto Truth Boards

Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.


                                                                       

Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.

                                           

Sidetrack with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

                                                           

Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

                                                                         

Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutia" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

                                                                   

Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

                                   


Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

                                                 

Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

                                                                                       


Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.


                                                 


Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

                                           


Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

                                             


Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".


                                               


Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon).
                                                                         


False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

                                                                     


Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.


                                           


SPAM. If you find that posts are being moved to places that you do not like, then just continue to post the same thing over and over again as if there is some grand conspiracy against you personally or against your superior thesis. Do not bother reading the rules of the forum or accept any other conclusions, just spam, spam, spam.

                                             

[Amd304912]

SPAM. If you find that posts are being moved to places that you do not like, then just continue to post the same thing over and over again as if there is some grand conspiracy against you personally or against your superior thesis. Do not bother reading the rules of the forum or accept any other conclusions, just spam, spam, spam.

                                             

I guess the others who dont push no planes have a place to dump also.. 

[kushfiend]

Uh, that's cute Sane, but is a complete dodge of all the issues I raised.

But I guess you were never about having a rational discussion, were you?  Maybe that's why you keep trying to bury my threads?  Hmm...

[Amd304912]

Uh, that's cute Sane, but is a complete dodge of all the issues I raised.

But I guess you were never about having a rational discussion, were you?  Maybe that's why you keep trying to bury my threads?  Hmm...

get over it, amerikkka has prevelance, america is second we must satire mccain potatoes!

[Dig]

Uh, that's cute Sane, but is a complete dodge of all the issues I raised.

But I guess you were never about having a rational discussion, were you?  Maybe that's why you keep trying to bury my threads?  Hmm...

Yeah, I hate rational discussion.  It hurts my head. 

I admire those that can dig up years old debunked zionist disinfo and spam it on a truth board.  Those are the rational voices.

[kushfiend]

Yeah, I hate rational discussion.  It hurts my head. 

I admire those that can dig up years old debunked zionist disinfo and spam it on a truth board.  Those are the rational voices.

Nice facts you posted there, I counted 0.

Sigh...

[mr anderson]

So, how do you all explain the video clips I posted?

Man I could post the exact same clips showing no nose out.

I already did to one guy here a while ago.

And who's to say the nose-out isn't tv fakery itself? ? ?

Game-set-match.

[kushfiend]

Man I could post the exact same clips showing no nose out.

I already did to one guy here a while ago.

I'm sure you could, but could you hop in your time machine, go back to say, Sept. 11, 2001.  Then air your footage, with no nose out, to all of America? 

Because that's when this footage hit the air.  Broadcast to millions.

This is pulled from their own archives!  Hello?

[Amd304912]

I'm sure you could, but could you hop in your time machine, go back to say, Sept. 11, 2001.  Then air your footage, with no nose out, to all of America? 

Because that's when this footage hit the air.  Broadcast to millions.

This is pulled from their own archives!  Hello?

you do know every school was alerted to not allow broadcast of it right?

[mr anderson]

I'm sure you could, but could you hop in your time machine, go back to say, Sept. 11, 2001.  Then air your footage, with no nose out, to all of America? 

Because that's when this footage hit the air.  Broadcast to millions.

This is pulled from their own archives!  Hello?

And what does nose-out prove?

[kushfiend]

And what does nose-out prove?

well, it proves a lot to me.  A hollow aluminum nose on an airplane obviously cannot penetrate through the intense grid of steel of the WTC building.

That means that this video is a fake.  maybe that's why it fades to black right after the point of impact? 

That means that the MSM was involved in the 9/11 conspiracy.

That means a lot to me.  How about you?

[mr anderson]

well, it proves a lot to me.  A hollow aluminum nose on an airplane obviously cannot penetrate through the intense grid of steel of the WTC building.

That means that this video is a fake.  maybe that's why it fades to black right after the point of impact? 

That means that the MSM was involved in the 9/11 conspiracy.

That means a lot to me.  How about you?

So what the hell did people see, hear & feel?

They saw the impact, heard the impact and felt the heat from the explosion of jet fuel & impact.

And what of amateur footage

[kushfiend]

So what the hell did people see, hear & feel?

They saw the impact, heard the impact and felt the heat from the explosion of jet fuel.

And what of amateur footage

All amateur footage was bought up by the MSM.  If you do research into it you'll see that.

I'm sure people did hear *something* smell jet fuel and feel an explosion.

As far as witness testimony, I can post doezens of witness accounts that quote "thought they saw a missile."  What does that mean?

Further research is needed, but I believe the evidence points to missiles or modified millitary aircraft

[Dig]

well, it proves a lot to me.  A hollow aluminum nose on an airplane obviously cannot penetrate through the intense grid of steel of the WTC building.

That means that this video is a fake.  maybe that's why it fades to black right after the point of impact? 

That means that the MSM was involved in the 9/11 conspiracy.

That means a lot to me.  How about you?

We all know that MSM was involved, WTF? CNN, BBC, Others reported WTC7 exploding 23 minutes before it happened.  But like we already said, zionist disinfo artists spend 0 time on that fact and 100% of the time pushing TV fakery and no plane theories to sabatoge the truth movement.  It is classic CoIntelPro operations that have been done for over 40 years.

[Amd304912]

paris not immortal.

[mr anderson]

All amateur footage was bought up by the MSM.  If you do research into it you'll see that.

I'm sure people did hear *something* smell jet fuel and feel an explosion.

As far as witness testimony, I can post doezens of witness accounts that quote "thought they saw a missile."  What does that mean?

Further research is needed, but I believe the evidence points to missiles or modified millitary aircraft

Now the sound of a Passenger Jet in New York City was fake?

I'm done being distracted by Cointelpro disinformation, it's disgusting and a cancer in the movement. It's not looking at alternative information, researching other possible avenues of events, it's just a purposely misguided attempt to discredit the 9/11 truth movement.

Whether your easily taken in by this or know fully well it's bullshit doesn't matter. Because more people with expertise strongly disagree with the no plane theory.

In conclusion.

It's pointless for a Government to spend that much money on "TV Fakery" "Holograms" and other b/s than to use 767 Passenger Jets that may or may not have been remotely flown.

If you'll excuse me, I'll be visiting the real 9/11 thread.