IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 7 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Questions: The Passengers, Cell Phone Calls, And Plane Swapping.

EagleEye
post Feb 17 2014, 06:35 PM
Post #81





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



QUOTE (MikeR @ Feb 17 2014, 02:06 PM) *
What is more unhelpful and movement discrediting than anything I've read in this forum is the fatuous assumption that even a mere-beginner airplane designer/constructor is going to swap 3mm leading edge airfoil aluminum for hardened steel from a WW1 tank shell ... just so that forum surfers can argue idiotic technicalities here online.

If you ever came back down to earth and eliminated all 4 Boeings from your mental equation, you would also eliminate all the evidence that doesn't fit the 9/11 puzzle.

Including cell-phone calls... but I guess admitting that does run the risk of getting back on topic again...

As a matter of curiosity: what was the impact on other evidence of the last time you tried removing the airplanes to see what happens? You have at least attempted the exercise I trust?

I personally have found no evidence that needs an airplane in the picture for an explanation


I don't understand the apparent animosity. An airplane was there, and did impact the north and south towers.

What needs to be proven there, is simply that the south tower plane was not and could not have been flight 175, but a swapped in remotely piloted drone (only alternative explanation).

As to the cell phone calls, when taken together as a whole, there's no need for ID spoofing or voice morphing nonsense, but just the record itself which reveals that the calls must have been made from the ground and thus from people reading scripts, almost assuredly under the pretext of simulated hijackings/military exercises.

Otoh, to say that there was no plane even like THERE, in the case of the north and south tower impacts, or that the cell phone calls were faked, not in terms of the content but the calls themselves with voice simulation technology, is not only unnecessary speculation, but yes, high discrediting and very unhelpful.

Also, as to the hardened structure allowing for the plane's speed through to impact, kevlar composites are often used, as in the rebuilt retrofit described for the KC-767 Tanker Transport.

I'm simply presuming that leading wing edges would also have been modified, to allow for greater speed and additional hardness in order to break through the outer steel column. It's just physics.

The key to the scientific method is to come up with hypothesis, test them, and then discard what doesn't work or isn't workable.

Clinging to some sort of pet theory, and then being unwilling to reject it in the face of all information and phenomenon under observation, isn't science.

And neither should there be any sort of contemptuous bias prior to investigation.

The plane was there, it was recorded travelling at certain speeds both by observation and multiple radar returns, and as far as i know there's no such thing as a sound-making hologram that shows up on radar and is capable of making plane shaped holes in buildings, since it's like not really there to begin with.

No planes and holograms have been to a large degree the bane of the 9/11 truth movement and have been used widely as a tool to discredit and thus obscure the truth.

No planes, holograms and voice morphing = unhelpful, and unnecessary.

It's what i call feeding the honey pot - something that people like John Lear and Morgan Reynolds have done knowingly and with conscious awareness because they are very smart men who would know better.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 17 2014, 07:01 PM
Post #82





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (MikeR @ Feb 17 2014, 05:06 PM) *
If you ever came back down to earth and eliminated all 4 Boeings from your mental equation, you would also eliminate all the evidence that doesn't fit the 9/11 puzzle.

... I personally have found no evidence that needs an airplane in the picture for an explanation


It sure as heck sounds like you are a no-planer.
Are you?
If so, how do you differentiate yourself from Reynolds, Lear et al?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 17 2014, 10:32 PM
Post #83



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (EagleEye @ Feb 17 2014, 11:35 PM) *
I don't understand the apparent animosity. An airplane was there, and did impact the north and south towers.

What needs to be proven there, is simply that the south tower plane was not and could not have been flight 175, but a swapped in remotely piloted drone (only alternative explanation).

As to the cell phone calls, when taken together as a whole, there's no need for ID spoofing or voice morphing nonsense, but just the record itself which reveals that the calls must have been made from the ground and thus from people reading scripts, almost assuredly under the pretext of simulated hijackings/military exercises.

Otoh, to say that there was no plane even like THERE, in the case of the north and south tower impacts, or that the cell phone calls were faked, not in terms of the content but the calls themselves with voice simulation technology, is not only unnecessary speculation, but yes, high discrediting and very unhelpful.

Also, as to the hardened structure allowing for the plane's speed through to impact, kevlar composites are often used, as in the rebuilt retrofit described for the KC-767 Tanker Transport.

I'm simply presuming that leading wing edges would also have been modified, to allow for greater speed and additional hardness in order to break through the outer steel column. It's just physics.

The key to the scientific method is to come up with hypothesis, test them, and then discard what doesn't work or isn't workable.

Clinging to some sort of pet theory, and then being unwilling to reject it in the face of all information and phenomenon under observation, isn't science.

And neither should there be any sort of contemptuous bias prior to investigation.

The plane was there, it was recorded travelling at certain speeds both by observation and multiple radar returns, and as far as i know there's no such thing as a sound-making hologram that shows up on radar and is capable of making plane shaped holes in buildings, since it's like not really there to begin with.

No planes and holograms have been to a large degree the bane of the 9/11 truth movement and have been used widely as a tool to discredit and thus obscure the truth.

No planes, holograms and voice morphing = unhelpful, and unnecessary.

It's what i call feeding the honey pot - something that people like John Lear and Morgan Reynolds have done knowingly and with conscious awareness because they are very smart men who would know better.


Excellent post.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21992

All four sites were controlled at ground level/close quarters. There were planes at all four sites.

If the north tower had been struck, the south tower half clipped with the remaining aircraft sprayed over Manhattan, and maybe even a partial collapse of one of the towers, I maybe would have bought the bridge.

Or if the Pentagon aircraft had careered along the ground, striking two very sturdy VDOT masts and overhead roadsigns or trees while partially penetrating the building, while the Shankesville site was splayed with aircraft seating, cadavres and a vertical stabilizer, I would also have bought that bridge.

Holograms and a plethora of actors is just as "out there" as three buildings collapsing and two aircraft completely "desintegrating" in three 100% success rate attacks and a propaganda shoot carried out by alleged rooky pilots flying blind while air defenses had their thumbs up their asses.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Feb 18 2014, 04:05 AM
Post #84





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (EagleEye @ Feb 18 2014, 10:35 AM) *
I don't understand the apparent animosity. An airplane was there, and did impact the north and south towers.

What needs to be proven there, is simply that the south tower plane was not and could not have been flight 175, but a swapped in remotely piloted drone (only alternative explanation).

As to the cell phone calls, when taken together as a whole, there's no need for ID spoofing or voice morphing nonsense, but just the record itself which reveals that the calls must have been made from the ground and thus from people reading scripts, almost assuredly under the pretext of simulated hijackings/military exercises.

Otoh, to say that there was no plane even like THERE, in the case of the north and south tower impacts, or that the cell phone calls were faked, not in terms of the content but the calls themselves with voice simulation technology, is not only unnecessary speculation, but yes, high discrediting and very unhelpful.

Also, as to the hardened structure allowing for the plane's speed through to impact, kevlar composites are often used, as in the rebuilt retrofit described for the KC-767 Tanker Transport.

I'm simply presuming that leading wing edges would also have been modified, to allow for greater speed and additional hardness in order to break through the outer steel column. It's just physics.

The key to the scientific method is to come up with hypothesis, test them, and then discard what doesn't work or isn't workable.

Clinging to some sort of pet theory, and then being unwilling to reject it in the face of all information and phenomenon under observation, isn't science.

And neither should there be any sort of contemptuous bias prior to investigation.

The plane was there, it was recorded travelling at certain speeds both by observation and multiple radar returns, and as far as i know there's no such thing as a sound-making hologram that shows up on radar and is capable of making plane shaped holes in buildings, since it's like not really there to begin with.

No planes and holograms have been to a large degree the bane of the 9/11 truth movement and have been used widely as a tool to discredit and thus obscure the truth.

No planes, holograms and voice morphing = unhelpful, and unnecessary.

It's what i call feeding the honey pot - something that people like John Lear and Morgan Reynolds have done knowingly and with conscious awareness because they are very smart men who would know better.


No animosity whatever, my friend ...but for you to state with dogmatic certitude that "An airplane was there, and did impact the north and south towers" only goes to show we were all taken in by the fakery.... and how we are too-easily fooled. Your "(only alternative explanation)" is also irrationally dismissive.

I know enough about airplane wing design to be equally dismissive about ANY airplane reinforcing capable of resisting the sort of impact we're up against. You're talking about slicing through a 24" x48" by 2 1/2" box column... any airplane wing-spar of comparable size would anchor the plane to ground level permanently, it would never even roll as far as the beginning of a takeoff runway. ALL airplane designers have the same interminable problem designing ANY airplane: minimizing structural weight.

But why would any perpeTRAITOR (even an idiot as inept as ours clearly was) why would they resort to reinforcing airplane wings way beyond maximum takeoff weight, when there's a totally-believable way of achieving a semi-credible result?

They would simply FAKE THE EVIDENCE.

Which of course is exactly what they did.

QED

The measured speed of the WTC2 faked image was way above disintegration.... way above the maximum speed that would have been possible for any airplane of any comparable type suggested by the fake image.

"far as i know there's no such thing as a sound-making hologram that shows up on radar" ... your qualification leads us to suspect you don't even know for sure that believe holograms actually exist? That's okay... I have a lot to learn myself too pilotfly.gif

There are actual credible examples of holograms to be seen on your favorite video channel. But DO check carefully before seriously considering why the military are NOT about to reveal top-secret technical data about the sort of military holography that might or might not have been deployed on 9/11/01..

Navy Seals will refuse to acknowledge your question... at best they simply will neither confirm nor deny they heard your question. But the resulting evidence which you and I can view on a public website is enough for one of us to acknowledge that holographic projection is more than a passing possibility. My lips are sealed = "that's all I know anyway"

MikeR

PS Testing your theory scientifically makes sense in some cases, but FGS don't try constructing an airplane wing out of 2" nickel-chrome-vanadium howitzer steel plate and see if it cuts box beams faster than thermite... you'll build your braces, but no backers will wear them rolleyes.gif
HINT: test.... DO TEST the no-planes-position in scrupulous detail.... you WILL finally find your answer there.... yes, I scoffed at no-planes.
That was before I found the sharper specs.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Feb 18 2014, 04:15 AM
Post #85





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 18 2014, 11:01 AM) *
It sure as heck sounds like you are a no-planer.
Are you?
If so, how do you differentiate yourself from Reynolds, Lear et al?



I asked "have you ever gone to the trouble of personally testing the no-planes-position?

Until you progress past any possibility that you refuse to check the NPP,
we cannot usefully progress this conversation.

I lived months after 9/11/01 thinking how ridiculous was this no=planes nonsense....
till I realized I hadn't even begun to check, so I may well have some idea of
what causes blockages in peoples perceptions on the topic.

Fortunately, I soon discovered that the Pentagon facade was totally intact for an hour after
the Hollywood fireball... and when I realized that meant absolutely no plane ever hit the building,
I carefully checked the other 3 planes... and found out how they had all been faked.

You CAN do it too.

It ain't rocket science, believe me...and I'm just an architect... laughing1.gif

This post has been edited by MikeR: Feb 18 2014, 04:16 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 18 2014, 07:18 AM
Post #86



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



From my earlier link

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21992

here's the problem (apart from the obvious) with the hologram theory:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804774
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Feb 18 2014, 07:50 AM
Post #87





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 18 2014, 11:18 PM) *
From my earlier link

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21992

here's the problem (apart from the obvious) with the hologram theory:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804774


Just because it's blatantly obvious that the fact that it was a physically impossible that any Boeing
could have been flying route UA175 as shown on endless faked videos does NOT mean any of US
is obliged to include hologrammetry or any other particular alternative explanation. Your brave
and bold attempt to disprove any hologram option alas raises more questions than it provides
answers. I for one do NOT insist on holograms or the like.

It's like the futile argument against Judy's DEW. We do not know what the DEW was...and we have
no more than a hint of an explanation. The military have all the misappropriated power to make sure
we don't find out.... not even at the next 9/11 Commission v 201

But if we all did a bit more homework we can individually come to know that the however-improbable
no-planers are right. THAT realization, unpalatable as it still is to some of us, will eventually tip the balance
in favor of a new Commission.... and a huge line of gallows hanging symbolically over Brooklyn Bridge
...assuming the bridge doesn't actually get bought before then by a Pilotsfor9/11truther. rolleyes.gif

This post has been edited by MikeR: Feb 18 2014, 07:51 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 18 2014, 09:46 AM
Post #88



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



MikeR, read the entire link I gave. There's much more evidence there that people saw an aircraft of some sort strike Tower 2.

There's no way those spineless bastards that I would also like to see swinging on the Brooklyn Bridge would leave their lives in the hands of scores of willing participants in the mass fakery you propose.

Over and out.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Feb 18 2014, 10:19 AM
Post #89





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 19 2014, 01:46 AM) *
MikeR, read the entire link I gave. There's much more evidence there that people saw an aircraft of some sort strike Tower 2.

There's no way those spineless bastards that I would also like to see swinging on the Brooklyn Bridge would leave their lives in the hands of scores of willing participants in the mass fakery you propose.

Over and out.


Every man and his best friend's next door neighbor saw something they assumed
was what caused the fireballs. Psychology 101... a witness could indeed make a link.

But the videos of WTC2 all show a flying phenomenon which could not possibly have been
UA175 late for an appointment landing at the next airport. The videos lied.

The perpeTRAITOR's incompetent Navy Seals explosive experts failed dismally to do
anything more than break a window in the Pentagon to coincide with the plane arriving ...
and then another posse of minions admitted defeat by stealing all the tapes from cameras
pointing at nothing happened.

Then Shanksville was a disaster in mismanagement of acting, a few turncoat crisis actors
wandering aimlessly for half an hour, in a crater filmed by USGS years before.

How CAN we in all sincerity begin to believe that planes were involved when these fakes
are SO blatantly obvious? Why spend time inventing impossibly-reinforced leading-edge
wings that still won't do what we and flat-earthers so erroneously continue to believe in?

I'll grant you one point: AA77 was NOT the route being flown by the unidentified AirForce troop
transport that flew through the erupting Hollywood fireball, skimming the Pentagon
roof, before hundreds of witnessed realized the plane had indeed shot through.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Feb 18 2014, 10:47 AM
Post #90





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 365
Joined: 6-July 12
Member No.: 6,923



QUOTE (MikeR @ Feb 18 2014, 09:19 AM) *
Every man and his best friend's next door neighbor saw something they assumed
was what caused the fireballs.


Actually, I cannot recall a single person claiming to have been an on-the-street eyewitness of the strikes on the WTC mentioning fireballs, and this would include suspected shills.

I personally spoke to someone who claimed to have been riding eastbound in a car on Route 3 in New Jersey in the Secaucus vicinity at the time of at least one of the WTC strikes. He further claimed to have witnessed the strike(s). I asked him, "Did you witness the fireballs that were depicted on T.V.?

His pause was so prolonged that I thought that he went into some kind of a trance with a shocked look on his face. Then, he sheepishly and haltingly said, "Yes, yes, I did."

Was this person credible, or, just like so many others, a victim of the power of suggestion with a false memory?

I can say this much. This guy was reputed to be a certified mental case, and so he was not the best person to interrogate about anything.

P.M.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Feb 18 2014, 01:33 PM
Post #91





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 365
Joined: 6-July 12
Member No.: 6,923



QUOTE (EagleEye @ Feb 17 2014, 05:35 PM) *
Otoh, to say that there was no plane even like THERE, in the case of the north and south tower impacts, or that the cell phone calls were faked, not in terms of the content but the calls themselves with voice simulation technology, is not only unnecessary speculation, but yes, high discrediting and very unhelpful.


EagleEye, you seem very reluctant to even entertain any no-plane theory.

So, Eagle Eye what do you make of this?

At around the time of the 10th anniversary of 9/11, the television broadcasters did not air a single video depiction of planes approaching and striking the WTC towers even though on 9/11 and for weeks thereafter in 2001 they showed such videos thousands of times ad nauseum.

Why would they apparently censor the airing of such videos 10 years after the fact if there was nothing faked, nothing suspect, nothing controversial about those videos?

The newspapers, around the 10th anniversary of 9/11, however, did carry still shot depictions of planes approaching the WTC towers, but these were so poor that they were obviously "Photoshopped."

On a related note... Around the time of the 10th anniversary of 9/11, the television broadcasters didn't air any videos of the WTC towers becoming undone. They just showed the very last plume of dust arising at street level, even though on 9/11 and for weeks thereafter they showed such videos thousands of times ad nauseum.

Why would they apparently censor the airing of such videos 10 years after the fact if there was nothing suspect, nothing controversial about those videos, like the towers' being reduced to street level at near freefall rates?

P.M.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 18 2014, 04:06 PM
Post #92





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (MikeR @ Feb 18 2014, 03:15 AM) *
"have you ever gone to the trouble of personally testing the no-planes-position?


Yes I have.


MikeR, the sound that this magical hologram produced; can you enlighten us as to how was it accomplished?
Please be as specific as possible.
Thanks!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Feb 18 2014, 04:46 PM
Post #93





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 365
Joined: 6-July 12
Member No.: 6,923



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 18 2014, 03:06 PM) *
MikeR, the sound that this magical hologram produced; can you enlighten us as to how was it accomplished?
Please be as specific as possible.
Thanks!


I'd like to chime in here.

Please see my prior post at Vroooommm… Was This Played From Ghetto Blaster Speakers 2-1/2 Seconds…, … just before KABOOM some 90 stories up?

with emphasis on Obwon's reply #4 which I quote right here:
QUOTE (Obwon @ Aug 24 2012, 12:11 PM) *
Remember the President's jet (Obama) flying low over Staten Island? That prompted many dozens of 911 calls from all around the area.

Now think about a heavy jet, racing at full throttle down the Hudson river. Yet, not a single 911 call from anyone on Riverside Drive. According to the data presented here by P4T, that plane was moving at supersonic speed for over a minute. Back track up the Hudson for 700 feet times 60 seconds. Shouldn't someone have heard a sonic boom at the least? They did hear Captain Scully's jet, land on the Hudson with engines off. That landing generated many dozens of 911 calls.

Like I said, a the recorded speeds the planes were supposed to have hit at, no one on the ground near the towers, would have heard anything until at least a second or two after they hit.


P.M.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 18 2014, 06:40 PM
Post #94





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



Thank you very much, but I asked MikeR.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Feb 18 2014, 08:16 PM
Post #95





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 19 2014, 08:06 AM) *
Yes I have.


MikeR, the sound that this magical hologram produced; can you enlighten us as to how was it accomplished?
Please be as specific as possible.
Thanks!


Sorry NP1, as I said before... I am NOT specifically proposing a hologram anything....
we don't have anything like enough information.

A Boeing airliner legitimately flying route UA175 could not possibly have been anything
other than a fake of some kind. Ask Richard Hall for more detail,. All MikeR will say
is the no airliner had nothing to do with whatever caused
the ILLUSION of a kite-strike on WTC2

The lie about the Pentagon strike, so obviously a LIE... for me that canceled ANY
chance I'd accept another word Dubya and Cheney ever uttered

You can believe whatever allows you to sleep at night

Einstein never believed an axiom. MikeR doesn't either.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Feb 18 2014, 08:23 PM
Post #96





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 19 2014, 08:06 AM) *
Yes I have.

Thanks!


Are you therefore a closet no-planer in thin disguise?

If not, what it would take for generous, truth-loving Pilot9/11Truthers
to help steer you back on-course?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Feb 18 2014, 08:56 PM
Post #97





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 19 2014, 05:33 AM) *
EagleEye, you seem very reluctant to even entertain any no-plane theory.

So, Eagle Eye what do you make of this?


.... or THIS
....showing in-synch versions of regurgitated lies
on each of 4 channels .... right up to the cock-up point
of "fade to black"
pilotfly.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UscCJZaun6A

Problem seems to be that "no-plane theory"
(just like "conspiracy theory") is actually
"no-plane fact"

This post has been edited by MikeR: Feb 18 2014, 08:59 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 18 2014, 09:03 PM
Post #98





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (MikeR @ Feb 18 2014, 07:16 PM) *
Sorry NP1, as I said before... I am NOT specifically proposing a hologram anything....
we don't have anything like enough information.


Thank goodness for that!
*Mental note - MikeR is not a hologrammer, as of Feb 18, 2014.

QUOTE
A Boeing airliner legitimately flying route UA175 could not possibly have been anything
other than a fake of some kind.


So you don't want to commit do you?
Fake as in:
- fake airplane?
- fake video?
- fake airplane + fake video
- ???


QUOTE
Ask Richard Hall for more detail,.


Oy veh!
You know, a little while ago I respected Hall's work (his work on the modified 767 with a pod).
But then a year or so ago he went off the deep end.
Now he's in the hologram camp and he's a Judy Wood disciple to boot!
I feel for the guy, I really do, because he seems like a nice chap.

QUOTE
All MikeR will say
is the no airliner had nothing to do with whatever caused
the ILLUSION of a kite-strike on WTC2


You're beating around the bush again.
Why don't you just come out and tell us what you feel really happened, instead of
messing around with kites.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 18 2014, 09:07 PM
Post #99





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (MikeR @ Feb 18 2014, 07:23 PM) *
Are you therefore a closet no-planer in thin disguise?

If not, what it would take for generous, truth-loving Pilot9/11Truthers
to help steer you back on-course?



No MikeR, I'm sorry to inform you the 'NP' in my forum name (NP1Mike) does not stand for 'No Planer', but rather 'Non-Pilot'.

I hope that doesn't ruin your night.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Feb 18 2014, 11:07 PM
Post #100





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



Just look at what the no plane video fakery nonsense has done to this thread, and to the inquiry it was attempting to make.

I don't know if it's unwittingly or knowingly, but it's like an attempt to both cover up, obfuscate and discredit the self evident truth, that that the plane wasn't flight 175, but must have been a highly modified military variant of the Boeing 767.

So they just layer no planer video fakery all over it, and do the devil's bidding, whether knowingly or unwittingly it doesn't matter, it's the same intentionality in the final analysis.

It's like a zealous belief of some kind.

You can even show them the video and photographic record from that day, the holes in the buildings, the fireball, and they'll try to maintain that it was all "faked".

Tell me, how is that helpful to the truth movement as the movement of the truth about what actually took place on September 11, 2001?

So what was it that was speeding through the sky, recorded on radar? - why should i even be asking that question?

Real men will change their mind and admit to their error when it becomes obvious.

What's sad and ridiculous and pathetic is their use of the research and data of P4T to suggest that it proves there was no plane there at all, how deceptive and disingenuous.

The no plane video fakery position is the bane of the 9/11 truth movement and deserves to be ridiculed.


I hereby declare this thread a NO no planer video fakery thread.

Please direct such comments elsewhere and/or start a new thread of your own about that crap. Thanks.

This post has been edited by EagleEye: Feb 18 2014, 11:12 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 7 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 12th December 2019 - 03:03 PM