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 )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
R. I. P. - No Plane Theory, Jim Fetzer evading questions

rob balsamo
post May 8 2012, 09:01 AM
Post #21



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ May 8 2012, 08:35 AM) *
I did - and humbly stand corrected.


You're welcome TM!

Many feel that the NPT was/is an orchestrated disinformation campaign in order to obfuscate and marginalize the research done at the Pentagon and Shanksville during that time.

The NPT was running rampant at the time significant findings were being uncovered in Pentagon Research. Much of those people who started the NPT back then are no longer around.

Case in point....
http://www.infowars.com/is-nico-haupt-a-co...ro-operative-2/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post May 8 2012, 09:04 AM
Post #22





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (amazed! @ May 6 2012, 11:44 AM) *
Famous line from Cool Hand Luke--what we have here is a failure to communicate.



Strother Martin!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 8 2012, 03:19 PM
Post #23



Group Icon

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



QUOTE
Nevertheless, i'll continue to defend the 'no plane theory' with regards to pentagon and Shanksville,


That phrase is exactly why I objected to Fetzer's wordplay and his lumping of Pentagon and Shankesville research in with NPT.

It's not a case of crossed lines TM. There were planes involved. Any fudging of the definition of NPT doesn't interest me mate.

Edit: and the only paper I found online regarding DARPA and 3D holographic technology using Strontium Barium Niobate was the one I discussed (well, posted, nobody ever commented bar Senor el Once at TAS who has now rejected NPT having touted it for four years).

It's titled "3-D Holographic Display Using Strontium Barium Niobate". dunno.gif

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: May 8 2012, 03:26 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post May 9 2012, 01:52 AM
Post #24





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 6 2012, 06:19 PM) *
That phrase is exactly why I objected to Fetzer's wordplay and his lumping of Pentagon and Shankesville research in with NPT.

It's not a case of crossed lines TM. There were planes involved. Any fudging of the definition of NPT doesn't interest me mate.


Hi OSS,
i got absolutely no interest in any kind of "wordplay" or "fudging of definitions" at all. For me
it is alone a question of Truth, the pursuit of Truth, telling the Truth, the whole Truth, and
nothing but the Truth.

I found Swing Danglers '17 points' over at CIT's discussion forum:

invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=317

It should be very clear and obvious from this, that the 17 points are meant to be seen as a
very strong defense of CIT's "no plane theory". I.e., no plane impacted the pentagon!

As Rob so rightly pointed out, and that i also pointed out, NPT was/is used as a very powerful
weapon (indeed a two-edged 'sword') to denigrate, discredit and annihilate CIT, P4T and their
supporters.
(I urge you to have a look over at truthfraction right at this moment)!

At WTC it is worse. Here the NPT people are called 'lunatic disinfo'es' by not only the shills,
loyalists and the professional disinformants, but also by other 'truthers' who are now siding
with their 'detractors'; albeit for completely other reasons!

The confusion is total, and that's why i was hoping to come to some agreement with you, to
try to alleviate some of this BS - but alas, this doesn't seem to be possible.

QUOTE
Edit: and the only paper I found online regarding DARPA and 3D holographic technology using Strontium Barium Niobate was
the one I discussed (well, posted, nobody ever commented bar Senor el Once at TAS who has now rejected NPT having touted
it for four years).

It's titled "3-D Holographic Display Using Strontium Barium Niobate". dunno.gif



In the thread "Debunkers respond to Cimino", you must have overlooked my post no.140!

And you must have overlooked it again in my reply post no. 210 to you on 27/3-12, where
i wrote:

"Please read in conjunction with quote from DARPA's budget paper, as shown in post 140!"

I my post no. 299 addressed to Rob on 15/4-12, I only quoted the pertinent part from the

DARPA Paper that i was interested in, as follows:
"…..
more sophisticated technology would have been utilized then; sort of more in line with what
DARPA was playing around with in those days - and of course, before that time as well:"

".....
These programs will also explore a combination of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS)
based electro-optic spatial light modulators in combination with very short pulse solid state
lasers to provide powerful new capabilities for secure communication up-links (multi-gigabits
per second), aberration free 3-dimensional imaging and targeting at very long ranges
(> 1000 kilometers).

Cheers

PS!
To give you a little glimpse of where i'm coming from, and perhaps imbue a little calm, i
recommend to you this gentle chant:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...0&start=840

PPS!
Link to CIT doesn't work!
Found in 'Pentagon' thread, under title: 'There is no friggin plane impact'. Post of 29/8-08.

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: May 9 2012, 02:19 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post May 10 2012, 06:44 PM
Post #25





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ May 8 2012, 07:52 PM) *
It should be very clear and obvious from this, that the 17 points are meant to be seen as a
very strong defense of CIT's "no plane theory". I.e., no plane impacted the pentagon!

I find it a lot simpler to state that AA 11, AA77, UA 93 and UA 173 did not hit anything.

Personally, I do not believe that any civilian 757/767 caused any damage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post May 11 2012, 07:22 AM
Post #26





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (elreb @ May 11 2012, 08:14 AM) *
I find it a lot simpler to state that AA 11, AA77, UA 93 and UA 173 did not hit anything.

Personally, I do not believe that any civilian 757/767 caused any damage.


Dear 'elreb'

at the end of the day, it will be you, that is "right" on the money.

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post May 11 2012, 02:56 PM
Post #27





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Agreed, Elreb!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post May 11 2012, 10:48 PM
Post #28





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



Agreed, elreb -

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post May 12 2012, 04:32 AM
Post #29





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ May 12 2012, 12:18 PM) *
Agreed, elreb -

Cheers


Dear 'Tamborine man'

Please forgive me, but needed somewhere to tag this onto.
Just dealing, with the Boeing 757 -first-, that is the Pentagon.

Mr Bob Pugh, had no doubt in his mind, right from the first instant, that it did not appear a large commercial aircraft had come in impact with the Pentagon wall.
He expressed also there was no collatoral damage to support such a notion, in fact reporting the hole he saw in the wall as no more than 16 feet wide, as he expressed it, the size of a 'domestic garage door'.
This can be viewed on you tube --9/11 truth: Pentagon Eye Witness Bob Pugh Tells his story.
http://youtu.be/-xtEJ4zrlPM

On the same video, at 4:41 a Gentleman is handling a piece of debris, which people about comment could be part of the undercarriage of an aircraft, other comment made argued against this, saying it was too small.
Whoever made that comment was on the 'money', there can be little doubt, in fact when carefully considered, the part looks to have come away from another part of an aircraft, which was most definitely not a Boeing 757.
Another video on you tube --9/11 Pentagon Explosion and missing plane wreckage
http://youtu.be/YSGK13Cgg
At 9:41, shows the same gentleman holding the same piece of debris.

Another video on you tube -- Witness D C 9/11
http://youtu.be/DifwsjF8X5L
At 10:54 shows a Gentleman handling a piece of debris, with every appearance, of being ripped from some sort of aircraft. A person in the background can be heard to say --that is not from a commercial aircraft-- it is too thin, and comes from a smaller plane--, or words to that effect.
There can be little doubt that the man's opinion was on the 'money'.

It is puzzling to consider, why these instance of hard evidence, are being ignored, and the people involved have not been sought out, for their observations.

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post May 12 2012, 11:34 AM
Post #30





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Robert

For me, all 3 of those YouTubes were 'no longer available' dunno.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post May 12 2012, 08:21 PM
Post #31





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (amazed! @ May 13 2012, 01:04 AM) *
Robert

For me, all 3 of those YouTubes were 'no longer available' dunno.gif


Dear 'amazed'

The internet seems to have those days.
In fact when I went to check out your comment it took a number of tries to get to it.
All other topics opened 'ok'.

When I went back into 'google' to use the address http;//youtu.be/DifwsjF8X5L, it told me it could not find such a topic.
I added the title Witness D.C. 9/11.
Same non result.

I then just used the title.
Witness D.C. 9/11.
Google brought it up.

The youtube info says
Full documentry new in 2010
uploaded by CTV911
Jan7 2011
7776 views.


Perhaps give that a try 'amazed'.

Hope the method works for you, and the other two.
Perhaps you can be 7777.

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bpete1969
post May 15 2012, 09:58 PM
Post #32





Group: Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: 8-April 12
Member No.: 6,775



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ May 8 2012, 09:01 AM) *
You're welcome TM!

Many feel that the NPT was/is an orchestrated disinformation campaign in order to obfuscate and marginalize the research done at the Pentagon and Shanksville during that time.

The NPT was running rampant at the time significant findings were being uncovered in Pentagon Research. Much of those people who started the NPT back then are no longer around.

Case in point....
http://www.infowars.com/is-nico-haupt-a-co...ro-operative-2/



Unfortunately, NPT will remain alive as long as people like Fetzer have the ability to get their hands on a keyboard.

As for disinfo...consider the method of presentation by the number one proponent of the theory. He makes a totally subjective claim and relies on facts that lay on the periphery of his main argument to bolster the main claim. When that fails, he uses the "only a fool would disagree" ploy and then states that he has proven his case. Any question you pose or rebuttal you offer is immediately dismissed and then he ridicules you for being a "disappointment" to him, or that he expected better of you and you failed. He then tries to throw you off by inundating you with links to all of his past works on the subject as if the fact they are print on a webpage makes then definitive proof that he is right and you are wrong. When that fails, he then falls back on his education and PhD as a way to intimidate you.
Uncle Fetzer was made for disinfo....and you have to commend him on doing the job well, for a time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 15 2012, 11:37 PM
Post #33



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (bpete1969 @ May 15 2012, 09:58 PM) *
When that fails, he uses the "only a fool would disagree" ploy and then states that he has proven his case. Any question you pose or rebuttal you offer is immediately dismissed and then he ridicules you for being a "disappointment" to him, or that he expected better of you and you failed.



Yes, I especially get a good chuckle (well, perhaps a deep belly laugh really) when Fetzer now claims I am not competent to be the head of P4T. Especially given the fact that he knows I created P4T and grown this list of my peers with my work...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

Again, Fetzer is just pissed off that we will not endorse his crap, nor does our work support his crap.. .and like clockwork, he attacks anyone who disputes his crap.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 20 2014, 06:23 AM
Post #34



Group Icon

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



Bump
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 24 2014, 08:38 PM
Post #35



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 20 2014, 11:23 AM) *
Bump


I'm bumping this again for anybody who actually wants to debate the content.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 24 2014, 09:40 PM
Post #36





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



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 24 2014, 07:38 PM) *
I'm bumping this again for anybody who actually wants to debate the content.


I don't need to debate this but I just wanted to say job well done OSS!
You've got all the important points pretty much covered.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Alpha66
post Jun 3 2015, 08:44 AM
Post #37





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 7-April 15
From: Preussen / Westfalen
Member No.: 8,105



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 24 2014, 09:40 PM) *
I don't need to debate this but I just wanted to say job well done OSS!
You've got all the important points pretty much covered.


PLEASE READ - important:

Just checked this thread, and found Spetember Clues and Simon S. (his name is in reality Simon Hytten btw) are mentioned. I can only warn people of this guy and his theories. Especially about his forum which seems to be run by the Stasi or Gestapo. My advise: Ignore this guy Simon H. and his peers and all his sites, videos and fora. It might evben be these people are so called "gatekeepers" to divide and ridicule the "truth" movement. I have no proof for this, but found their stuff and behaviour ridiculous. Research these guys yourself and you may find suspect stuff. Thatīs all I am going to say, but again just ignore these S.Clues club of fraudsters. rolleyes.gif thumbdown.gif

Here is a hint where to begin your research of these "persons":

http://killtownsecretarchive.blogspot.de/2...mb-as-post.html

This post has been edited by Alpha66: Jun 3 2015, 08:48 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jun 3 2015, 06:47 PM
Post #38





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



QUOTE (Alpha66 @ Jun 3 2015, 07:44 AM) *
PLEASE READ - important:

Just checked this thread, and found Spetember Clues and Simon S. (his name is in reality Simon Hytten btw) are mentioned. I can only warn people of this guy and his theories. Especially about his forum which seems to be run by the Stasi or Gestapo. My advise: Ignore this guy Simon H. and his peers and all his sites, videos and fora. It might evben be these people are so called "gatekeepers" to divide and ridicule the "truth" movement. I have no proof for this, but found their stuff and behaviour ridiculous. Research these guys yourself and you may find suspect stuff. Thatīs all I am going to say, but again just ignore these S.Clues club of fraudsters. rolleyes.gif thumbdown.gif

Here is a hint where to begin your research of these "persons":

http://killtownsecretarchive.blogspot.de/2...mb-as-post.html



I think Simon S./September Clues became popular simply because of opportunism. He was at the right place at the right time.
I have watched more of his videos/garbage than I really should have.
There are so many holes/errors in them that it is really pathetic.

I can only agree. If anyone still hasn't discovered this kook, do yourself a big favor and pass him by. It will be time worth saved.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jun 4 2015, 06:07 AM
Post #39





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (23investigator @ May 12 2012, 06:02 PM) *
Dear 'Tamborine man'

Please forgive me, but needed somewhere to tag this onto.
Just dealing, with the Boeing 757 -first-, that is the Pentagon.

Mr Bob Pugh, had no doubt in his mind, right from the first instant, that it did not appear a large commercial aircraft had come in impact with the Pentagon wall.
He expressed also there was no collatoral damage to support such a notion, in fact reporting the hole he saw in the wall as no more than 16 feet wide, as he expressed it, the size of a 'domestic garage door'.
This can be viewed on you tube --9/11 truth: Pentagon Eye Witness Bob Pugh Tells his story.
http://youtu.be/-xtEJ4zrlPM

On the same video, at 4:41 a Gentleman is handling a piece of debris, which people about comment could be part of the undercarriage of an aircraft, other comment made argued against this, saying it was too small.
Whoever made that comment was on the 'money', there can be little doubt, in fact when carefully considered, the part looks to have come away from another part of an aircraft, which was most definitely not a Boeing 757.
Another video on you tube --9/11 Pentagon Explosion and missing plane wreckage
http://youtu.be/YSGK13Cgg
At 9:41, shows the same gentleman holding the same piece of debris.

Another video on you tube -- Witness D C 9/11
http://youtu.be/DifwsjF8X5L
At 10:54 shows a Gentleman handling a piece of debris, with every appearance, of being ripped from some sort of aircraft. A person in the background can be heard to say --that is not from a commercial aircraft-- it is too thin, and comes from a smaller plane--, or words to that effect.
There can be little doubt that the man's opinion was on the 'money'.

It is puzzling to consider, why these instance of hard evidence, are being ignored, and the people involved have not been sought out, for their observations.

Robert S


Dear 'NP1Mike' and 'Tamborine Man'

Please forgive me for this route to bring forward this comment.

(1) In the case above: it is very clear from viewing the video that these were not rehearsed comments.

(2) In the case of Tower two: there were some comments made by people who appear not to have rehearsed their lines.

They clearly and articulately stated that the aircraft they had just seen hit tower two was not a large commercial airliner such as a Boeing 767.

It seems these people have become lost in the fog of illusion that no doubt kicked into high gear after both these terrible events.

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jun 6 2015, 02:32 AM
Post #40





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 4 2015, 07:37 PM) *
Dear 'NP1Mike' and 'Tamborine Man'

Please forgive me for this route to bring forward this comment.

(1) In the case above: it is very clear from viewing the video that these were not rehearsed comments.

(2) In the case of Tower two: there were some comments made by people who appear not to have rehearsed their lines.

They clearly and articulately stated that the aircraft they had just seen hit tower two was not a large commercial airliner such as a Boeing 767.

It seems these people have become lost in the fog of illusion that no doubt kicked into high gear after both these terrible events.

Robert S



Continuing the theme above.

There is a video in which a woman in a helicopter is in conversation with another woman back at a TV station.

Her initial account was that she had sighted the aircraft that actually hit Tower Two.

It most certainly did not seem she was talking about a large passenger aircraft.

In fact that conversation was clearly edited and again lost in the fog of illusion.

My personal appraisal of the video is that it is the most realistic of any of the video footage presented and still available to the public.

Not to say it has not been visually edited as well as the audio discussion between the two women: as it most definitely has.

The visual editing is by superimposing a white globe effect over the actual aircraft detail.

The aircraft is not anything like the proportions of a Boeing 767.

Robert S

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
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 November 2019 - 06:23 AM