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 )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Eye Witnesses

rockymtriser
post Apr 27 2014, 03:52 AM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 17
Joined: 22-September 11
From: Montana
Member No.: 6,302



So, I got drawn into a discussion with some "no-planers". I have previously avoided this argument, because it just comes across to me as ludicrous. I also feel that those promoting such theories have hindered the 9/11 Truth movement considerably, since such outrageous theories only tend to turn away rational minded people and encourage them to label all investigators of 9/11 truth as "conspiracy nuts".

But, then, I can recall thinking that anything outside of the official story was "nuts", and even treasonous. It took 7 years for me to open my eyes and look seriously into what really happened. Needless to say, once I investigated, my opinion turned around 180°. So now I try to be more careful about pre-judging things...

So I got into this discussion with a couple people who are convinced that no planes hit the twin towers, that all of the video evidence of such was just computer generated graphics, a manipulation to fool the masses. I emphasized that their theory has gone astray because they are ignoring evidence, namely: eye witnesses. People saw the planes hit the buildings. (Exactly what planes is another debate, as all I've heard tends to suggest they were not actually flight AA11 and UA175, but more likely were remote controlled military planes...) I have seen interviews with eye witnesses; the no-planers respond they were lying, a part of the conspiracy. I say, those on record are but the smallest tip of the iceberg of total witnesses. In a city of over 8 million people, with smoke billowing from one of their most famous and tallest buildings after the first plane hit, surely hundreds or thousands of people were watching when the second plane showed up.

But here's the problem: I don't know any of those witnesses personally. I can't say "I know so-and-so, and they, or someone they know well and trust, did indeed witness the plane hit the building." Until I find such, I am at a disadvantage in this argument. So I have begun searching for witnesses, not only so I can speak more convincingly, but so I can know in my own mind more surely. I mean, I have been wrong before. Evidence means everything.

So I asked a couple close friends so far. One does know a witness who was in NYC on 9/11, on the opposite side of the south tower, and heard, but did not see, what she thought was an airplane and then the crash. The other friend knows of no one, though she is a deeply involved activist. She suggested that I ask here on Pilots For 9/11 Truth.

So, can anyone here tell me, did you, or someone you know and trust, actually SEE a plane collide with WTC1 or WTC2?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lfecher
post Apr 27 2014, 04:22 AM
Post #2





Group: Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: 7-July 08
Member No.: 3,680



QUOTE (rockymtriser @ Apr 27 2014, 02:52 AM) *
So, I got drawn into a discussion with some "no-planers". I have previously avoided this argument, because it just comes across to me as ludicrous. I also feel that those promoting such theories have hindered the 9/11 Truth movement considerably, since such outrageous theories only tend to turn away rational minded people and encourage them to label all investigators of 9/11 truth as "conspiracy nuts".

But, then, I can recall thinking that anything outside of the official story was "nuts", and even treasonous. It took 7 years for me to open my eyes and look seriously into what really happened. Needless to say, once I investigated, my opinion turned around 180°. So now I try to be more careful about pre-judging things...

So I got into this discussion with a couple people who are convinced that no planes hit the twin towers, that all of the video evidence of such was just computer generated graphics, a manipulation to fool the masses. I emphasized that their theory has gone astray because they are ignoring evidence, namely: eye witnesses. People saw the planes hit the buildings. (Exactly what planes is another debate, as all I've heard tends to suggest they were not actually flight AA11 and UA175, but more likely were remote controlled military planes...) I have seen interviews with eye witnesses; the no-planers respond they were lying, a part of the conspiracy. I say, those on record are but the smallest tip of the iceberg of total witnesses. In a city of over 8 million people, with smoke billowing from one of their most famous and tallest buildings after the first plane hit, surely hundreds or thousands of people were watching when the second plane showed up.

But here's the problem: I don't know any of those witnesses personally. I can't say "I know so-and-so, and they, or someone they know well and trust, did indeed witness the plane hit the building." Until I find such, I am at a disadvantage in this argument. So I have begun searching for witnesses, not only so I can speak more convincingly, but so I can know in my own mind more surely. I mean, I have been wrong before. Evidence means everything.

So I asked a couple close friends so far. One does know a witness who was in NYC on 9/11, on the opposite side of the south tower, and heard, but did not see, what she thought was an airplane and then the crash. The other friend knows of no one, though she is a deeply involved activist. She suggested that I ask here on Pilots For 9/11 Truth.

So, can anyone here tell me, did you, or someone you know and trust, actually SEE a plane collide with WTC1 or WTC2?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lfecher
post Apr 27 2014, 04:33 AM
Post #3





Group: Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: 7-July 08
Member No.: 3,680



Any investigator will tell you that during a traumatic event, eye witness testimony is not always reliable. As far as no planes hitting the towers, eye witnesses can't help you as much as the video evidence can.
Watch any of the videos of UA 175 and WTC 2 in slow motion.
1. There was no collision between the airliner and the outer wall of the tower.
2. Not one single piece of the airliner broke off at the point of "impact" and fell directly into the street below.
3. No explosion occurred until AFTER the entire airliner was INSIDE the tower.
On 9/11, they showed us an apple and told us it was an orange.
No commercial airliners were harmed in one of the worst false flag attacks in US history.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CharlesGWright
post Apr 27 2014, 06:57 AM
Post #4





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 13
Joined: 4-September 13
From: Grove City, Pennsylvania
Member No.: 7,511



yes this is a topic that needs to be acknowledged

what caught my attention is the video from the helicopter showing the nose of the plane go all the way thru the building and come out intact on the other side

fragile fiber glass nose cones covering the radar antenna can not do that

the man operating the camera that "captured" this shot was an expert in layering of images........

it was this image feed that became the image that was sent around the world and sent over and over until the image was embeded in our minds with trauma

This post has been edited by CharlesGWright: Apr 27 2014, 06:58 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CharlesGWright
post Apr 27 2014, 07:11 AM
Post #5





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 13
Joined: 4-September 13
From: Grove City, Pennsylvania
Member No.: 7,511



QUOTE (CharlesGWright @ Apr 27 2014, 05:57 AM) *
yes this is a topic that needs to be acknowledged

what caught my attention is the video from the helicopter showing the nose of the plane go all the way thru the building and come out intact on the other side

fragile fiber glass nose cones covering the radar antenna can not do that

the man operating the camera that "captured" this shot was an expert in layering of images........

it was this image feed that became the image that was sent around the world and sent over and over until the image was embeded in our minds with trauma


(permission not to edit came up, so just adding)

and of course the first image from the Nadet brothers with the natural gas inspection team on the street of NYC "capturing" the image of the "first plane" that goes inside of the building with no soft aluminum and magnesium metal parts smashing and falling, but all magically penetrated the heavy steel outer skin of the building....

and no real parts on the Pentagon but small parts from a [drone?]

and no real parts on the ground in Western Pennsylvania[eye witness at the south location saw a very low flying [drone?] approach her from the south and fly north to the field, then she got back in her car and drove east to her house which was nearby

This post has been edited by CharlesGWright: Apr 27 2014, 07:13 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Apr 27 2014, 07:21 AM
Post #6





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



QUOTE (rockymtriser @ Apr 27 2014, 02:52 AM) *
So, can anyone here tell me, did you, or someone you know and trust, actually SEE a plane collide with WTC1 or WTC2?


No, I cannot tell you.

Nor can I tell you that I have heard anyone, shill or not, claim to have witnessed the fireballs coming from the towers upon alleged impacts.

Well, there was one exception, though. I had to draw an answer from him as he looked dazed and confused, and then he sheepishly said of fireballs, "Yes, yes, I saw them."

I must add that this guy was reputed to be a total mental case.

On the power of suggestion, I refer you to a prior post of mine: Vroooommm… Was This Played From Ghetto Blaster Speakers 2-1/2 Seconds…, … just before KABOOM some 90 stories up?

P.M.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Apr 27 2014, 08:21 AM
Post #7





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



QUOTE (rockymtriser @ Apr 27 2014, 07:52 PM) *
So, can anyone here tell me, did you, or someone you know and trust, actually SEE a plane collide with WTC1 or WTC2?


Very valid question. Here's a hint of an answer in the negative:
The only POSSIBLE reason you'd actually SEE a plane collide with WTC1
(short of mere chance you were looking in that direction, or the
slightly-less-mere chance you thought you heard a plane in exactly the correct
time that allowed you a nanosecond to deploy eyes to look at
the hollywood fireball effect .... and still not see any plane
(for the perfectly-sound reason there was no plane to be scene).

The ONLY claimed witness JUST HAPPENED to be
a professional videographer (how convenient) who
JUST HAPPENED to have a professional camera mounted
in EXACTLY the right spot, to swing camera round, at
exactly to correct unadvertized? instant
to capture a PERFECT video shot of....
(would you believe it?) a badly-focused a UFO that
JUST HAPPENED to look like a photoshop overlay
done by some kid nervous in case it got caught out.

We all saw the Moon Landing (have patience, this IS on-topic)
we witnessed the Giant Step for Mankind with our own eyes...
we all know what we've scene... I was totally-convinced for 40 years
they really did land astronauts on the moon..

Until just last week.

I spent stunned hours listening to professional photographer
Marcus Allen explain in great detail exactly why all 32,000 photos
could not possibly have been shot in lunar photo conditions.
Marcus eliminated the impossible, and what remains
"however improbable" is the truth. A LUNAR shooting of any
instalment of a movie called "Moon Landing" was IMPOSSIBLE,
and all of the film MUST have been shot here on Earth.

Marcus explains what really happened at 1:15:45

He concludes that NASA planned the entire moon landing event as a
totally-terrestrial military operation.

(T)his conclusion is as stunning to US Believers as is the other
always-an-obvious-possiblity-now-a-dead-certainty...that
the perpeTRAITOR of 9/11 succeeded beyond its wildest dreams
in getting the Whole Wide World to believe their 9/11 deception.

The deception was video-management fakery pure and simple.

They achieved the deception without firing a single live plane....
iot was all done by video-compositing trickery (just like the moon hoax).

The perpeTRAITORs can afford to continue papering over all the errors
forever and a day while they add zillions to the impossible national debt
paying pimply-faced unemployable to type personal shillery on YT.

We cannot afford to take their deception half as seriously.

MikeR rolleyes.gif


This post has been edited by MikeR: Apr 27 2014, 08:50 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Apr 27 2014, 08:40 AM
Post #8





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



QUOTE (lfecher @ Apr 27 2014, 08:33 PM) *
Any investigator will tell you .... eye witness testimony is not always reliable


QUOTE (paulmichael @ Apr 27 2014, 11:21 PM) *
I must add that this guy was reputed to be a total mental case.


The witness does NOT have to be a non=mental case....eye-witness testimony is NOT reliable.

NEVER

Let's check (y)our own witness-reliability-quotient against the following film:
watch the color changes and tell yourself (BE HONEST NOW)
do you REALLY AND TRULY spot what happened?
Did you notice the true-totality of the event?

Watch carefully now.... don't dare to blink or you'll miss the big picture...

PS AFTER watching this short vid.... ask yourself if you can even trust your own witness judgment...
and if you answer is an emphatic "maybe not", what credence will you continue to place on somebody
whose next-door neighbor SAYS their uncle saw the plane hurtling in through the second-floor janitor's
Pentagon window at the exact time the bodies were falling out....

MikeR rolleyes.gif

This post has been edited by MikeR: Apr 27 2014, 08:48 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bruce Sinclair
post Apr 27 2014, 09:09 AM
Post #9


Core Member


Group: Contributor
Posts: 154
Joined: 31-March 08
Member No.: 3,074



A friend of mine had a perfectly unobstructed view of the second plane hitting the tower. He was on the roof of his sister's apartment building in Brooklyn.

And now for his qualifications: He was a Boeing 747 Captain, a ex-military fighter pilot with combat experience, and a trained accident investigator. He has since retired.

So I would say he would qualify as an expert witness.

He told me right after September 11th, that in his opinion the second aircraft (he didn't see the first) was a drone by the way it was maneuvering prior to hitting the tower.

Hope this helps.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
iceni
post Apr 27 2014, 10:43 AM
Post #10





Group: Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: 31-October 11
Member No.: 6,429





the Hezarkhani video. Notice that the tail of the plane remains exactly centered in the consecutive frames [red line], and that in reality, in this segment of the video, it is the building image that moves towards the plane image from right to left , and not the plane image moving towards the building image from left to right as it should be, and that that moving building image is what creates the optical illusion that the plane image is still moving toward the WTC2 building.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Apr 27 2014, 11:03 AM
Post #11





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 476
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



FFS! What is it with the no-planers anyway?

Of course there were planes. Many people saw them and many cameras captured them from many different locations.

The workers above the impact zone in WTC2 described the tower swaying and the cameras captured the sway. One of them said he watched the plane approach the building and then dove under his desk.

One worker was evacuating the south tower just as UA175 struck. He ducked back into the lobby to avoid falling debris. Of course debris fell down, but the shaky cameras cannot capture this fine detail.

The steel columns on the exterior were bent in. So you tell me-- how a bent-in steel box column can be faked?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Apr 27 2014, 11:17 AM
Post #12





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



QUOTE (kawika @ Apr 27 2014, 11:03 AM) *
FFS! What is it with the no-planers anyway?

Of course there were planes. Many people saw them and many cameras captured them from many different locations.

The workers above the impact zone in WTC2 described the tower swaying and the cameras captured the sway. One of them said he watched the plane approach the building and then dove under his desk.

One worker was evacuating the south tower just as UA175 struck. He ducked back into the lobby to avoid falling debris. Of course debris fell down, but the shaky cameras cannot capture this fine detail.

The steel columns on the exterior were bent in. So you tell me-- how a bent-in steel box column can be faked?


I agree.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rockymtriser
post Apr 28 2014, 02:33 AM
Post #13





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 17
Joined: 22-September 11
From: Montana
Member No.: 6,302



Thank you for your responses lfecher, CharlesGWright, paulmichael, MikeR, Bruce Sinclair, iceni, kawika, and amazed!.

I wish there was a way to reach a wider audience with my question, but then again, I don't think I'm really ready to open up that can of worms, of full on no-plane debate. I'm really just looking to hear from actual witnesses at this point, or from those who actually know and trust people who were witness to the collisions of planes into the twin towers. I did find this small sampling helpful and thought provoking anyway.

Bruce, you are exactly what I was seeking. And while my impression is that you are being completely honest, and that your friend is indeed one with trained eyes worthy of being called as an expert witness, anyone could point out that I do not know you. With eye witnesses a certain amount of faith is always going to be required, because, well, "you had to be there"... when they saw it, and you didn't. For me this brings up the argument against promoting miracles as proof for the masses. Those who experience a miracle first hand, know absolutely the truth it contains, but the further others are from the occurrence, the more room they will find for doubt.

One who I had discussed the no-plane theory with sent me a 3 hour long video documentary, his best "proof". I have only scanned through it so far, put saw enough to put me off, as they repeatedly resort to attacking others who they do not want to believe. I see this as not at all a science based approach, but rather an immature and emotional one. It would seem that proving a theory has for them taken precedence over finding the truth. Early on in the video they attack the architects and engineers of AE911Truth.org, calling them all liars, saying they are part of the conspiracy. Their proof? Well, 12 years have passed, and they have not accomplished complete transformation of society's beliefs in that time, so obviously they must be complicit in the scam! Later, the video shows an eye witness who is taping the event. As the second plane comes along and crashes into the south tower the lady screams in horror. The documentary maker then rattles on about how the lady's reaction is phony, how she is just acting and is obviously a part of the conspiracy (she seemed genuine to me...)

Eye witnesses, as a number of you pointed out, are not completely reliable. I get that. MikeR, I tested myself with the magic trick video, and damned, my visual grasp of details really sucks! I did not catch any of the changes, even drastic as going from blue to red background! I was too focused on the cards, my mind trying to guess how they were going to pull off this trick. So yes, point clearly made, people, especially less observant ones like me, can clearly be fooled by their own eyes, and brains.

But here's the thing: At the end, what I could tell you, without doubt, is that there was a guy and a gal sitting at a table doing a card trick. Details lost, but the basic reality understood. So too, I think most anyone, if they happened to look up and see a fast moving low flying plane, while hearing it's engines, and then watch it plow into the side of a building, could tell you with certainty that a plane hit the building. They may be unsure about what exact color it was, whether or not it had windows, what estimated speed it was traveling at, what may have been attached beneath it, at what exact second the fireball occurred, or where exactly the debris fell, etc, but the basic reality of "plane hit building" would be hard to miss. So I still think eye witnesses are valuable...

I still believe that, yes, there were planes, but as I look into this I am coming to see how others might think not. I'm trying to keep an open mind, but honestly, the concept of no planes, total video fakery, creates all sorts of inconsistencies and questions, the sort that would cause an impatient listener to just walk away, quickly. The ruptured steel outer grid being bent in, as kawika points out, is one. Another that occurred to me is: If the conspirators were to go to the trouble of doing all that video fakery to try to convince people that the flights AA11 and UA175 hit the towers, don't you think they would have made the planes in the videos look like those flights? (i.e.: why the pods attached beneath, etc...?)

On a side note, concerning the moon landing MikeR, I too solidly believed for over 40 years that it happened as we were told, but of late have been curiously looking more into it, and am no longer sure at all. Thank you for sharing more info on that.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Apr 28 2014, 10:35 PM
Post #14





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



QUOTE (kawika @ Apr 28 2014, 03:03 AM) *
FFS! What is it with the no-planers anyway?


Is your problem really with no-planers...
or do you have a problem simply not
being able to get your mind round
what it perceives as a ridiculous concept?

I ask, because beginning of year 2002 I was
still not taking seriously YT videos that
hinted the planes might not be for real...

Then I remembered on The Day, Cheney said
the Pentagon had been hit by an airliner...
so why were all the smoking-Pentagon photos
clearly showing a totally-intact facade?
It is OBVIOUS: there NEVER was a plane crash.

When the official story of one plane crashing
was an IMPOSSIBILITY, don't you ever
wanna go out of your comfort zone and
CHECK THE EVIDENCE?

Richard D Hall's latest video (March 2014)
is an eyeopener... for those who want the truth

Watch carefully, then debate the facts of the issue

No good having a go at no-planers.

Especially not when there were no planes rolleyes.gif

MikeR

This post has been edited by MikeR: Apr 28 2014, 10:36 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rockymtriser
post Apr 29 2014, 01:18 AM
Post #15





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 17
Joined: 22-September 11
From: Montana
Member No.: 6,302



I can see how this issue could become a boxing match between sides who both know that a wicked conspiracy was committed against the American people, but disagree about the specifics of how it was pulled off. Both yell at the other "You're not looking at the evidence!" (And both sides are largely right, because the "evidence" is a mighty big pot, and likely no one is in a position to grasp it all...) kawika did point out bits of evidence that totally contradict the "no-planes" theory: eye witnesses to the effects of the impact, swaying of the towers, and one witness who actually saw the plane approaching and jumped under his desk before it impacted, etc...

As far as the Pentagon goes, I think yes, there was a plane, based again on eye witnesses (including a pilot and police officers...) But it did not follow the exact path claimed in the official story, going instead north of the Citgo, and no, I do not believe it hit the Pentagon. If you haven't yet, I recommend checking out the research of CIT, as well as of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html
http://stj911.org/legge/Legge_Chandler_NOC_Refutation.html

Of the four incidents of 9/11, the Pentagon attack has remained the biggest puzzle to me. Every year I take some time to try to wrap my head around it, but it remains shrouded in mystery... the pieces just do not all come together for me. This year though, I have been listening to Barbara Honegger, who has a lot of inside information, and has painted a picture that challenges many beliefs. I definitely recommend lending her an ear...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fvJ8nFa5Qk...zcTNPIb0vjEsJ0x

One thing I came to realize thanks to Barbara is the great significance of the Pentagon strike. It was that alone that justified war. The other incidents could have been considered criminal, but not necessarily acts of war. The Pentagon strike was at the heart of the plan...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
realitycheck77
post Apr 29 2014, 11:45 PM
Post #16





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 77
Joined: 25-December 08
Member No.: 4,042




[/quote] One thing I came to realize thanks to Barbara is the great significance of the Pentagon strike. It was that alone that justified war. The other incidents could have been considered criminal, but not necessarily acts of war. The Pentagon strike was at the heart of the plan...
[/quote]

Wouldn't terrorists try to target the Pentagon? Isn't that what 911 truth people say . 'why didn't they stop the plane hitting the Pentagon'? why didn't they evacuate the Pentagon'? etc.
Why would the fact that the Pentagon was attacked be evidence that it was an 'inside job' rather than an attack by terrorists? If the Pentagon had not been attacked and the WTC towers had, killing over 2,000 people, would the US government have just ignored it? - not attacked Afghanistan , and not gone after the people who had carried out that attack?
Barbara Honegger said that it was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour , a military target , that was an act of war. Is she saying that if the Japanese had instead bombed San Francisco , and then Los Angeles and then San Diego , that the US government would have said 'We would like to declare war on Japan but they haven't attacked any military facilities so we can't do anything.'
I have seen Barbara Honneger's presentations and she hardly presents one sensible argument in the whole thing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rockymtriser
post Apr 30 2014, 02:07 AM
Post #17





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 17
Joined: 22-September 11
From: Montana
Member No.: 6,302



QUOTE
If the Pentagon had not been attacked and the WTC towers had, killing over 2,000 people, would the US government have just ignored it? - not attacked Afghanistan , and not gone after the people who had carried out that attack?


I suppose you are right; it would have led to war in either case most likely. But since the attacks against the WTC were not carried out by a sovereign nation (as was Pearl harbor), but rather by a scattered group of bad guys, the demand by many to treat this terrible event as an international crime, rather than as an excuse for a long lasting war, could have won out. With the military hit in the face by the pentagon attack (though it was barely a slap really) it tended to bolster their argument for total military response.

Obviously the government has gone far beyond going after the people alleged to have carried out the attack, and has used, is using 9/11 as the pretext for killing anyone anywhere anytime. The rules of law do not have to apply; you can forget about human rights, when a state of war is declared. And when the war is against an idea, like "terrorism", rather than against a sovereign nation, then anyone who the government may chose to label as a threat is at risk...

Your opinion of Barbara Honegger is noted. I've heard that many do not agree with her on a number of points. I'm not ready yet to pass judgement...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Apr 30 2014, 11:17 PM
Post #18





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



I shall keep repeating the following, again and again and again, until one sunny day in the 'distant' future
it just might sink in, all the way in, to the slumberous apathetic 'consciousness' of the common people:

".......
Thus, all warfare is rooted in Darkness and is brought about by the mutual intolerance of the various nations,
which in turn can be attributed to the lust for power of the leaders and the rulers. If the human will for evil thus
calls forth fighting and destruction and a war begins, the nation that initiates the hostilities must bear the
responsibility for the war of aggression as well as for the war of defence forced upon the other nation and its allies,
regardless of the forms that the war may take. And so long as the attacked nation limits itself to the defence of its
country, of its rights, the aggressor will continue to be in the wrong. But the moment the defender extends the
hostilities to the territory of the aggressor in order to attack rather than to defend, both sides must share the
responsibility for whatever takes place from the moment the border into enemy territory is crossed. (The same
laws apply if the battles are fought at sea or in the air).

The victory or defeat of the warring parties can in no way be attributed to God. Never does He take part in the
hostilities, neither on the side of the aggressor nor on the side of the defender. Only prayers for help to restore
peace will be heard by God, but His many and persistent attempts to speak to the leaders as their "conscience"
are in most cases rejected.
The victorious party defeats its adversary by virtue of numerical or strategic superiority or the like, or because of
the people's common hatred of the enemy and the people's common will to win; but victory is never gained with
the help of God.

Any person - civilian or military - who praises, defends and glorifies war in writing or in speech,
instead of evoking aversion to this deed of Darkness and enlightening his fellow human beings on the degradation
and brutishness of war, is himself placing a heavy burden of responsibility on his shoulders and must, having
ended his earthly life, render a detailed account to God of the motivations for his actions.
Even though human beings wage war among themselves, and even though God does not hear their prayers for
victory, He never loses sight of them, but seeks either directly or through the disincarnated Youngest to awaken
remorse among the leaders, just as He tries in many ways to instil in them an awareness of the injustice and the
abuse of power of which they are guilty, so as to bring about a pact of peace before one of the parties succumbs
to the superior force; but in the vast majority of cases also these attempts are rejected by human beings.
......."

Cheers

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

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: Apr 30 2014, 11:19 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rockymtriser
post May 1 2014, 05:53 AM
Post #19





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 17
Joined: 22-September 11
From: Montana
Member No.: 6,302



So true...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post May 24 2015, 01:16 PM
Post #20





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



QUOTE (CharlesGWright @ Apr 27 2014, 06:57 AM) *
yes this is a topic that needs to be acknowledged

what caught my attention is the video from the helicopter showing the nose of the plane go all the way thru the building and come out intact on the other side

fragile fiber glass nose cones covering the radar antenna can not do that

the man operating the camera that "captured" this shot was an expert in layering of images........

it was this image feed that became the image that was sent around the world and sent over and over until the image was embeded in our minds with trauma



It's posts like yours that keep me thinking that somehow or other, all the TV feeds of the south tower impact contained digital effects of that impact, enhancement.

Otherwise what actually happened is that a modified 767 did strike the building, and left parts on the street below, as in the Burlington Coat Factory artifacts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: 16th October 2019 - 01:49 PM