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 )

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Npt/vft Question, Real time conversations with reporter

Sanders
post Aug 26 2007, 03:22 PM
Post #61



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (jrnsr @ Aug 27 2007, 04:07 AM)
Sanders- Who's dissin who?  I thought maybe for once a discussion might run its course.

I don't follow. I wasn't dissin' you. Do you not agree that the no-plane/tv-fakery explosion on the internet is highly disruptive and has made enemies of many truthers that were formerly friends? Or that it is padded with mostly misrepresented garbage??

Seriously, I don't follow. Are you certain of what I'm speaking about? Because of all the administrators here, I think I'm probably the most sympathetic to the NPT theories.

I ventured onto the subject of 'theory' vs. something that can be proven because O.F. said:
QUOTE
...In order for me to even consider this, some evidence would be required.


Despite the fact that the pilots' forum doesn't officially venture into the realm of theory, this forum, and particularly, the Alt Theories forum, is a little different, and I wanted to underline the role and importance of 'theory' and hypothesis in science. What did I say that offended you, jrnsr?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Aug 26 2007, 04:11 PM
Post #62





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (Sanders @ Aug 26 2007, 07:22 PM)
I don't follow.  I wasn't dissin' you.  Do you not agree that the no-plane/tv-fakery explosion on the internet is highly disruptive and has made enemies of many truthers that were formerly friends?  Or that it is padded with mostly misrepresented garbage??

Sanders,

I agree that Pilot's has been fair regarding the TV fakery/NPT topics and I agree that some aspects of TV fakery claims are a stretch. However, a DEFAULT position (the 2nd tower videos and photos are legit) has been claimed with NO BASIS WHATSOEVER and it is not held to the SAME STANDARD as TVfakey and NPT are held to.

IMO, anyone claiming that the CNN/Hezarkhani and Carmen Taylor videos as being authentic, while producing no SCIENTIFIC evidence to back it up, should fall under the same scrutiny as TV fakery and NPT. Especially considering fake Osama videos, fake hole in WTC7 photos, fake Pentagon video, fake Nick Berg beheading video and on and on.

That anyone thinks that the default position should be "the videos are legit" with no scientific evidence to back it up is absurd.

Understand that I am not saying that TV fakery or NPT is true because "the 2nd tower hit videos/photos have not been proven to be authentic, I am merely stating that in light of all other aspects of 911, TV fakery doesn't need to "knockout" the reigning champ (the 2nd tower vids/photos are authentic). IMO opinion those claiming the 2nd tower photos and videos as being "legit" should be held to the same standards and need to PROVE they are legit instead of merely claiming it.

This post has been edited by Quest: Aug 26 2007, 04:38 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Aug 26 2007, 04:45 PM
Post #63



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (Quest @ Aug 27 2007, 05:11 AM)
QUOTE (Sanders @ Aug 26 2007, 07:22 PM)

I don't follow.  I wasn't dissin' you.  Do you not agree that the no-plane/tv-fakery explosion on the internet is highly disruptive and has made enemies of many truthers that were formerly friends?  Or that it is padded with mostly misrepresented garbage??

Sanders,

I agree that Pilot's has been fair regarding the TV fakery/NPT topics and I agree that some aspects of TV fakery claims are a stretch. However, a DEFAULT position has been claimed with NO BASIS WHATSOEVER and it is not held to the SAME STANDARD as TVfakey and NPT are held to.

IMO, anyone claiming that the CNN/Hezarkhani and Carmen Taylor videos as being authentic, while producing no SCIENTIFIC evidence to back it up, should fall under the same scrutiny as TV fakery and NPT. Especially considering fake Osama videos, fake hole in WTC7 photos, fake Pentagon video, fake Nick Berg beheading video and on and on.

That anyone thinks that the default position should be "the videos are legit" with no scientific evidence to back it up is absurd.

Understand that I am not saying that TV fakery or NPT is true because "the 2nd tower hit videos/photos have not been proven to be authentic, I am merely stating that in light of all other aspects of 911, TV fakery doesn't need to "knockout" the reigning champ (the 2nd tower vids/photos are authentic). IMO opinion those claiming the 2nd tower photos and videos as being "legit" should be held to the same standards and need to PROVE they are legit instead of merely claiming it.


Quest, my long and dear friend,

There is no "default position" other than that which is percieved. Each administrator and mod here has a different opinion on this, and our loyalty to each other and to the site exists totally independent of what we believe individually about NPT or TV Fakery. Our rules regarding the posting of NPT/Fakery related posts has nothing to do with our individual opinions, but more to do with preserving overall tranquility while allowing posters to air their opinions freely. Those are always our goals. We may not be perfect, but we try our best.

Now, this business about the Hezarkhani and Carmen Taylor videos is something I know something about. I concur that there is not something quite right about the plane "melting" into the building as is shown in the CNN footage. But the assertion that that video and Taylor's photo were somehow manufactured i.e. the buildings are not in the right place is complete disinfo. Humbly, I have shown that to be true conclusively specifically in these two posts:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...dpost&p=9813506
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...dpost&p=9813583

We just had the maker of the September Clues videos over here, trying to say that because there are two shots of the towers with the Empire State Building in the foreground, yet in one shot the ESB is to the left of the towers and in another it is to the right, yet the background buildings don't change position appreciably - that because of that the shot must be fake - I mean, common. The "background buildings" are a half a mile away. The Empire State Building is close to the camera - you can move a few hundred feet and the position of the Empire State Building changes completely yet the buildings a half a mile away stay the same, or at least imperceptively so - and they should ! Nearly all of this BS regarding TV fakery I've seen in the last weeks preys on people's inexperience with issues of perspective, distance and the zoom-function with regard to photography, trying to pawn off normal anomolies as "TV Fakery". It's all disinfo, and I believe it to be malicious.

QUOTE
That anyone thinks that the default position should be "the videos are legit" with no scientific evidence to back it up is absurd.


What's the "default" position? What is the Pilots' forum's "default position"? There is believable evidence and disinfo - all I'm trying to do is use my head and try to separate the two. That is just me, I am not posting with or without the seal of approval of the Pilots' forum, in fact, I suspect that some of the admins/mods here read a post of mine once in a while and think "wtf!, is Sanders going over to the side of NPT!??" But that's just the crux of it - here we are assuming there are two sides. Why? It is the disinfo campaign that I speak of that has mixed fact, fiction and easily debunked garbage in a masterful way so as to create this great divide.

Hang with me, Quest. ["pleading" smiley]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Aug 26 2007, 09:48 PM
Post #64





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



Hey Sanders,

I wasn't referring to you about the "default" position.

I'm still with ya' bro. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Aug 26 2007, 10:42 PM
Post #65





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



Yeah, if I were planning the attacks at WTC, considering I'm the MIC Dude-In-Charge, I see no advantage to staging the thing with fake video.

I mean planes are cheap, and the purpose is to scare the hell out of the populace and get rid of the buildings.

Why fake TV footage? I see no advantage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
post Aug 27 2007, 05:20 PM
Post #66





Group:
Posts: 0
Joined: --
Member No.: 0



QUOTE (Quest @ Aug 26 2007, 04:11 PM)
IMO, anyone claiming that the CNN/Hezarkhani and Carmen Taylor videos as being authentic, while producing no SCIENTIFIC evidence to back it up, should fall under the same scrutiny as TV fakery and NPT.

I believe you're referring to these 2 videos:

CNN video - jet is heard, a few people scream as the jet flies over their heads, then everybody screams as the jet slams into the tower. Read that again, people react to the jet before it hits the tower, acknowledging that there was a jet.

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fwX40zKds4c" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>


Home video - jet is heard, people talk about the plane and acknowledge it was a plane.

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xB0msfbPecE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>


Here you have 2 videos. In both videos you have the sound of the jet, people reacting to that jet and then the jet impacts the building. Because you can hear the jet and people reacting to the jet, that means there was a jet. The only way to say there wasn't a jet is if you say everything was fake including the witnesses and videos. You can believe that fairy tale, but i never will.

Again, we don't have to prove the videos are real if we believe they are real. I watch these 2 videos and i see and hear a jet and i hear the people reacting to the jet before it even hits the tower. These videos and people and events are as real as they get. You think they're fake? YOU prove they're fake. The burden of proof lies on you because you're making the claim, not on us, sorry.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jrnsr
post Aug 29 2007, 08:07 PM
Post #67





Group: Newbie
Posts: 67
Joined: 13-August 07
Member No.: 1,686



I hope to see even just one discussion run its course, so here is a response to Ocean's question. I'm sure everyone will say it doesn't prove a thing, but here goes...

Question: You speak of prerecorded inserts and weeks of practice. Where is the evidence of that scenario? Just because it's possible doesn't make it plausible.

Response: You don't think lacing 110 story buildings takes time and more than 1 perpetrator? How long to prep WTC7 even?

It is said that there were 4 "live" network broadcasts in real-time, not dozens requiring "simulcast." It wouldn't take many technicians to insert the prerecorded video sequences of planes, glorified fireballs and outrageous clouds of debris. All the other "live" videos showed up after-the-fact, with plenty of time for "editors" patching in prerecorded video footage for each prepared view. There's some footage referenced below that shows the "mask" of the towers appear momentarily, so the cameraman can return precisely to the key location coordinated with upcoming animation. If it was simply news coverage, it wouldn't matter if they scanned around or zoomed in & out. We see how Fox drifted off target and created the "nose out" that had to be blacked out and then edited out later.
http://www.livevideo.com/video/bsregistrat...kery-911-o.aspx



Quote: It seems like it would have been far easier to just use airplanes.

Response: These guys were explosives experts, beyond conventional technology. For them, explosives were far easier, much more predictable and reliable.
Their M.O. at Shanksville, Towers, WTC7, Pentagon (likely there, too) was explosives -and the cooperation of the newsmedia.



If there is anyone out there really interested in continuing discussions on the science and evidence relating to 911, I'll be glad to share info in Personal Messages.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Aug 29 2007, 08:36 PM
Post #68





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (amazed! @ Aug 27 2007, 02:42 AM)
Yeah, if I were planning the attacks at WTC, considering I'm the MIC Dude-In-Charge, I see no advantage to staging the thing with fake video.

I mean planes are cheap, and the purpose is to scare the hell out of the populace and get rid of the buildings.

Why fake TV footage?  I see no advantage.

Ask yourself this, why did they have a fake video for the Pentagon "hit"?

This post has been edited by Quest: Aug 29 2007, 08:37 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Aug 30 2007, 09:30 AM
Post #69


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



QUOTE (jrnsr @ Aug 29 2007, 05:07 PM)
I hope to see even just one discussion run its course, so here is a response to Ocean's question.  I'm sure everyone will say it doesn't prove a thing, but here goes...

Question:  You speak of prerecorded inserts and weeks of practice. Where is the evidence of that scenario? Just because it's possible doesn't make it plausible.

Response:  You don't think lacing 110 story buildings takes time and more than 1 perpetrator?  How long to prep WTC7 even?

It is said that there were 4 "live" network broadcasts in real-time, not dozens requiring "simulcast."  It wouldn't take many technicians to insert the prerecorded video sequences of planes, glorified fireballs and outrageous clouds of debris.  All the other "live" videos showed up after-the-fact, with plenty of time for "editors" patching in prerecorded video footage for each prepared view.  There's some footage referenced below that shows the "mask" of the towers appear momentarily, so the cameraman can return precisely to the key location coordinated with upcoming animation.  If it was simply news coverage, it wouldn't matter if they scanned around or zoomed in & out.  We see how Fox drifted off target and created the "nose out" that had to be blacked out and then edited out later.
http://www.livevideo.com/video/bsregistrat...kery-911-o.aspx



Quote:  It seems like it would have been far easier to just use airplanes.

Response: These guys were explosives experts, beyond conventional technology.    For them, explosives were far easier, much more predictable and reliable.
Their M.O. at Shanksville, Towers, WTC7, Pentagon (likely there, too) was explosives -and the cooperation of the newsmedia.



If there is anyone out there really interested in continuing discussions on the science and evidence relating to 911, I'll be glad to share info in Personal Messages.

Thanks for your input. However, you still have not presented any evidence whatsoever that this scenario is in fact what happened. It's still all speculation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
post Aug 30 2007, 04:39 PM
Post #70





Group:
Posts: 0
Joined: --
Member No.: 0



QUOTE (Quest @ Aug 29 2007, 08:36 PM)
Ask yourself this, why did they have a fake video for the Pentagon "hit"?

This should read:

"why did they allegedly have fake video for the Pentagon "hit"?"

Thank you, that is all. cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jrnsr
post Aug 30 2007, 06:54 PM
Post #71





Group: Newbie
Posts: 67
Joined: 13-August 07
Member No.: 1,686



[QUOTE]Quest:
Thanks for your input. However, you still have not presented any evidence whatsoever that this scenario is in fact what happened. It's still all speculation.
[QUOTE]

So now it could only have been flight 77? If every other idea is pure speculation, we shouldn't question the government version?

This post has been edited by jrnsr: Aug 30 2007, 06:58 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Aug 30 2007, 08:27 PM
Post #72


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



QUOTE (jrnsr @ Aug 30 2007, 03:54 PM)
QUOTE
Thanks for your input. However, you still have not presented any evidence whatsoever that this scenario is in fact what happened. It's still all speculation.


So now it could only have been flight 77? If every other idea is pure speculation, we shouldn't question the government version?

No. There is lots of physical evidence that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon. There is also the FDR data from the NTSB that also indicates that the plane was too high to hit the Pentagon.

I have yet to see any real evidence that airplanes did not hit the WTC towers. So far all I've read has been speculation. The entire NPT, if I read correctly, depends on video fakery. Once again, there is no evidence (aside from speculation) that video fakery was indeed employed.

At this point, just speaking for myself, I would like to see some evidence! Otherwise, discussion of this entire theory is a serious waste of time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
post Aug 30 2007, 08:53 PM
Post #73





Group:
Posts: 0
Joined: --
Member No.: 0



QUOTE (Oceans Flow @ Aug 30 2007, 08:27 PM)
At this point, just speaking for myself, I would like to see some evidence! Otherwise, discussion of this entire theory is a serious waste of time.

For weeks and months, we've been asking these guys to make a thread with their solid, conclusive evidence supporting no-planes or tv fakery. They still have not done it. Either they don't have any, or they're scared it will get debunked and they'll have nothing to believe in. Either way, i'm not holding my breath. biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Aug 30 2007, 09:39 PM
Post #74





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (BoneZ @ Aug 30 2007, 07:53 PM)
QUOTE (Oceans Flow @ Aug 30 2007, 08:27 PM)
At this point, just speaking for myself, I would like to see some evidence!  Otherwise, discussion of this entire theory is a serious waste of time.

For weeks and months, we've been asking these guys to make a thread with their solid, conclusive evidence supporting no-planes or tv fakery. They still have not done it. Either they don't have any, or they're scared it will get debunked and they'll have nothing to believe in. Either way, i'm not holding my breath. biggrin.gif

huh.gif? FfG.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Aug 30 2007, 11:31 PM
Post #75





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (BoneZ @ Aug 30 2007, 08:39 PM)
QUOTE (Quest @ Aug 29 2007, 08:36 PM)
Ask yourself this,  why did they have a fake video for the Pentagon "hit"?

This should read:

"why did they allegedly have fake video for the Pentagon "hit"?"

Thank you, that is all. cheers.gif

BoneZ,

Do you not believe the Pentagon video was a fake? If not, please reveal your thoughts on the Pentagon video.

This has got to be good.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
post Aug 31 2007, 04:33 PM
Post #76





Group:
Posts: 0
Joined: --
Member No.: 0



QUOTE (Quest @ Aug 30 2007, 11:31 PM)
Do you not believe the Pentagon video was a fake? If not, please reveal your thoughts on the Pentagon video.

This has got to be good.

Quest, is there something wrong with you? Are you okay? I'm not sure why you keep asking me these same questions over and over and over. I'm not going to keep answering them over and over and over.

Quit spamming the same questions over and over and over. Either let this topic go or show us some conclusive proof of your unsubstantiaed claims. I can't understand why this is so hard for you guys . Put up or shut up.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Aug 31 2007, 04:39 PM
Post #77





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



BoneZ,

It was a single response. A single response is "spamming"?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
post Aug 31 2007, 04:48 PM
Post #78





Group:
Posts: 0
Joined: --
Member No.: 0



QUOTE (BoneZ @ Aug 31 2007, 04:33 PM)
Put up or shut up.

yes1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Aug 31 2007, 05:05 PM
Post #79





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (BoneZ @ Aug 31 2007, 03:48 PM)
QUOTE (BoneZ @ Aug 31 2007, 04:33 PM)
Put up or shut up.

yes1.gif

And, as I am presuming that I am one of the hitherto mentioned "guys" who need to "put up or shut up":

I would merely (and most respectfully) direct all interested parties, to a review of my numerous and many posts for the discovery therein, of what can rightfully be considered (IMO) substantiated claims, complete with proof, in specific regard to what I believe is the irrefutable fact of No Planes Impacting on 911.

Nuff Said and Thank You, FfG. biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4
Reply to this topicStart new topic
4 User(s) are reading this topic (4 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 11th November 2019 - 04:42 PM