IPB




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

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

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

onesliceshort
post May 2 2012, 10:56 PM
Post #1



Group Icon

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



I'm just going to jump straight in here. Basically Jim Fetzer has been evading these points I raised at "TruthandShadows" blogspot (820 posts later..)

Post 1.


From Simon Shack’s FAQ section:

QUOTE
The skeptics argue that “too many videos of the airplane were captured, therefore all cannot be fake …” Too many indeed: there are a simply ludicrous amount of “lucky” shots. In fact, the sheer amount of existing ‘airplane’ images is grossly absurd in itself: We now have more than 45 “amateur videos” (some of which were released – inexplicably – as late as June 2008!). We also have at least 10 still pictures depicting alleged “Flight 175” “in its very last second of flight” 


First off, the "lucky shots" description is ludicrous because thousands of New Yorkers were focused on this area after the strike on Tower 1.

According to the NPT accusations, that’s 55 people who allegedly, knowingly allowed their names to be publically used as authors of totally manipulated footage, or altered the footage themselves. 55 people, alleged “sleepers”, who “know” exactly what happened on 9/11 in Manhattan. That the towers were blown up by internal explosives and that a hologram was used to fool on the ground witnesses. 

That’s a lot of loose ends.





Please also check the above collection of still images for debris falling from the impact side of the facade.

I agree that certain footage has been edited, withheld, censored or have had their resolution purposely lessened. The Naudet second tower impact has clearly been edited, one Citgo camera was physically removed, the "gatecam" footage which was capable of reading registrations on vehicles has been purposely reuploaded (at least twice) to make the footage useless etc. 

But to insinuate that an actual army of ops actually added an aircraft to footage caught? And adding them perfectly to match the flightpath?



So how can people who allege that all footage is a complete fabrication and that it's been in the perps'  hands literally from day one, base any scientific claims on observations made in them??

Even the claim that no aircraft debris was seen falling from the impact side doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Pause and play the impact seen in the following video. Slowmo if you can.



Then there's this:



I don't know if there is any footage of the base of that area, but the collapse of the tower also leaves the debris claim open to obfuscation.

We have to remember that this aircraft was allegedly travelling at over 700 feet per second. Over 4 times its own length travelled in one second as it impacted the facade.

The length of the fuselage from the nose to the wings is 60ft. The aircraft's recorded speed would cover that 60ft distance in less than a tenth of a second.

When the 60ft of fuselage appears to penetrate the facade, this could be down to optical illusion. The event was over in one tenth of a second.

Here's a video that's as close as I could find to the collision of a hard steel object (steel sled) against a bulky object such as the fuselage. A car.

Normal speed



Slow motion (pay attention to the actual collision at the beginning of the video)



See how the car appears to "melt" or "disappear"? The actual interaction was over in a fraction of a second.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 2 2012, 10:57 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

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



Post 2.

The impact hole

http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/1338/wtc2holereal0el.jpg

Impact hole vs aircraft

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aJeegFsC3nY/RzjE...act-pattern.jpg

The claim is that cutter charges were used to "carve" the impact hole. What I have major problems with are the "slice mark" through the facade where the base of the vertical stabilizer would have struck, and more specifically the indentation mark (without breaching the facade) where the left wing would have struck. 

Cutter charges?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 2 2012, 10:58 PM
Post #3



Group Icon

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



Post 3.

The claim that the tower didn't budge (and for me personally the nail in the coffin of NPT)

An analysis of Scott Myers' impact video







There's a sway that can only have been caused by a solid object travelling through the tower to cause the movement in that direction.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 2 2012, 11:01 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

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



Post 4.

The claim that modification of the witnessed aircraft which was travelling well over the structural limitations of a standard transport category Boeing 767 is "impossible"

Rob's response:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804735

My response:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804737

What's the difference in bodyframe between these two 747s?





This...

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Componen...hotoblog900.jpg

QUOTE
Weights

Empty: 151,315 lb (68,635 kg)
With main engines: 171,000 lb (77,564 kg)

Source


QUOTE
The aircraft was extensively modified by Boeing in 1976.[2] Its cabin was stripped, mounting struts added, and the fuselage strengthened; vertical stabilizers were added to the tail to aid stability when the Orbiter was being carried. The avionics and engines were also upgraded, and an escape tunnel system similar to that used on Boeing's first 747 test flights was added. The flight crew escape tunnel system was later removed following the completion of the Approach and Landing Tests (ALT) due to concerns over possible engine ingestion of an escaping crew member

Flying with the additional drag and weight of the Orbiter imposed significant fuel and altitude penalties. The range was reduced to 1,000 nautical miles (1,850 km), compared to an unladen range of 5500 nautical miles (10,100 km),[3] requiring an SCA to stop several times to refuel on a transcontinental flight. The SCA had an altitude ceiling of 15,000 feet and a maximum cruise speed of Mach 0.6 (445mph) with the orbiter attached.

Source
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 2 2012, 11:04 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

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



Post 5. (please read thoroughly)

The claim that holograms were used (this is pivotal to NPT)

I was pointed to a discussion paper on holograms being experimented on by DARPA which could have allegedly been used on 9/11

"3-D Holographic Display Using Strontium Barium Niobate"

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA338490

QUOTE
"Until recently, however, research in photorefractive holography has been limited to the production of two-dimensional (2-D) holograms and very limited field-of-view (FOV) 3-D holograms."

"The proposed method employs a volume hologram recorded and read in real time in a photorefractive crystal to produce a 3-D image. This innovative technique is simple, and it differs from previous attempts at 3-D dis plays. We used a photorefractive material, SBN, to record a hologram, and a phase-conjugate read beam, which is generated from a double-pumped phase-conjugate mirror (DPPCM), to accurately reproduce the holographic image in space over a large perspective. The resultant holographic image is free from system-induced aberrations, may be viewed over a wide range of angles that can be expanded by the use of a mosaic of crystals, and has uniform high quality over the entire FOV."




QUOTE
"The three-dimensional hologram is a real image of the object and can be displayed in free space. The image can be viewed by projection, via lens relays, directly into the eye or a camera. Figure 3 shows the hologram of two dice earrings recorded in the SBN:60 photorefractive crystal. The dice have dimensions of 2 mm on a side. We verified the third dimension of the image by viewing the hologram at different perspectives, which demonstrated parallax when we rotated the viewing angle by placing the camera on a pivot arm. The FOV of the hologram (fig. 3) was measured to be -14°. We determined the FOV by the angular range in which the hologram was clearly visible."

"Using equations (8) and (9), we calculated the maximum FOV of the holo- gram presented in figure 3 to be -24°, where Lc = 20 mm, d = 40 mm, <p= 20°, and s = 3 mm. Because of incomplete phase conjugation of the read beam, the measured FOV of 14° is much less, because the entire region of the crystal was not used. The alignment of the pump beam and reference beam in the DPPCM is critical to enhance a large phase-conjugate read beam."


Note: look at the limited field of view (FOV) with the first experiment:



Note: look how exact these positions have to be to project a static image:




QUOTE
"The increased perspective (FOV) is evident on the die in the background of figure 5, where the side of the die with the three is visible at one edge of the FOV, as shown in figure 5a; while at the other edge of the FOV, the side of the die with the six is clearly visible, as shown in figure 5b. We measured the FOV of the hologram presented in figure 5 to be -30° by rotating the camera on a pivot arm that was centered at the image plane. The hologram is clearly visible through the entire FOV; however, there was a bright strip of light that appeared due to scattering when the viewing angle passed through the intersection where the two crystals were attached by double-sided tape. Using equations (8) and (9), we calculated the maximum FOV to be -44°, where Lc =40 mm, d = 45 mm, <p= 20°, and s = 3 mm. As previously stated, the FOV was limited because the read beam did not fill the entire crystal. The maximum possible FOV is desired so that the images are more realistic."


Given the multiple angles at which the aircraft was captured, the following is very important:

QUOTE
"We would also like to display the hologram in such a medium that the image could be viewed at different angles. A scattering liquid was tested, but proved ineffective since the perspective was lost, and only a 2-D image was visible."


Those multiple angles can be seen in this video linked to earlier

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uCdeRGw4PQ

And these documented first responder witnesses to an aircraft (which Jim Fetzer actually claims "reinforces" the hologram argument because they were deceived! Yeah, you work that one out)

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804309

The following is also very important. Each individual holographic projection is stored on a crystal (Strontium Barium Niobate) and each complex projection requires the previously mentioned specifically placed multiple apparatus to achieve just one hologram. A single frame.

QUOTE
"Presently, much research is focused on studying holographic storage in photorefractive crystals via angular [7], wavelength [8], and electric-field [9] multiplexing; however, these images are generally 2-D. We have stored multiple 3-D holograms in the photorefractive crystal via wavelength multiplexing. The experimental setup used to study wavelength multiplexing is shown in figure 2. However, the writing beams originated from an argon-ion laser that was operating in a multiline configuration. Also, the DPPCM was not used. The read beam was generated from a second argonion laser running in a single-line configuration. Several holograms were written simultaneously at the lasing wavelengths of the argonion laser.
The relative powers of the primary lasing wavelengths used to record the holograms are listed in table 1. We read the individual holograms by tuning the read beam to a particular wavelength. The relative powers of the read beam used to reconstruct individual holograms are also listed in table 1."


A lot of the jargon is way over my head but even I can see that both the theoretical and experimental stages of this concept is nowhere near as advanced as to project a realistic aircraft caught on video in its last seconds of flight. Or multiple images caught at different angles (including ground to air angles), at varying distances.

The maximum FOV achieved is 44° but with major distortions.

The apparatus has to be in exact positions, distances and angles from eachother to project a static image.

How could they have projected this solid looking, constant, mobile hologram without first having previously set it up for a dry run??

How can even this (alleged) impressive technology even begin to portray an aircraft not only in motion, but covering a distance of 700fps over thousands of feet, in a descent, banking, and disappearing at the precise moment of reaching the building?

It couldn't.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 2 2012, 11:06 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

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



Post 6.

Miscellaneous:

"Fade to black" argument:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zjrWa6khyY

"No "strobe lights" argument:

Luis Alonso

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TWJtg2gI7s

"No debris falling from impact zone" argument:

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/7906/wtc2exit3yx6.jpg

Kathy Cacicedo

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/images/2nd-hit...hen_bigpic3.jpg


Michael Hezarkhani (HD, debris)

First aired after midnight— 9/12 at 12:15 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPeNkZz4mmU&fmt=22

Stabilized

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zWVfsYZP90&feature


Joshua Lentz (debris, sound, nose of plane)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98nHHgne4cs

http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu347/9...ow_animated.gif


Jennifer Spell (plus interview - sound, light reflection, debris)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5flD6Qok4pQ

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/4720/jenniferspellas7.gif


Debris filmed on road in real time on exit side of tower 2 impact:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-lc34jqDS0


"Videos and images were actually of hologram"


Holograms (which we know was a technology that was too primitive to project an aircraft travelling 700fps) don't reflect light (sun) or make aircraft sound

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPeNkZz4mmU&fmt=22

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98nHHgne4cs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5flD6Qok4pQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha1o8Rv1iPw

(02:30mins)

http://vimeo.com/28948302

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7ZSnLCmdPc

(admittedly clearly edited)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUyV3Ue1rMY&fmt=18
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 2 2012, 11:08 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

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



Post 7.

My own 2cents on other technology to aid penetration of the building:





Note: I don't agree with the "drone out" claims in this next video as no "exit hole" is visible.



Exit area in question:

http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/7657/exithole2he8.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-g...h-face-exit.jpg


Apparent aircraft "appendage" physical interaction with facade




ASCE gif of facade damage showing this interaction:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aJeegFsC3nY/RzjE...act-pattern.jpg

http://911anomalies.files.wordpress.com/20...2qi02.jpg?w=450


Finally, cause of "nose out"?



Edit: As i said. 2cents!

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: May 2 2012, 11:11 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post May 3 2012, 03:04 PM
Post #8





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,912
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Terrific work OSS!

I especially liked the footage in slow mo showing the piece of landing gear or whatever continuing on, and that with the audio at ground level where you can HEAR that debris hitting the ground seconds later.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 3 2012, 05:24 PM
Post #9



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,684
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Good work OSS...

I've never actually before seen the videos of the tower oscillating after the impact. If the NPT wasn't already a dead issue before, it's certainly dead now.

Thanks for posting... I'm actually going to pin this into the Alternate Theories Section and add a bit to the title of the thread as this isn't really a "debate" any more. NPT is dead.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 3 2012, 09:36 PM
Post #10



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ May 3 2012, 10:24 PM) *
Good work OSS...

I've never actually before seen the videos of the tower oscillating after the impact. If the NPT wasn't already a dead issue before, it's certainly dead now.

Thanks for posting... I'm actually going to pin this into the Alternate Theories Section and add a bit to the title of the thread as this isn't really a "debate" any more. NPT is dead.


Thanks guys. Yeah those two vids needed to be seen, particularly the "oscillating" tower.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post May 4 2012, 11:54 AM
Post #11





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 905
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315






Hey, hold on just a minute or two here, dear OSS and Rob!
Shouldn't you first check the 'pulse' before declaring somebody or something is 'dead'!

Imagine you both are attending the funeral of NPT (or in this case it's obviously a 'wake'). There in front is the coffin, the lid nailed down and
'the stars and stripes' draped over it, with a little bunch of flowers (that have seen better days), casually flung on top. Lots of people have turned
up to this 'historic' occasion.

You're all in high spirit. The booze is out and the music is on. Everybody is telling silly banal jokes, spiced up with much scorn and ridicule.
'Up front' you notice your 'buddy' hybridrogue, the most agitated and excited of you all, feebly attempting like an "expert" to dance the
cha cha cha with his partner snowcrash - who, as you know, quite enjoy being noticed up there 'up front', like an "expert" as well.

Jimd100 'the not too brainy' now comes over to you and proud-braggingly repeats what he had just written in one of his posts at 'truthfraction',
while at the same time laughing hysterically over his own self-perceived 'witticism'!

He says:
"< -- debated Alpo Marbles CIT and Craig Stinke CIT on whether Lloyde was a super duper secret agent, who helped conceal a huge 757
passenger jet flying over the pentagon during Rush hour traffic in broad daylight, on 9-11 2001, as light poles were planted to create a fake
flight path for reasons known only to the perps.

It's not something I'm proud of -- the same feeling I had when my friend came over unannounced while I had a fat chick in my bed."

You two of course look 'perplexed' (if nothing else), but soon your attention change direction, as over there you now see pickering, arabesque,
hoffman and victoria arriving, joining the rest of the "usual suspects".

But then, just at that moment, a small banging noise is heard coming from up the front. All of a sudden a 'deafening' silence falls over the
assembly. The music is turned off. The banging noise gets louder. Now everybody notice to their 'horror' that the banging is coming from
inside the 'coffin'. Nobody dares to go near. Instead, one after another, everybody turns around and they all quietly and "dumb-founded"
leave the so-called 'funeral' or 'wake' behind.
The much anticipated "merrymaking" is over for now – even before it almost got really started!

I implore you, OSS and Rob! do not ever, under any circumstances, be seen trying to associate yourself with this sorry 'mob'. None of them
(these many people alluded to above) truly understand any or even one of the 'golden rules' which simply states that: "The 'first' shall inevitably
become the 'last'. Or, translated into its basics: "Haughtiness, self-admiration and self-importance shall never defeat humankind." Nay. On the
contrary: "It is humankind as a whole who will one day defeat these 'unsavoury corrupted', and eventually lifting those up (those
who are letting
themselves being caught in this sorry shit), to where they truly and rightfully belong to in the first place!

Let us all be truly honest. Every person in the whole 'wide' world know that planes were present and witnessed on the day, at the 4 locations
in question on 9/11-01. This cannot be denied by anyone. Not even by those at the 'septemberclues' forum.
(The people over there follows a 'policy' which simply states that: "everything" shall be considered fake, unless the opposite is proven to our
satisfaction). It doesn't say anything about what the individual really thinks in private.
Therefore, not even 'septemberclues' can in all honesty be considered an exemption to this fact above, as we can simply just adopt and apply
their own 'policy' against them when it comes to their own views on a personal level. Or in other words: Why should WE believe a word THEY
are telling us? What they're saying could as well be 'fake' and dishonest! Where's the proof to the contrary??

Therefore, 'septemberclues' is "out", and the fact remains, that the whole 'wide' world know that planes were present at the locations we're
talking about. Again, this cannot be denied - unless of course, somebody is into either sophism, silly semantics or plain silliness – and what
intelligent persons want to go there!

And hence, NPT cannot in all fairness and in all clear simple truth and conscience "literally" be associated in any way whatsoever to what
the whole 'wide' world is perfectly aware of, namely: Planes WERE witnessed, and therefore planes WERE present at all four locations.

NPT must therefore by sheer logic and by sheer reason have other meanings and other connotations.
NPT must therefore be associated with something else, something entirely different.
NPT must therefore categorically and implicitly be a 'description' exclusively used as "a derogatory term" whereby others could be 'accused'
(by the perps, their sycophants and their minions) of being, amongst many other things, 'tin-foil-hat-clowns, dumb-asses, wackos, fools,
dis-info-agents, manipulators, and what not, all in the same vein; because these so-called 'manipulative people' didn't think a plane impacted
f.ex. the pentagon!

NPT was disgustingly and nastily used against CIT, and therefore, incidentally, also used against me, sitting there 'safely' on the sideline, firmly
on the side of CIT.
NPT was also used again and again, derogatorily, against many other very good people.

NPT is far from "dead". NPT will of itself break open the 'imagined' lid in spite of the 'rusty' nails, and emerge again. Nothing exist that is strong
enough to hold it down.
There was no plane impacting the pentagon, and there was no plane impacting the field in Shanksville.
'The future' will learn that no planes impacted the WTC towers.

Rob, with your example about the 'cornfield and the trees', the alleged plane (bar the port wing), would have missed the 47 trees in the middle,
had your analogy been a reference to WTC2.

OSS, will reply to some of your other points in the OP when I got some more time, probably over the weekend!

Cheers to you good people




This post has been edited by Tamborine man: May 4 2012, 12:18 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 4 2012, 12:31 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,684
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE
Every person in the whole 'wide' world know that planes were present and witnessed on the day, at the 4 locations
in question on 9/11-01. This cannot be denied by anyone. Not even by those at the 'septemberclues' forum.


Exactly, and this is one of the reasons that the "NO PLANE Theory" is dead.

I know some people are now attempting to redefine the words "No planes", as the NPT has been dead for quite some time now, with people like Fetzer attempting resurrect such absurd theories by changing the definition, but the definition accepted by society is clear.

"No Planes" means No planes.

As you said - "Every person in the whole 'wide' world know that planes were present and witnessed on the day"

NPT is dead.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 4 2012, 10:19 PM
Post #13



Group Icon

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



TM, I think the insinuation about Snowcrash and the others is pretty unfair and insulting.

As Rob just pointed out, if you yourself acknowledge that planes were used in Manhattan, what's the problem?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post May 5 2012, 04:54 AM
Post #14





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 905
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 3 2012, 01:19 AM) *
TM, I think the insinuation about Snowcrash and the others is pretty unfair and insulting.

As Rob just pointed out, if you yourself acknowledge that planes were used in Manhattan, what's the problem?



Hi OSS,

you sound as being very serious about your first point. Naturally hope you're not, but will nevertheless respond
to it as if you are ......because one can never know for sure how other readers might react to it!

So you mean - me, 'insinuating' that snowcrash and partner can dance the cha cha cha - is unfair and insulting?
If that's the case, i suppose there could be some 'truth' to that, but mind you, only if they both hate "dancing"!

Or, OSS, had you chosen to instead, you could also just have taken it as a little bit of fun and 'cheekiness' to
make the "imagined scenario" slightly more tolerable to read .....for maybe only some or other, of course.

To your second point, i'll reply in another post later on -

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post May 7 2012, 02:04 AM
Post #15





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 905
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 3 2012, 01:19 AM) *
As Rob just pointed out, if you yourself acknowledge that planes were used in Manhattan, what's the problem?



Well, that's exactly the point, OSS. Both friend and foe around the world, including you and Rob, acknowledge
the presence of planes at 9/11-01.

Therefore NPT could NEVER have been a term formulated in connection and in context with the above undeniable
fact. Thus NPT must initially have been formulated for other reasons and purposes; and as we're all perfectly
aware of, indeed it was.
It was solely and exclusively used as a "tool or weapon" by the 'foes' and 'detractors' to denigrate, abuse, mock,
ridicule, etc., not only CIT and P4T, but also their supporters. (You know the story, so no need for more 'details').

My worry is this: By declaring NPT for "dead", for whatever reason, this could be seen as if P4T are capitulating to
the 'detractors' and 'professional disinformants' and thereby playing into their hands, as these people have probably
been aiming for exactly this outcome, this 'death', from the very start.

Talking about "death" in the context we're discussing, implies a certain 'finality' where any kind of 'resurrection'
would be out of the question.
Therefore, killing off NPT for good would of course forever prevent the 'T' in NPT being able one day to undergo a
metamorphosis in peoples mind by changing it into another 'T', but then this time instead, standing for the much
more appropriate name of NP'T', 'T' = Truth!
(As IT is of course already with regards to the pentagon and Shanksville, but still remains to be seen at WTC. That
is yet to come)!

I fear that declaring "the death" of NPT, will be used with vicious glee and almost 'orgasmic rapture' by the mob of
'detractors', not only against CIT, but also against P4T. These "people" could now put a 'spin' on the whole thing.
They obviously couldn't give a 'rat's arse' about doing so. They wouldn't give a damn, that the intentions from you
and Rob were entirely different - this would simply be ignored.
(They could of course claim that by you and Rob declaring NPT "dead", you're by default (inadvertently) "admitting"
that a plane must have impacted both pentagon and Shanksville)!

I fear that the promulgation of this "decree" could see the end of CIT and P4T, and all the hard work they have put
into this over the years, and it all could come to nought. Fear the same could happen to Di Maggio and Killtown.

Hope you'll be able to allay my fears and apprehensions of course, by coming up with some very good reasons (that
seems to escape me at the moment) why i didn't need to worry so much.
Needless to say, that my worries also extend to the heated debate caused by "consensus 9/11"!

Peace to the world

Cheers

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: May 7 2012, 02:17 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 7 2012, 09:02 AM
Post #16



Group Icon

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



QUOTE ™
My worry is this: By declaring NPT for "dead", for whatever reason, this could be seen as if P4T are capitulating to the 'detractors' and 'professional disinformants' and thereby playing into their hands, as these people have probably been aiming for exactly this outcome, this 'death', from the very start.


You're way off base TM. This has nothing to do with "capitulating" to anybody. It was in response to Jim Fetzer trying to redefine what NPT actually is ("NPT doesn't mean that there were no planes"...come on) and trying to wrap it up in credible documented and proven research by CIT and Rob.

You know yourself that anything I posted on the subject over at TAS wasn't a kneejerk reaction but an attempt by myself to see why good people like yourself defended it. To see if there was any basis for the claims. The reasons are listed above mate. There's no truth in it that I can see.

You should be asking Jim Fetzer and Dennis Cimino why they created this little soap opera. Fetzer had his responses ready to copy and paste both here and at TAS because he knew what the reaction would be. He has painted anybody who doesn't agree with his warped wordplay as possible disinformationists (at VT - a site that allowed a clear disinfo "Pentagon missile" video be posted even though it was repeatedly proven that it was a hoax)

Even Senor El Once, a long time NPT advocate, has admitted publically at TAS that NPT is wrong based on the above posts.

If there's any counterargument I'd like to hear it.

Did you read the post on the "hologram technology" that you cited to me?

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: May 7 2012, 09:03 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post May 7 2012, 11:11 PM
Post #17





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 905
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 5 2012, 12:02 PM) *
You're way off base TM. This has nothing to do with "capitulating" to anybody. It was in response to Jim Fetzer trying to redefine what NPT actually is ("NPT doesn't mean that there were no planes"...come on) and trying to wrap it up in credible documented and proven research by CIT and Rob.



Now you're completely confusing me, OSS!
Now it looks like we're completely talking past each other!

I have always been under the impression that "the no plane theory" first really started with the 'birth' of the 'Pentacon forum'
back in 2007. This 'countermeasure' as a result of the vicious attacks that then took place trying to discredit CIT.
Do you remember the slogan, "Hunt for the Boeing757"? Do you remember Swing Danglers 17 points, that conclusively proves
that no Boeing could have entered the pentagon, and therefore gave incredible support and much stronger backbone to the
"no plane theory"?

It is solely from this 'starting point' that i'm personally and independently defending NPT, and for no other reason.


QUOTE
You know yourself that anything I posted on the subject over at TAS wasn't a kneejerk reaction but an attempt by myself to see why good people like yourself defended it. To see if there was any basis for the claims. The reasons are listed above mate. There's no truth in it that I can see.


Yes i now gather that when you talk about NPT, then you're limiting the debate to exclusively center around WCT and nothing
else!
I cannot recall any time where you or Rob have been spelling out this "separation of terms" in a clear language, so that could
very well be where all the misunderstandings and confusions arise from!
Though i do grant you, that from yours and Rob's point of view it needn't have been done, as it should all have been "implied"
or "understood", but i'm sorry to say that on this occasion, i didn't get it.

So for the sake of absolute clarity can we now come to an agreement, that when you speak of NPT as being 'dead', then you're
only and exclusively referring to that as being the case solely with regards to WCT?

Can we also come to an agreement that the term, "NPT is dead", does not, and cannot, apply to the pentagon and to Shanksville?


QUOTE
You should be asking Jim Fetzer and Dennis Cimino why they created this little soap opera. Fetzer had his responses ready to copy and paste both here and at TAS because he knew what the reaction would be. He has painted anybody who doesn't agree with his warped wordplay as possible disinformationists (at VT - a site that allowed a clear disinfo "Pentagon missile" video be posted even though it was repeatedly proven that it was a hoax)


I only speak for myself. You should know this by now, OSS!


QUOTE
Did you read the post on the "hologram technology" that you cited to me?



Yes, and was going to reply earlier, but didn't find the time the last 3 - 4 days!

I noticed that you didn't mention my quote from DARPA's budget papers once! Will you tell me why?

Instead you quoted a lot from the "3D-holographic Display" paper. This link i included for no other reasons
than to show that even back in 1998 great research was conducted by others re. 'hologram projections'.

For me, the only important part is the one i quoted from DARPA's paper. It is in that especially, where the
clues are to be found, i think! (Is that why you ignored it)? dunno.gif wink.gif

In the OP's many posts, it looks like you're addressing several different people, but none in particular.

I can only offer comments to a couple:

For the most part, debris' falling from impact facade, looks like it consist mostly of pieces of alu. claddings,
as these pieces are long and narrow.

I think it will be rather difficult to prove that the 'oscillations' in the tower was caused by a plane. It could also
have been caused solely by the explosions, i think. (But i'm naturally biased, of course)!

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 7 2012, 11:43 PM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,684
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ May 7 2012, 11:11 PM) *
I have always been under the impression that "the no plane theory" first really started with the 'birth' of the 'Pentacon forum'
back in 2007.



You thought wrong.

Click....
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=13622

Click...
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=10864

then click...
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...hp?showforum=24
(be sure to adjust the drop down to "the beginning" on the lower right)

Note the dates....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post May 8 2012, 08:35 AM
Post #19





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 905
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ May 6 2012, 02:43 AM) *
You thought wrong.

Click....
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=13622

Click...
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=10864

then click...
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...hp?showforum=24
(be sure to adjust the drop down to "the beginning" on the lower right)

Note the dates....



I did - and humbly stand corrected.

Must admit that i never visited LCF, so missed out on this very interesting debate in those days!
(Not much has changed since then, it seems).

A few posts, from the threads you linked to, caught my attention -

'weknow', a.o.t., wrote:
"But this hologram story even its true you know we cant talk about this !
Its really difficult to make people understand what happened that day and you want to add the no-plane theory ???
Please don't, its already difficult like this."

'LiveFreeOrDieTrying' wrote:
"Even if no planes hit the towers, we have better change of exposing 9/11 by saying they did".

Strange really, what goes on in some peoples mind!
One "truther" is filled with fear, while the other
"truther" doesn't mind telling fibs!!

Nevertheless, i'll continue to defend the 'no plane theory' with regards to pentagon and Shanksville,
and looking forward to see if i at least will be able to come to an agreement with Onesliceshort, as
formulated in my previous post.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: May 8 2012, 08:41 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post May 8 2012, 08:44 AM
Post #20





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,912
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Famous line from Cool Hand Luke--what we have here is a failure to communicate.
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: 2nd September 2014 - 05:15 PM