As far as I know, he does not. He believes in TV fakery (i.e. cgi planes were inserted into video). Please show evidence that he currently believes in the hologram theory. If you can't, then you should do the honorable thing and retract your statement so it doesn't look like you are spouting off misinformation.

As far as I remember the whole bunch of NPT/TVF-core-thinkers like Haupt, Shack and you never did so and they do not learn as well. So for me the NPT/TVF smells like a *** planted "poisen" idea just to discredit any serious effort to investigate anything about 9/11. Do you need examples?

NPT/TVF claim: Because of the trees in Battery Park the Hezarkhany video must be fake. Therefore the plane is CGI. [untrue - try the upper deck of the Ellis Island Ferry]
NPT/TVF claim: Because of the edited soundtrack of the DVD version of the Hezarkhany video the video must be fake. [non sense]
NPT/TVF claim: Because of the disappearing of the left wing in a low resolution high compressed video the video is not a fake but is clear evidence for holograms. [non sense]
NPT/TVF claim: The flight path of UA175 is inconsistent in the videos and therefore fake. [untrue]
NPT/TVF claim: The color of the sky is inconsistent in the videos because on 9/11 there was neither haze nor smog in and around NYC and therefore the sky must have had the very same color in any direction or angle or focus length in all cameras on every TV channel. [non sense]
NPT/TVF claim: Don Dahler gazed on an empty screen and got an acoustic signal (Pssst or clap or beeep) to know the right moment to say "Oh my god". [untrue]
NPT/TVF claim: Any witness who saw a plane is "phony" because there was no plane. [self reflexive]
NPT/TVF claim: Winston Mitchell of CNN said in his live report that he is on the NORTH SIDE of the building. The fact that he reports the explosion of the WTC2 but reported no plane is evident for "no plane". [non sense - he couldn't see any plane coming from the south]

Btw, the last mentioned claim is the "opening" of the "NEW 2008 version of SEPTEMBER CLUES".

So go on and do some honorable things and retract loads of disproven statements (or should I say "lies") of the NPT/TVF hard core brain washer gang including Nico - I am the leader - Haupt.

---------------------->> go on with some real investigation

The possible explanations for UA175 and AA11 moved here:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=17865

It's entirely possible that both planes that hit the towers were guided to their targets by an IR laser "beamed" onto the towers from an unmanned air born platform.
as seen by this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr4BJ89Df5Q

The towers were designed to absorb a "hit" from a big plane "like a pencil through a screen door". So it is likely that the planes had absolutely, nothing to do with the demolitions of the towers, except to provide a distraction and smoke screen to hide the eventual demolitions.

This would make the terrorist pilots, passengers, and ensuing drama, even more likely, a pre-fabricated fiction.

The planes would have had to have been flown remotely.

(but I still wonder if the sky appears bright yellow, looking up from the moons' surface)

cheers, lunk

This might be a possibility but I see a problem with the linked video. If that dot was a laser then it had to come almost exactly from the point of view of the camera.
Otherwise we could see the dot jump when crossing the corner of the building and given a constant panning speed the dot would disappear before it becomes visible again on the south face of the building on the waterfront because there is a lot of space between the towers and that building.
For me the dot looks like a paper may be from the north tower floating around since about 15 minutes with the wind towards the camera. It could be somewhere over the river.

You are free to start another thread about any of my research you think I should retract. As for the "NPT claims" you listed, most of them I don't and never did adhere to.

Thanks for the statement!

e.g. How NOT to fake plane crash videos?

Would you say the "actors" stood behind a camera and the camera was mounted on a tripod?
Would it be possible that the "actors" see more than the camera?
Was there any TV report about a plane that crashed into WTC1 prior to that Tina Cart 2nd crash video?
If so, would it be possible that the actors knew about the first plane?

Btw, I knew it prior to the 2nd hit and I wasn't in NY.

After knowing about the first crash would you be astonished or worried about another plane that came far too low straight towards the towers?

First, what's with your cleanup smilie? What your purpose of posting that?

You were p****d a lot about a statement about NH believes and wanted "satisfaction" because without excuse it would be "disinfo"!
So I thought it would be fine to clean up in front of your own door.

Ah, so your smilie comes with a snide intent? I see. Very mature.

Btw, I wasn't chastising Trapster because he thinks Nico's beliefs are wrong, I was chastising him for being wrong about what Nico believes. See the difference?

I don't know what Nico Haupt "is", but I quit paying any attention to him when he started attacking people like Stephen Jones and David Griffin ...

He should be thrown into the pile of "internet writers subsidized by the elite to fracture the truth movement" ... whether he knows it or not.

I agree that Nico's "hecklevism" has been a detriment to the movement, in particular the no-planes movement.

I do have to add though that I believe his hecklevism was in part instigated by all the attacks against him and all the mods at all the forums that allowed the attacks to happen are partly to blame. We are all at fault when we allow non-instigated attacks to happen.

The smiley came with a proverbial meaning.

to be "... wrong about what Nico believes" you first have to make any statement about Nico's believes, isn't it? I got it before.

"See the difference?" (this is a bad teacher smiley)

What's about "How NOT to fake plane crash videos?" Or should we better talk about the meaning of smilies?

e.g.
What would be a natural shape of an explosion? Just round shapes?

Are you sure about the demon faces? Looks like Pokemons or just fireballs for me.

The waving is really obvious. If you would have used the original soundtrack (instead of that porno pop soundtrack fakery) than that waving would make much more sense. I would say, it is a girl out of control about the things she saw right one second before. He is shouting from behind the camera "Don't touch it!"

And I don't believe that she is an actor who walks in front of the camera (were actors usually have to be). Imho, she is on her roof watching the real event.
May be that's why there is a little space in front of the camera. "...because no one who is filming ..." on a roof would place his tripod on the edge of the abyss. That's why you easily could walk in front of it.
"messes up the blue screen"? What are you talking about? A blue screen is usually a channeling. You would have a problem to touch it. Otherwise you would get a problem to set up a smooth light without shadows.

Did you know that the other aircraft is a Cessna?

Did you know that you don't need to put out different videos of different colors because every TV station has its own knob for color matching. And they do it.
...sometimes in the way of a corporate identity color matching. I would recommend to take stills from all the different versions and open it in Photoshop. Just click "Auto Color" and all stills probably get the same color again.

CGI mistake? It's your mistake to blow up a bad source video. Your yellow line shows exactly the edge of the macro blocks. Try a good source and compare the result.

I stop here. These are just my questions about the first 3 minutes of your 9:30 video.

Btw, you shouldn't offend the feelings of anyone (even actors in front of a camera ) without a very good reason. Do some honorable things!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr4BJ89Df5Q

Yes, it, sort of, does look a little like a piece of paper, in the wind.

It sure isn't a seagull, or white dove, from its' movement or behavior.
If it was a piece of paper, it must have been huge, (like 10 foot in diameter)
if it was anywhere near the building.
It does seem a little odd, that it moves in a strait course,
unlike any piece of paper would flutter through the air.
And the ghostly duplicate piece of paper that moves through the smoke paralleling it, and then vanishing, is very strange too!

Certainly, if it was a laser, it couldn't have come from the direction that the video was taken from, though.
As its' ghostly, simultaneously blinking, image in the smoke,
would have to be more closer in line, to the solid one, on the building,
to be anywhere, in line, with the camera.

It must have been shining down from behind and above the incoming plane.
As there are no buildings that high around, it must have been beamed at the building from the air. And it was a little too coincidental that it was on the building, just before the plane hit the building.

What ever happened with the paperless society?

God people, just stop it.

People who sit around trying to analyze video like this are just so full of sh*t it makes me want to puke -- ESPECIALLY the highly compressed on-line video crap. The ONLY function this has is to keep people arguing about BS that can't be proven or dis-proven one way or the other with the available evidence. It's like a Rorschach that you can project whatever you want on to it and then argue endlessly with people who see something different. This is worse than useless, it is destructive. Not only do you NOT know what this is, you don't even know WHERE it is in space let alone how big it is and you can't tell a damn thing relevant about it from this video. But here we have people telling us EXACTLY what it is. Anyone else sick and tired of people telling us what sh*t is without PROOF? No? Why the f*ck not?? Just not fed up with the lies, deceptions, obfuscations, and disinformation jerking your ass around yet??? Come on, people, wake the f*ck up. Crap like this should be TRASHED here, not taken seriously.

Hi Painter.
I see you are upset.
And I get your point.
However, this is a debate thread about, no planes, or not.

The explanation that the white dot, is a bird or a piece of paper,
or dissing this whole concept, just because there appears to be
disagreement to what it is,
only promotes the notion that there were no planes.

Evidence, if you can would call it that,
of an IR laser being used to target the building
with the plane, would put an end to this whole nonsense
of there ever being no planes, at the WTC.

There has always been a question of how it was possible for a plane to be piloted into the towers, even with a real trained professional pilot, right?

This would explain how the planes were targeted at their targets,
without a pilot.
Proof of a laser being used also proves that there were planes.
This also explains the misinformation hype about "space beams."
and possibly the little flash that happened in other videos,
of the plane just before it hit the tower.

So although this footage can be picked apart 17 ways to Sunday,
The concept provides the most plausible explanation, that I have seen,
of how the planes even managed to hit the twin towers!

cheers, lunk

I am with you all the way there lunk.

The only thing to add is that any air vehicles involved were not the AA and United flights claimed by the OCT and media.

The important question here boils down to this:

Is Nico Haupt related to Nico Case?

This tornado loves you, this tornado loves you . . . . . . why can't you believe me?

You say you 'get' what I'm saying, lunk, but it doesn't seem that way. If your evidence is CRAP to begin with, it can't prove anything. And I believe that is its FUNCTION: To the extent that it is taken seriously as evidence it discredits those who take it seriously regardless of which side of the argument they are on. By association it gives the opposition the opportunity to say, "See, this is the quality of evidence the twoofers use to prove their ridiculous claim that '9/11 was an inside job'." Arguing from evidence that can be dismissed out of hand fits right in with the counter-intelligence ploy saying, "Nothing to see here, folks, move along." This is exactly what Wolsey and Hoffman are saying about the research done by P4T and CIT -- their exact words being "turds in the punch bowl." Saying that OUR evidence is as "ludicrous" (exact quote) as crap like this. That's why I'm yelling on this thread for people to just STOP what they are doing. Just STOP IT! Point out that this evidence is crap and that nothing can be deduced from it and let it drop.

This is why I've distrusted the NPT/VF claims from the beginning -- NOT because I don't think it was possible to stage/fake the impact event but because the evidence put forward to back up the NPT/VF claim is CRAP. Moreover, like Aldo, I think it is highly suspicious that exactly at a time when CIT and P4T are under attack from within the Truth movement itself someone like KT shows up on this forum and begins blending the crap with the punch -- even if by nothing more than association.

I totally agree with painter ... I am actually a proponent of the idea that something funny is going on with the WTC impacts - I don't know if they pulled it off with TV Fakery, or beefed up aircraft, but I don't believe that a stock 7x7 could penetrate the Towers without raining incriminating evidence on the streets below. That aside, the NPT/TV Fakery evidence is 98% crap. Some of it is even verifiably intentionally manufactured crap!!! (Such as the "copied and pasted" smoke from the towers). Some of us here debunked the whole "trees too high, buildings not in the right place" garbage from "fred" ... and I personally have gone through many editions of September Clues and posted what I think are rational refutations of nearly all (again, 98%) of Social-what's his name's claims.

To anyone with a brain, this is all a web being spun to keep us busy, unfocused, and arguing about irrelevant details which, if proven on the side of "NPT" would actually bury any good chance of the average Joe ever accepting the idea that the US government was involved in 9/11.

(For the record, that is not to mean that the people putting out vids and doing research relevant to NPT or TV Fakery are in the pocket of the elite, I assume they are not, I assume that this topic is seductive and that seeds were planted to get this all started. )

- There is PROOF that 9/11 was a false flag attack. The P4T FDR analysis, the nano-thermite evidence present in dust samples as presented by Stephen Jones and other scientists in a peer-reviewed paper, and the fact that the towers fell at near free-fall speed. (There are many other anomalies of course, but I'm not sure if they rise to the level of "proof".)

That and 75 cents will buy you a cup of coffee. THAT's the ISSUE!!!!

How do we convince the majority that 9/11 was manufactured by crooks, the same crooks who killed JFK, engineered the present financial crisis? How do we take back the country, how do we defeat incumbent Congressmen who have the support of the money-trust???

... One battle at a time. It took the "money-trust" two centuries to get us to this place. Think we'll get it back in a generation? Get realistic ... there is good reason to be optimistic, there are more people awake in America and around the world than ever before ... and their whole game-plan depends on the peoples' ignorance. That is their achilles heel, and the whole NPT/Fakery thing is part of a well thought out and organized information control strategy .... I believe.

Doesn't mean TV fakery wasn't employed, maybe it was. The best disinfo campaigns are based on a germ of truth. But we need to recognize these things for what they are.

"...and possibly the little flash that happened in other videos,
of the plane just before it hit the tower."
I thought of this point, myself.
I got the idea from this video,
true or not.

In some of the other videos, a small flash was seen on the tower,
just before the plane hit.
If this is true, then this is a blinking (coded) guidance IR laser,
and was observed in other videos, too,
not just this one!

Perhaps the other high quality TV camera equipment,
has better IR filters on their lenses, filtering out that dot, better.
Infer-red light will mess up the quality of a digital photograph, this is why all digital cameras, must have a built-in, IR filter, in the lens, that only allows visible light through, to the electronic light sensor.
Infra-red is NOT visible to the eye, but it is visible to the camera.

Does a flash in this video, from the little spot, on the building, just prior to the plane collision with the tower, coincide with the little flash, seen in other videos? Does it line up with the little flash, on the tower ahead of the plane hitting the tower, in the exact same place, on the tower, that this little flash was videoed on multiple cameras from multiple angles?
I don't know, yet.
But if it does, then this is no longer "crap" evidence.

This is how the planes hit the tower, and it speaks volumes,
and ties up many loose ends.
Like, who didn't fly the planes into the towers, as an example.
It throws any notion of the "no plane theory" back out the window, for good.
as well as missile launched from the plane, at the tower, before it hit,
and the explosives going off in the tower, before it hit.
and probably many more unexplained anomalies.

What happens when an alternate theory turns out to be true?
It's no longer a theory.

I think I have pointed out, enough of a theory, that it can be checked out, and verified, true or not.

But, complaining that detractor(?) sites are using this particular hypothesis to smear pilots?!

Look at all the characters that have suddenly popped up, in this thread,
Could it be that there is something here,
that needs to be papered over?

To me, it looks like this avenue of thought,
is being roadblocked, any way possible.

But, hey, maybe the position and timing of the laser dot and the flash on the tower, ahead of the impact, seen on multiple cameras, don't coincide?
Then the theory is wrong.
but, I think, it should be checked out.

This is a higher quality presentation, for convenience:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4650204243222697402

for my previous post.

(edit) added, the same flash, I think, can be seen from different cameras in this videos, too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlTYET9pYa8
(starting at about 2 minutes through.)

Is the pre-impact flash caused by the IR laser?

I'm sorry, lunk, but showing me highly compressed video of a couple of out of focus birds which the presenter idiotically identifies as UAVs coupled with the first segment of LC1, which Dylan subsequently dropped from LC2, isn't helping your case one bit. Quite the contrary. It is exactly crap like this that gives the whole movement a bad name.

Great post Sanders. I really like these explanations you provide. This difficult landscape its like a photograph with many many things in it, and requires huge depth of field which is tough to get in focus. You nail it again and again. All the elements appear in the picture you take, and all in focus.

Its evident there is a well-thought-out 'organized information control strategy'. and of course the danger is paramount. The bad guys are creating a superimposed reality, smoke screening the facts, and with tactics that create mass confusion and arguments over what passes for reality. Its diabolical to say the least.
Thanks again.

Sorry,
I posted a better quality video of the original theory,
And I used the LC clip, just to show that other cameras showed a dot as well, though only just before impact.

Have all the UAV been debunked, already?

FYI:

Birds:





UAV:

Alright birds.

This still leaves the question of the IR dot,

Paralleled birds?
Piece of paper?
Light reflected from the lens?
Is the same dot seen on other cameras, at the same place, and time,
on the tower?
or is the quality of all the footage just too blurred and distant, to tell?

we are back in alternate theories,
but I still think there is something to this.

Alright painter, I still think that the concept
explains a lot. But without clear evidence, or
lots more documented hints,
it's a little less than useless.

my apologies, lunk

I hope a video tells more than 1000 words: Here is the
"The Jennifer Spell paper laser"

In the end it is very very very ... ... .... ... ... ... ... very improbable that any laser in a video would have the features of that dot.

On the other hand, the plane banked to the left because otherwise it would have crashed into Giuliani's office (seen from the plane on the right side of the tower).
So if the plane followed the dot then the dot should have come from the other side (south east corner) of the building.

South tower plane was added to this rare wide angle clip

This is so simple it's stupid. The plane does not pass through the open skyline before it comes into view which proves a fake plane was added.


Advance this clip to 4:00 or before and see the plane created out of thin air from behind the building just right of the open and unobstructed skyline.
Unseen 911 Footage Finally Released By FBI, DOJ - YouTube

Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 The FBI and the Department of Justice have released ten new videos relating to the events of 9/11, three years after a freedom of information act request for the footage was submitted.

with better resolution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf3EVo3t-x0



-the plane appears as it should imo.

i realized/noticed the above clip isnt as wide an angle as the clip posted by 7forever, but this one is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvyb003DzSs




-and again, the plane appears as it should - in my humble opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf3EVo3t-x0


Look above the plane when it starts to come in!

There's another plane or dot flying above and behind it, but on the same path and speed has "Flight 175".

The cropped horizontal shot shown on TV travels west to east. The wide angle I posted and the divebomb footage are south to north.

Yes, i see it, a little white dot, above and behind, and appearing to move a little slower. What was that?

interesting. artifact, anomalie, photoshop..or a real object?

This was released under FOIA.

It first appears as some faint grey thing and quickly morphs into a horsefly in the following 8 seconds. It doesn't get much better than this.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoyWAjVpZzY...AE&index=37

"I was underneath it, I was looking at the tower, I had my camera in my hand, I heard the noise, I never saw the airplane. Flight 175 did not impact the south tower.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHrbQ0u3xzk...AE&index=25

The orb/bomb [I]was not triggered upon impact[/I], it moved through the tower (on the east side) and showed its first fire between the south and northeast corners. The huge fireball appears on the (opposite side of impact) northeast corner. This is in direct contrast with Tower 1 that produced a huge explosion at the point of impact on its northeast corner.

WB11's, wackadoodle coverage of a flying bomb and failed computer graphics

She first described it as what might be a police helicopter and after she realized it caused the explosion, changed her thoughts in that moment. This woman literally got trapped in the twilight zone. If it wasn't a helicopter, (no propeller) it certainly could not have been a plane. She simply repeated what it was supposed to be, but the orb was shown at least six more times and was described as a plane or twin engine jet.

The first computer generated image was first shown only one minute after the last orb. You can see the time change to 9:27. The fake image is so poor that it has no wings and two dots for engines. Notice how the orb moves eastward and the cgi more north.






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKj0H2fCpo4...AE&index=30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIyGEDvG9KQ...AE&index=34

WB11, a much smaller news affiliate was simply out of the loop by showing that their first plane morph came 24 minutes after the explosion. Even though the ABC morph is better, it has a faint left wing that's not above the engine but attached to it. The tail section lacks any real detail for positive identification of anything but fake imagery.

Four flying bombs were captured on film and survived without alteration. The only inconsistency is chopper 4 disappears behind the top of tower 1 while the other three are lower but at the same level. Here they are in this order; NY1, WB11, CBS, and Chopper 4, aka NBC.

She (WB11) first described it as what could be a police helicopter and after she realized it caused the explosion, changed her thoughts in that moment. These women literally got trapped in the twilight zone. If it wasn't a helicopter, (no propeller) it certainly could not have been a plane. A chopper (From WB11) passed west after the orb came from the right/west side.

The orb was the orb, helicopters are helicopters and the computer generated imagery utilized on 911 was a failure. The camera zoom demonstrates how a distant object will show more character detail. The zoom on the orb shows no detail of a helicopter and is way too small to even be considered any type of plane.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKj0H2fCpo4...AE&index=30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_caQ9ZsGycY...AE&index=95

This is what I got for the main part of each hole. There were 5 broken beams for tower 2 and 15 for 1. The width of these holes would approximately be 17 and 52 feet. I counted 57 beams, not including the corners. I rounded it to 60 beams. 15/60=0.25x208=52 feet. The point is simple; Whatever hit T2 was smaller or maybe more probable, T1 was rigged with more sophisticated explosives.

Techmac's digital attempt at computer generated imagery was assinine. Note that it has no right wing and the left wing and engine dislodge right after it gets below the copyright. It convienently zooms in preventing view of the faux image between the towers. WB11 didn't get its first plane morph until 9:27 and the similarities between the two are profound. Only a cgi could have a fake left wing and no right wing.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_g7X7WFSwg...ture=plpp_video

This is a great copy of the north tower drone. You can see it has no wings before it makes impact. The clowns who shot this were only several blocks north of the towers. If flight 11 had really crashed in NY it would have looked much like this plane landing.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MP5eFR97OX0...ture=plpp_video

Mark, cryptically laughs at the end of his description, further proving that he was describing the slow moving drone, and falling short of confirming that it really wasn't a plane. It's no different than Jean Hill saying she saw the secret service shooting back, but falling short of fingering the driver. Of course it didn't belong in the area because it was a drone and not the boeing 767 it was supposed to be.

Eyewitness on 9/11 Mark Burnback was able to get a good view of the plane that hit the World Trade Center, because he said that the plane was flying very low. He explained to FOX News that the plane had no windows, a blue logo, and did not look like a commercial plane.

Fox NewsCaster: "Mark Burnback, a Fox employee, is on the phone with us. Mark witnessed this... Mark were you close enough to see any markings on the airplane?"

Mark Burnback: "Hi gentlemen. Yeah there was definitely a blue, circular logo on the front of the plane towards the front. It definitely did not look like a commercial plane. I did not see any windows on the side. It was definitely very low...

"Mark, if what you say is true, those could be cargo planes or something like that. You said you did not see any windows on the side?"

Mark Burnback: "I did not see any windows on the side. I saw the plane was flying low. I was probably a block away from the sub-way in Brooklyn and that plane came down very low, and again it was not a normal flight that I have ever seen at an airport. It was a plane with a blue logo on the front and it just looked like it did not belong in this area."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYUs9u1YwV0

I took the work from September Clues and made it into something real instead of a rambling mess. Dick Oliver called the orb a remote controlled drone. He was on the ground and saw it floating just like it did in 4 live broadcasts. Dick was totally oblivious that his honest account completely destroyed the myth of a real plane impacting T2.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB-rwWeL7Sg...ture=plpp_video

There were around 117 eyewitness accounts and only 20 percent saw a plane. Only 8% saw and heard a plane.