1. I ment, that PBB2 Shows, that, by the FDR Output, the Plane would be to high ore to low to hit the building. And so PBB2 Indicates clearly that NO Boeing could hit the Pentagon, if the altimeter was set corect ore incorrect!

2. Mr. you talk about redicules, so why then dont be so smart to present a logical reason, why would they do so?
Why not hijack 4 Planes when you allready hijack 2 Planes?
Why take even more risk?

Well, by what logic should we expect that each aspect of the attack was engineered the same? The Pentagon was a much more controlled environment, and there weren't any news cameras trained on it as was the case with the 2nd tower hit. I'm not saying there were or weren't planes in NY, I'm just addressing this supposed "logic" that you speak of. I don't see any reason why the different events wouldn't be engineered differently to accomodate different circumstances. You said, "they didn't used them for Shanks/Penta?" - but clearly they did use planes at the Pentagon, in fact one or two too many. It's just that none of them crashed into the building apparently. See my point?

That is my point. The only reason planes become support on the WTC Scene is because of the Footage. And the Footage cant be verified by any instance. Has any investigation ever checked the realy original footage, on the original Tape?
Without the unverified footage there is the same lack of evidence like in shanksville and the pentagon scene.
The footage never mad its way, for a good reason, into any investigation!
Eyewitnesses and footage never even got mention in the Report ore to a
cross examination.
And this is what ppl have realy to realize, that the only proof for planes on 911 is the fishy NTSB Radarstudy, while on 911 there was a wargame called "Northern Vigilance"
which was about to implant dots on radar screens to simulate air-attacks!
The credebility of this only and last evidence is -100



Yes i fully agree! But you have to see my point and this is:
There was a reason to Crash NO Planes in Shanks/Pens, so the perps went for a very high risk to get uncoverd, but they did it that way, so there was a realy good reason to do so.

So i mean its not enough reason to say and agree there where no planes on shanks/Pens while you admit there where some on WTC because u saw them on TV, ore there where "maybe" (cant be verified too) Newschannels arround.

greetz mvb

Thank you.

I would love to see some conclusive evidence one way or the other - the presence of conflicting or unverifiable evidence leaves much room for disagreement and you wind up with everyone bickering and chasing their tail endlessly... (This is of course by design I believe.)

(Sanders)

I think if we keep it here in Alternative Theories we're not doing any harm.

Quote from BoneZ:
(Little smilie shaking it's head)

BoneZ, I'm open to the idea of 9/11 Octopus being disinfo, but a shaking head tells me nothing, and makes me wonder what exactly is your criticism?

This film is loaded with powerful information against the perps of 9/11, more than just the NPT. It really makes them look evil. And the film gives links to many websites, encouraging the viewer to do more research. Why would a perp release such a film?

Are these govt loyalists really as stupid as they seem, or is this a carefully designed ploy to distract us from our work?

Sarah, just for my own amusement, I want you to clarify the following for me:



1) Who do you believe the terrorists to be?

2) By debunking disinformation, i.e. NPT, exactly how are we helping said terrorists?



So, you're implying that our "knights in shining armour" were already fighting the bogus "war on terror" by taking over the airwaves before the second plane struck?? ROFL!!

I suggest that next time you carefully re-think your comments before spewing such nonesence!!

I have watched and compared (on split-screen) synchronized pairs of broadcasts. What gives away the fact that they're NOT live is simply those helicopters that are speeding back and forth on the screen : on many occasions you'll have a chopper passing over the towers on one channel and not on the other. Case closed . All broadcasts were faked, full stop.

In September Clues part 7 I also compare two shots with the Empire State in the foreground (CBS and NBC). As one overlays these apparently different shots (Empire State is either on left or right of the twin towers, suggesting vastly different camera angles) we may see that the entire background matches up perfectly (buildings' relative spacing/angles/size) and in spite of the totally different vantage point. Again, case closed : not real images. Period.

Everyone really needs to set aside old assumptions now, because the proof of faked broadcasts is incontrovertible.

Keep up the good work, everyone.

www.livevideo.com/socialservice

Only in your and a small few others eyes. Most everybody else can see through the bs that is no-planes/tv fakery.

I have watched and compared (on split-screen) various synchronized pairs of high resolution broadcasts (between 8:50 - 10:00). What gives away the fact that they cannot be live as is simply those helicopters that are speeding back and forth on the screen : on several occasions you'll have a chopper passing over the towers on one network and not on the other. It is simply not there. Case closed. All broadcasts were faked, full stop.

In September Clues part 7 I also compare two shots with the Empire State in the foreground (CBS and NBC). As one overlays these apparently different shots (Empire State is either on left or right of the twin towers, suggesting widely different camera angles) we may see that the entire background matches up perfectly (buildings' relative spacing/angles/size) and in spite of the totally different vantage point. This, of course, is just impossible.

It's about time many 911 researchers revised old assumptions now - the proof of faked broadcasts is incontrovertible. Thanks for your kind attention.

socialservice

@simonshack

I am just watching this
http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice


Seems as if this is a piece of evidence like Sanders said earlier in this thread:



I'm becoming more and more interested.

Adhering to this attitude is your perogative of course, but I don't think it will help you win over the minds very many people, and more unfortunately, possibly hinder your own potential to learn things you don't already know.

...................

"In September Clues part 7 I also compare two shots with the Empire State in the foreground (CBS and NBC). As one overlays these apparently different shots (Empire State is either on left or right of the twin towers, suggesting widely different camera angles) we may see that the entire background matches up perfectly (buildings' relative spacing/angles/size) and in spite of the totally different vantage point. This, of course, is just impossible."

This statement is inaccurate. The "background" is very far from the Empire State Building, moving the camera position to where the Empire State Building, which is much closer to the camera, appears to the left or right of the Trade Towers will not appreciably change the positioning of buildings that far away. This is kid stuff, perspective 101.

Should I take this statement, "In September Clues part 7 I also compare two shots with the Empire State in the foreground (CBS and NBC). " - to mean that you are in fact the maker of September Clues?

Yes, Sanders. This is "socialservice", the maker of "September Clues".

Precisely, Sanders.

I mentioned earlier, that I know the author of a 9/11 book (NPT), who is doing a tremendous job calculating camera angles and positions of the life feeds.

I'll go back and reread this book now and keep my nose out of this discussion until I'm finished.

CU
Zap

"Sanders", I understand, is the author of these 2 paragraphs :



Then, responding to me (socialservice/simonshack) he deplores that I sound too sure of my own claims :





So, I will kindly ask Sanders : what exactly is a man supposed to do when reaching to a conclusion and verifiable evidence ? Just pretend to be doubting about one's owns findings in order not to ruffle other people's opinions?

I am providing that 'conclusive evidence' you were wishing for. If you are able to counterargue convincingly the strongest claims (there are of course weaker claims - no one's perfect) presented in September Clues 7, you are by all means free to do so.

Yet, your attempt to disprove the 2 Empire State shots is not a good start. The two shots (CBS vs NBC) are impossible. It should be clear to anyone with the most elementary notions of perspective.

I hardly ever write on forums because I've always believed my time was better spent on research. I'm not going to start now joining the endless bickering and tail-chasing but I will, perhaps, intervene if I read less than serious "debunking" attempts.

Thanks to all for your interest in the subject - and for not joining the recent, widespread censorship antics related to it.


socialservice



edited above quote - remarks by socialservice
Zap

I'll point everyone to this thread: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...wtopic=8601&hl= where, about half-way down, Waterdancer begins to explore this question. I have no opinion about it yet.

Your participation is welcome so long as it remains civil (on everyone's part) and focused on the evidence and not the personalities involved.

Many are not interested in this subject but some of us are. Personally, I'm hoping that something definitive will come of the discussion one way or the other. The trick is to keep the conversation on topic and civil. None of us here get paid to do this -- it is a labor of necessity. And none of us are 'trained' -- we're just folk trying to do the best we can. By all means, focus on your research -- and if you find something of special interest, don't hesitate to bring it to our attention. Members of this forum have largely (but not exclusively) been focused on the Pentagon anomalies and have paid less attention to WTC, news video of Manhattan, etc. So, think of this as a kind of cross-pollination, perhaps. Hopefully you will review some of our research re the alleged Flight 77 FDR.

Thank you, simonshack, for your politeness. I will try to treat you with the same respect and at at the same time heed painter's request, but I have some serious issues with your claim about background buildings.

Here is what is presented in Sept. Clues #7:



You say, "Remember that over at CBS, they had the Empire State to the right of the towers" - then, in the next shot, "With a surprisingly similar background...", then, "In fact 100% similar" ... meanwhile you superimpose the two shots to show than the buildings downtown you have selected are in the same places.

Well, they are not "100%" in the same places, they are nearly in the same places, as they should be.

This is the Bank of New York @ 101 Barklay Street

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=101bar...yorkcity-ny-usa

Here I have matched the size of the two images you compare and lined the towers up perfectly, watch what happens to the position of the Bank of New York:



It moves

Why does it move? Because the camera angles are slightly different. Why doesn't it move more? Because the Bank of New York is only two blocks away from the WTC. The Empire State Building is nearly FIFTY blocks away.

Here is a map of Manhattan, with the sight-lines of the two shots approximated



Make sense? The Trade Towers and the background buildings you indicate are very far from the Empire State Building. I am certain that if you truly lined up the towers and compared the other two buildings to the left that you indicated as well you would find a slight shift - just the kind of movement one would expect from buildings so far away. The slight shift in these background buildings is exactly consistent with changing the camera position such that the Empire State Building appears on either side of the towers. Or, as I said in my earlier post,


I must ask the film-maker, why do you make this false and misleading implication in your video? Is it laziness, that you don't bother to find out where those buildings actually are? I whipped out this little bit of research just to make a post on a forum. Would that have been too much work to do before you make a claim in a video that lots and lots of people will watch? Have you simply allowed yourself to be fooled by these basic tenets of perspective and camera distance? Or, is this willfull misrepresentation? With all due respect, there are no other ways to interpret it, and what you are doing is both destructive to the movement and hinders people from getting to the truth in my opinion.

(@ Painter, feel free to delete my last paragraph if you feel it is inappropriate. I don't think it is, I feel it is a fair and direct question posed to the film-maker about his work.)

I'll let it stand for the time being. I think it is a reasonable question to which I'd also like an answer. I can't really say what other people's motives are with any certainty unless they tell me and even then only if I can reasonably deduce they are being accurate and truthful.

Anyone who doesn't understand perspective and spatial relationship distortions caused by telephoto zoom lenses regarding foreground and background objects needs to bone up on it if they're going to employ videos using these lenses as evidence for anything. See this post, for example:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...dpost&p=9766125

This is the only thing i'm going to comment on here at present:


Here's some of that "conclusive evidence" of yours:






Yep, that's conclusive.


'Nuff said. ..

Sanders,

I'm impressed and honored by the time you've taken to analyze the Empire State building shots. I do respect your viewpoint because I see that you really are, in all honesty, following your beliefs. I must say I was quite prepared to take some criticism due to the quick and superficial way I presented it in September Clues part 7. It has been a bit frustrating to compress all my observations into a short 1-hour or so video, a proper exposé would need at least 5 hours - but who would watch it ?

You have some good points, but you're overlooking many others. For starters, what do you make of the building standing in front of the Empire on CBS? Why is it absent on the NBC shot? Do you suppose that's the building where the NBC crew was filming from? I hope you don't want to support that.

So, if you ask me to find out where the buildings are, can you tell me where these 2 networks were filming from? That's the first question you should ask yourself. Do you live in New York? If you do, please go and find out. How did they scramble live camera units there after only 6 minutes (NBC at least) of the first strike?

I don't know if you've ever held a professional camera in your hand - but I can assure you I have - and it is quite impossible to get such similar backgrounds (if anything, the angle of the NY bank turns wider when it should be tighter ) with such different vantage points. Look at the Empire State : its angle doesn't change by a whisker in spite of the vastly differing vantage points. Also, you must look at the shadows on the ES : see, Sanders (you couldn't know this, of course) the 2 shots I've chosen are separated by 20 minutes, yet the ES shadows are identical. I have done time-lapse videos and I can assure you that 20 minutes in early morning does huge differences in shadow angles.

Please let's look at this together - I do not base all my research on this ES shots. I hope you have doubts on the veracity of the tv broadcasts because they really have hundreds of questions - they simply do not look real. I hope you will look a little more deeply into my September Clues research to see the whole 'picture', let's not get stuck on one of them. Time is running out. My only goal is to show people how fake the broadcasts were.

I have been following the excellent Pilots for Truth research which basically follows the same drift : no plane struck the Pentagon -it was a fly-over... all I'm adding is : no plane struck the towers - it was a fly-over (by two planes which you can see within the first minute of September Clues part6). So let's join our forces together and stop this useless and destructive bickering within the 911 truth movement.

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.

Bone Z,


I think you're truly dedicated to the truth and respect you for it. However,
you've evidently attempted to disprove the Nose in/Nose-out issue without taking the time to read my statements on my livevideo page :

"I initially hesitated to publish this work on the www – if only for the sheer difficulty of displaying , with the available resolution, some of the more subtle details in this study. For instance, the pixel-overlay of the ‘nose-in/nose-out’ helicopter shot (see SC part1) may look unconvincing on web-video but is extremely precise in full-size / PSD format. So, anyone wishing to prove the nose-out is a different ‘object’ than the nose-in, has a formidable task on his hands."

What you are doing is exactly what video researchers (mostly because of LACK of available high-res material) have been accused to do. That is, drawing conclusions from compressed pixels. I will, in time, publish a high-resolution comparison of the nose-in/nose-out which will show you the real thing. The size, shape and outline of the two in-out objects (cockpit?...) are the same - pixel-by-pixel. The differences you see on the files extracted from September Clues is only a contrast problem.

Back up your claim here or be gone. That's a pretty serious claim you're making. I don't trust you based on who you probably are. You don't have that much time for me to "await your reply."



Get it up or get it going. Don't pussy foot around with a bunch of half baked bullshit. I ain't that patient.

You savvy?? I damn sure hope so.

Actually, it's what you are doing. Because of your use of low-quality, pixelated, compressed internet video to make your claims, your videos fall short. All i'm doing is going by what you have presented.

As far as the nose-in/out, i can guarantee that no matter how high of resolution pictures you show, the end result will be the same as i've shown, unless you manipulate or fake the nose out. Those are two totally different shapes and no sort of resolution will make those shapes identical unless they're microscopic so you can't see them to match them up.

Bone Z,

I really do not understand your agressive stance. I am not some kind of fool trying to make a career out of this. I only submit what has been my work for months and months of unpaid, enthusiastic research.


The only reason I'm asking you to wait a sec, is because I haven't yet found out how to reproduce my enlarged, full-screen psd versions of the nose in-nose-outs. I'll soon find out. Relax and don't be so confrontational.

Best regards

socialservice

Simon

You can pixelate until you're blue in the face. It is essentially trivial pursuit and fairly well MEANINGLESS in the big picture.

That big picture is that the bad guys pulled this off and are destroying this country.

Until you can overcome the OBVIOUS evidence that at least 1 Boeing struck the towers, recorded by numerous cameras from different sources, your argument is basically moot.

OBVIOUS evidence?


Where is it ? Give it to me.

OK, this will be my last post.


I've done all I can do with my best intentions to show that the tv broadcasts were fake. I'm not going to waste more time convincing a few people ( I used to respect you guys immensely for YOUR work) which seem unable to deal with new evidence.

Bye bye - keep up the real fight.


Cheers - hope to meet you all some day

Thank you Simon. Best wishes. Check out some of those videos and statements made by people OTHER THAN government agents.

Sorry for the large image but I know of no other way to do this:

1 ) I assume that we are discussing what an observed and recorded phenomena is and that the basic assumption is that it is NOT an actual nose of an aircraft having passed through WTC 2

2) My understanding is that the 'nose out' claim is based on the contention that what is being seen is an animation glitch -- an overshoot by the editor inserting a fake plane in aproach frames that passes through the building mask. Is this correct?

3 ) Assuming that this is the contention, would you agree that if a different video showed the same 'nose out' phenomena from a different angle, then the contention in #2 can not be true?

Look:



So we have a different angle of view of the same phenomena, thus we can disregard contention 2.

HOWEVER, we are still left with a puzzling phenomena made all the more so because, as visual evidence has shown, there was no exit hole for this (what appears to be) dense debris pattern which very quickly ignites upon exiting. We know precisely where this phenomena appeared and it is directly above the area of the tower that later exhibited what some claim to be thermate reactions.

So, although I believe your contention regarding the nature of this phenomena is inaccurate, I do believe we have an anomaly worthy of some exploration. Lets not assume that we know what this is, one way or the other, so far as a video fakery or no plane theory is concerned. For as I believe this series of images makes obvious, if this video is "fake" it make no more "sense" than the data that was recovered from the Flight 77 FDR. In other words, it begs the question, if they were going to fake data, why not fake it in a way that more conclusively matched the story they were going to tell us?

Sanders
Cary simonshack
amazed


My stance:

1- There is something in what he sais.

2- Faked life feeds are difficult to understand (let alone proof) even by TV/camera professionals and thus has IMO no priority for a 9/11 investigation.

3- The 'Empire State left/right - puzzle is an obvious flaw in simonshack's reasoning. I thought from the beginning, that it was due to different camera positions. Sanders, you did an enormous job illustrating that.



How did NBC scramble live camera units after only 6 minutes?

My 2 Euro Cents ?

They filmed from the top of the Rockefeller Center where the NBC studios are located.


I've been 'on top of the rocks' in Nov. last year / Zap



EDIT
It WAS filmed from the top of the Rockefeller Center!

Here's a pic from my visit. I was standing on the left corner of the building. If you sroll to the right you can see my grim visage.

compare:

Painter how much time transpired between these two camera angels first being shown? Were they both revealed at the same time?

Could one of them, have been created, just to help establish the other one as being real?

Darn it!

I wish I had known Simon was here. Some of you guys are just too close minded about his work, and no way do I think he is trying to fool anybody.

I see no solid evidence to justify the accusations made against him as a fraud.

Who said he was a fraud ???

So far the only thing I can say with some certainty on this thread is, that the Empire State 'puzzle' in September Clues is easy to explain.

I am sorry, that simonshack left.

Well some have said just today, in other threads, that he is the same person as BSreg Fred, and he isn't I am sure of that. Also I keep seeing references to Simon's supposed intentionally disinformation, and I don't believe that either.

No I don't recall exactly which threads right now.

Here are comparison pics for the ESB with WTC shots; I've run across several, but haven't compared them all for possible minute differences yet. I think it's possible that some of the footage we initially saw may have been webcam or similar feeds from the ESB, etc. WB 11 footage being one likely candidate. First 2- ~same location (top of the Rock judging by Zap's pic), different times; third one somewhat different location. Fourth one- possibly slightly diffrent location from either of the other two- close to the third one, though. Fifth one, again slightly different. The buildings in the far distance don't change much, but what the ESB blocks and doesn't block does. And another night time shot which looks to be a similar view as from the Rock, but slithly different obscuration once again

No one said simonshack was a fraud. I didn't, I asked him a direct question, which didn't imply anything.


Thank you very much, I appreciate it.


No, I only addressed the things I saw that were erroneous. That bit about the background buildings not perceivably moving stuck out when I saw it, and I addressed it. When you are presenting evidence, each piece has to stand up on it's own. One piece of dubious evidence is not made credible by other evidence that might support the same claim. I'm not dissing your whole film, I was just addressing specific points in as thorough a way as I know how, as you should as well if you're going to put your name on it. (With all due respect!)

You might be surprised, if you haven't hung around and read other of my posts regarding this topic, by my opinions on all this. (BoneZ is probably gonna go "NO, Sanders!!!" when he reads this - @BoneZ, keep doing what you're doing - the scientific method is the great equalizer IMO)

Disclaimer: These are just my opinions/hunches based on what I think I know - I'm baring them to simonshack because I sense he imagines me to believe something different, that my criticisms have something to do with my "feelings" about NPT/Fakery.

I think a "missile with wings" (whatever that is) was used to hit both towers (and maybe they used the same or similar to hit the Pentagon). I think this aircraft was incapable (too much weight/lift ratio) of flying at moderate speeds (and so it couldn't/didn't). I don't think a mostly aluminum plane can penetrate a steel framed building at any speed, speed does not impart any special qualities on the plane over the building in this case. There is more destruction at higher speeds of course, but both the plane and the building suffer. A plane hitting a building at 500 mph is equivilent to a building hitting a plane at 500 mph. My thoughts on this are confimed by the frames that show the plane "melting" into the building. These images make my bullsh#t meter go bezerk. I buy Factfinder General's theory that at least the nose (I think maybe the leading edges of the wings as well?) were laced with DU, and that that is the source of the "flash". I think this aircraft looked enough like a plane from the ground to have fooled many witnesses.

I think the image of the Boeing was inserted over the "missile". I think Hezarkhani took his video from the deck of a ferry moored at Battery Park, and after the attacks he and Ms. Taylor took the ferry to Ellis Island and handed their images over to a government crew who immediately went to work laying in the plane images - I am told that the federal facility there has a sophisticated multi-media center where this work could have been done. I suspect they spent some time on these to make them look good, and that's why they are the most widely shown images. As far as I know they are the only close-ups of the crash.

I think the idea that entire shots were layered together is junk. I have been over many of these claims in detail, and none of them so far hold up to scrutiny. These claims are invariably based on misinterpretation of the effects of distance, perspective and zoom factors. These effects can be very misleading and seductive if you are not paying attention IMO.

I could be full of sh#t, and I acknowlege it. I embrace this hypothesis, tentatively, because it's the only one that I can think of that accounts for the evidence that I am aware of.

I also believe the whole NPT/TV Fakery rage, while most probably being true to the extent that images of a Boeing were superimposed on the footage that was released or broadcast, is part of a disinfo campaign, that everyone mixed up in this is being unwittingly manipulated. To "get" this requires thinking outside of the box ... Disinfo works much better when it is based on a germ of truth, and there are people in the CIA/DoD that "get it", to our great disadvantage. (I assume I needn't explain why the current focus on NPT/Fakery might have been cooked up by our enemies ... even if it was conveniently true to some extent?)

There must be those of course that are involved in promoting NPT to a destructive end and spreading disinfo wittingly, but I have no idea who they are. I suspect they are connected with the 911researchers site - I only say that because when I see people attacking truthers who are actually breathing down the necks of the perpetrators, to me that should be a good clue that they are on the wrong side. As an example, there have been numerous attacks against David Ray Griffin - I have researched it, and the claims appear to be warrantless (not surprised ... i.e. he is not in any way connected with the Rockefeller Foundation, he just got a good deal on a R.F. owed hall he rented because he brought a lot of people. He's being attacked because he's making real progress in waking people up - and it's no accident that his attackers are connected with the NPT crowd).

To me, you (simonshack) do not fit this mold. You seem sincere, but some of your claims appear to be based more on a desire to convince people of your POV than honest research. Regardless, please accept this advice -

Tighten it up ! If you have a sense that something is this or that, investigate it as if you were trying to debunk your own suspicions. Please don't slack just because you want to believe what you think, and think you should get others to think the same - stick with what you can prove !!! It does no one any good to release claims that cannot be substantiated ! I cannot say this strongly enough.

I am not attacking you, simonshack, I am attacking your eagerness to prove something that I am certain is untrue (buildings in the wrong place), and leaning on the disceptive nature of photography to make the case. In my opinion, get off the "buildings-are-in-the-wrong-place" thing - it's a fools errand. I've seen NO evidence of it, and I've seen a lot of claims being made, and have satisfied at least myself that they are all unfounded.

This is serious - bogus claims are destructive, dangerous, divisive! Simonshack, I support you in your research, but hey, if I see anything like the Empire State Building thing in your next video I'm gonna bust your b@lls, you can count on it.

Keep it tight - be your own worst critic. It will serve you well.

Sorry for the long post. Good luck and best wishes for an end to the New Century Madness.

(forgive me if I came off condescending, but I feel very stongly about the things I mentioned - and, hey, I'm 50)

Sanders, NOOOO!!!!!!!!!

Hehe

That really cracked me up


Honestly, why is it that people become such enemies because they believe either that real Boeings crashed into buildings or they didn't crash into buildings? It's not like anyone screwed anyone's girlfriend or wife or husband or something??

So, when is anyone gonna get interestd in who the perps are? I have a list of 600 names that need weeding out - or is that not as important as whether or not TV Fakery was employed or not? No one is interested.

The whole NPT subject has been plopped in our laps purposedly to distract and discredit us. Guess what happens when NPT really makes prime-time... ? (We are all nut-jobs)

You and me, my friend, are REALLY close in our analysis.

P.S. and our assessment of Simon. (I think he's well intentioned but is succumbing to outside "influences.")

Hi Sanders. You raise some interesting questions, though hard to answer. Your concerns are obviously valid in a general sense - where is this thing going?

About Griffin, I don't buy into the criticisms of him having some elitist or cultish goals. One of my favorite books is For the Common Good, co-written by one of his theologian colleagues John Cobb.

The problem with his work, though, is that it takes so much of the official story as true, especially in arguing the standdown. He wonders why the military would change the story from one that made them look worse to one that made them look better. To deceive, of course. But what is the deception? I see his work as closing the loop of disinformation with the standdown myth. I also wonder whether he unnecessarily trashes the "NORAD tapes," as some of what saw in Vanity Fair may be genuine confusion on the part of FAA and NEADs controllers.

I don't think this is intentional on his part - does it matter? His books have lots of useful good information and excellent arguments, but I am concerned about how he chooses his premises from which to make those arguments.

I think they did a pretty good job with those videos. There may be a few misinterpretations but BoneZ's debunking isn't answering any questions.

If that isn't the nose of the plane what is it? The shape is much more consistant with the nose than anything else that could be jettisoned out of the building.

This plane should have been shredded going through those steel beams. I doubt it could be the nose unless maybe those steel beams got out of the way or the video is a phony.

Ningen, you're not in Japan are you?
(Anata no nihongo-ppoi handoru wo mitara...)

No, Sander, not anymore. I used to live there. "Ningen" is just a name I came up with when signing up for Daily Kos, and I kept it. Kind of weird, I know. They banned me from posting but I still have a user page.

http://www.dailykos.com/user/Ningen

Didn't I explain this in Japanese a while back? Maybe it was someone else.

I'm not following you on why NPT is a distraction. Under your hypothesis, there were no Muslims aboard the missiles. This is an essential point given what 9/11 has been used to justify.

But I would be interested in your list of 600 names. Have you posted it somewhere?