Well hello all at Pilots For Truth. I'm looking forward to my visit here, though as some of you already know, I am most at home at Progressive Independent.

Let me describe myself by way of an introduction and allow me to unabashedly use a few "tarnished" terms in order to do so.

I am an ardent Conspiracy Theorist. Yes, shock horror! I actually believe that people conspire and leave us guessing. I have lots of fun working out what's really going on amidst all the conspiratorial whisperings.

I am an avowed Truther. I firmly believe that knowledge is power. Enough said!

Last of all, but by no means least of all, when it comes to 911 CT I am an active No Planer. I truly believe that an understanding of the initiating events of 911, as being carried out by missile attack and not plane attack, is the fundamental starting point for processing the evidence of this most bewildering of days in an accurate and meaningful fashion.

After all, if you start off going down the wrong alley, you have a good chance of quickly getting lost. No Planes, quite simply, in light of all the evidence and my understanding of science, is the right alley as far as I'm concerned.

Now, as I understand things, I think that means I am largely going to be limited to posting in the Alternative Theories Forum.

So here's my question:

With all due respect, if No Plane Theory is generally understood here to be an Alternative Theory, what is generally understood here to be the Accepted Theory, with particular reference to each of the alleged 911 planes, i.e. AA 11, AA 77, UA 93 and UA 175?

Awaiting responses with avid interest, FfG

First of all, Welcome to the forum, Factfinder General.

I spent the last hour writing a rather lengthy and detailed reply to your question and then, POOF, lost it. It is way too early in the morning to begin again.

I hope you will take the time to get to know this forum -- learn our history, where we came from, how long we've been together and what we've accomplished. For example, watch this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=28...earch&plindex=0 and this one:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...earch&plindex=0 These represent the rabbit hole that the majority of us have had our head down for the past several months.

The best I can do at almost 2AM my time now is to say that the Alternative Theories forum is a subset of the Research forum in which people are invited to show us their evidence regarding concepts which are not generally believed to be true. I admit that this is somewhat subjective but at least we allow these discussions, on the grounds that everyone remain civil and try to stick to posting information rather than attacking the presenter of that information. Personally I do not claim to know what happened at the WTC towers or at the Pentagon -- but what I do know is that what we've been told happened didn't -- and I knew that from day one.

The organization Pilots for 9/11 Truth, whose core membership is made up solely of airline professionals who are willing to put their name to our work, make an effort to not speculate beyond what evidence clearly indicates. For example, we don't say that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. What we say is, that is what the NTSB's own data, which they alleged to have come from the FDR of Flight 77, indicates. The latter is a fact that we have established -- and in doing so we have brought to light strong evidence of at least a cover-up and probably worse. Tha FDR data is a forgery.

If you can bring to us evidence that is as tight as this then, I assure you, discussion of the so called "No Plane" theory will not have to be confined. So far, to me, the NPT evidence is inconclusive -- as, indeed, is most of science. We either lack sufficient data or haven't the ability to knowledgeably analyze and make accurate sense of the data we have. Conjecture is just that. Indeed, there is something 'fishy' about that "ghost plane" video; indeed could the impact area be a work of art?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...dpost&p=9828727 Ultimately "could be" doesn't cut it.

Welcome Factfinder General, thanks for joining.

Please be assured that No Plane threads in the Alternative Section are taken seriously. Very much looking forward to your posts.

Welcome to the forum Factfinder General.

Well I thank you all for the warm welcome - Though I'm not reading any real concrete definition of what the Accepted Theory for the planes of 911 might be. But now why do you think that is?

OK - Let me spell out where I'm going with this:

My theory, or as you are labeling it, the "Alternative" Theory, as to the truth behind all four of the alleged 911 planes is that they weren't real. It's simple and elegant as far as theories go.

Now I have science on the side of my theory, both the discipline of metallurgy and penetration mechanics not to mention a Newtonian Law or two. The inconsistency of the evidence is also supportive. (e.g. did any of you pilots here at this site compare the flight paths of the planes from the various videos that depict vastly dissimilar trajectories?)

Along with all this, I've got some plain understandings born of experience and some finely tuned intuitions born of inheritance that harmonize perfectly well with my theory. So, all in all, I'm on quite comfortable ground, I do believe.

So this then is the "Alternative" Theory, and what am I to understand is the "Accepted" Theory?

Let me attempt to sum up the accepted theory in as simple and elegant a fashion as I did mine. The Accepted Theory about the planes is that they were real. This is simple: yes. But is it Elegant? hardly!

Indeed, I strongly suspect that what most of you are calling the "Accepted" Theory is really, when all's said and done, quite "Unacceptable."

What is it that backs the theory up to make it worthy of the designation: "Accepted"? What basis is there for widely held belief in it?

There is no science which will lend a hand here; I swear there is not even a scientifically plausible hypothesis to start to begin explaining how the planes of 911 could have behaved in the way they were alleged to have done:

Lightly constructed aluminum planes slicing through heavily constructed HSLA Steel framed buildings, showing no visible deceleration and holding off both structural failure and flash point ignition until safely behind "closed" walls.

Planes burying themselves deeply and completely into fields, just like their distant but much more firmly constructed relatives, the Bunker Buster EPWs.

Composite Nose Cones pummeling their way clean through multiple military grade masonry and reinforced concrete walls.

Wings somehow folding inwards upon impact and thus allowing the plane to slip inside through the hole the nose cone managed to bore.

This is all truly and utterly fantastic and quite "unreal!"

But there are the videos that show the planes performing some of these miracles; surely we can believe our eyes? Wait though - the videos are wildly inconsistent with each other in the first instance, are riddled with artifacts betraying their production methods in the second instance and they portray a scientifically implausible event in the third.

Well then there is the witness testimony; but no - the same problems that are present with the videos are present with this aspect too. Inconsistencies abound: there was a plane, there was no plane, it was a missile, it was a small jet, a bird, a bug, a boo...

Everyone of reasonable maturity must be aware that both the camera (of the still and motion kind) and people can be made to lie. They always have been and I suspect they always will; just as long as there are unscrupulous characters that have a vested interest which, for whatever reason, they wish to uphold.

Then what of the physical evidence, the debris? There is none recovered from where it should have been, i.e. underneath and surrounding the impact zone of the WTC Towers. The precious little samples of whatever was collected is all as suspect as the behavior of the planes.

So what IS there then in support of the theory that the planes of 911 were real? Nothing?

Now please allow me a moment to digress -

Did any of you believe in Santa Claus as a young child? Some, maybe a good portion of you?

Now as I recollect, from my own personal experience, there was no real evidence as such which formed the basis of my deep conviction in the jolly old elf. Instead there was merely a naive trust in the tradition of this figure and possibly more than just a little psychological pressure, both internal and external in origin.

From the point of view of tradition: The red robed one's ubiquity made him hard to ignore or for that matter deny.

Psychologically speaking: on the one hand the idea of a magically endowed Patron Saint of gift giving was a pleasant thing to believe in and on the other it was my caretakers who were encouraging this belief.

Ah yes, I fondly remember the comfort and joy of those early and innocent Christmases of my childhood -

But even more vividly, I remember that Christmas Eve when I stumbled upon the plain, harsh truth and found what was obviously going to be Christmas morning's stocking fillers for me, my brother and my sister, all neatly laid out on my parents' king-sized bed in three equally proportioned piles.

I knew at first sight what the three piles meant but my conviction kept me from admitting it to myself consciously. Basically, I didn't want to believe that it was all a lie. So I made up a rationale: the presents must have been for some surprise street party that my mom and dad where going to put on for the other children who lived on our street.

Believe it or not that far fetched rationale sustained my challenged and now tenuous faith until Christmas morning: when ultimately I saw those selfsame presents that had been laid out on my parents' bed, stuffed into mine, my brother's and my sister's stockings, I simply had to face up to the facts.

How the three of us cried as I revealed to my younger siblings the truth of my discovery and oh, what confusion on my parents' faces when they burst in to the living room to see what Santa had brought us - only to find us all in tears. That morning, the fantasy of Santa Claus had only brought us pain.

But of course we got over it and moved on: rather quickly as I recall. An opportune and welcome visit an hour or two later, from a kindly Great Uncle, laden as he was with boxes of chocolates, definitely helped to ease the pain.

But now back to the planes of 911. Where is everybody in regards to this lie? Are some of you still bound up in a mere conviction built upon naive trust and bolstered by psychological pressures?

Have some of you stumbled upon the underlying truth but yet are still not ready to believe that it is all a lie?

Is this unwillingness to accept that it is all a lie the only thing now supporting your implausible theory?

Are there any of those amongst you who are finally ready to accept the suspicions of the night before in the cold light of the morning after?

The very worst of the Santa Claus lie is that it temporarily fills a child with false hope. The whole fantasy seems well intended, designed as it is to bring a spirit of joy to an otherwise harsh season. Once I realized the truth I still had real hope to build upon and work towards. No one had tried to take that away from me and there really wasn't much harm done in retrospect.

in stark contrast, the perversity of the 911 lie is that it fills us with false fear. Whoever put the theatre of terror together for us that sunny September day sought to incapacitate our wills: to bring despair to an otherwise hopeful world: to effectively rid us of our genuine hope.

The lies of these abusers keeps us bound to their will. The horror of their theatre initiates a blind obedience that lurks within their shadowy falsehood: a falsehood that deceives us into thinking that these masters of horror somehow will protect us from the things that they are lying to us about in the first place.

Chubby men dressed in red can't squeeze down chimneys. We can all accept that now and maybe smile at our naivete in once believing that they could.

In remarkably similar fashion: Aluminum based planes can't slice through steel framed buildings.

The only thing that supports the theory that they can is the idea that it surely can't be all just one big amazing lie? Such a massive betrayal of trust is unimaginable. The amiable News Anchors, the men and women on the streets, the nice lady tourist from the Ellis Island Ferry who's now visiting schools with her photographs to help children accept the terror - they can't all be lying?

Well, just like I was there to tell my brother and sister on that Christmas morning long ago, here I am to tell you on this autumn morning (and won't it soon be the Holiday's):

There is no Santa Claus - and there was no planes!

Though the Holiday Season is coming upon us quickly, there might yet be a chance to give ourselves and each other the greatest gift of all before it arrives:

The fear they spread is a lie, destroying our genuine hope. When we can find the courage to face the truth - I'm telling you all - it is then that we can start reclaiming this concrete hope: you know, the kind you had before that dreadful morning of September 11!

I truly believe that it is not too late!

And in closing, I thank you all for allowing me to discourse in this fashion.

Looking forward to mutual breakthroughs of understanding, FfG

Factfinder General. This is a welcome/newcomer forum. Please discuss your alternate theories in the appropriate forum. This ain't the place to do that.

We have heard of you.

Of course, painter said it all as usual. But I have a few thoughts. More or less, around here, theories are all alternative. We tend to focus on facts and evidence. The fact that the towers were intentionally demolished is not really a theory, for instance. It has been adequately proven and is a cornerstone of the movement. DEW is theory. We have a member who is on a break right now who would tell you that Pilots is not elementary school.

As far as NPT, you'll find that many of the regulars here, including myself, just don't buy it. You will find that I do not discuss it much at all. Others do. When the VFT folks showed up here a couple of months ago, they were quite trollish. But we decided to allow the discussion while banning the trolls. We are openminded here.

Again, welcome. This is a unique forum. We don't have to agree on everything to be on the same side.

Without reading through all of that, if you don't mind, I'll just answer the question. The actual organization does not offer theory. We do discuss theory on the forum. Pilots is, of course, about the airplanes involved in the 9/11 event. Consequently, we generally operate under the premise that there were airplanes. I guess you could call that a theory.

Moved to alt theory section with link left behind.

Welcome to the forums FactfinderGeneral.

Well What Do You Know? I was wanting to understand things a little better before posting a thread but hey, I guess bumping me over to Alt. Theory is one way to show me the ropes.

Seeing as I'm here now:

I suppose that I'm arguing the case that I do not believe No Plane Theory is in actuality the Alternative Theory (Of course I understand that in practice it is and very obviously that is the case in practice at this Forum).

Real Plane Theory always struck me as far fetched and thus somewhat fringe: kind of like the stories such as "Three Headed Alligator Boy Born. Anxious Mother Claims Elvis Is Father!" that one glances at in the Tabloids at the checkout counter.

IMHO: In a sane world, No Plane Theory would undoubtedly be the Primary Theory as it is the most plausible.

So there you have my argument guys. I guess I'm saying Real Plane Theory is for kids.

Debate me (don't hate me) on this one, please

Nobody has been able to prove that there were not hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the planes hit the towers. Where are the eyewitnesses who say that there were no planes? I don't mean people who said they did not see a plane. I want people who saw the explosion but said there was no plane.

Is there any footage that shows the impact with no plane present? Sorry if these are dumb questions.

Yes, FfG, most of us are familiar with the anomalies, and we agree there are anomalies. Please spare us comparisons with Santa Clause. We're not children here. We are a community born out of the chaos of the old LCF (now a ghost ship of cyberspace). Civil discussion can be fruitful, conflict -- and insults to our intelligence -- are likely not.

For efficiency we ask that people try to keep their topics in the correct forums, and divide up their commentary effictively. For example, had you stuck, in this thread, to introducing yourself and where you were coming from, this thread would have remained in the Welcome Forum. But when a discussion begins to evolve that can very quickly become a topical discussion, it has to go into the appropriate forum.

I also prefer that we keep separate meta-content questions -- such as why certain forums are named as they are -- separate from the content itself. This post of mine is itself a meta-content post and, as such, interrupts the discussion of the NPT. If need be, I will split up a thread so that the content of the thread stays on target. In this instance, for example, I would prefer one thread that is a "welcome," one that is a meta-content thread (why certain things are the way they are) and a separate thread discussing your evidence. That way each can be focused on rather than mixing it all togther.

Just FYI, the forum designation "Alternative Theories" is a hold over from the old LCF days. We understand that some find it diminutive, I for one, do not. Perhaps we need to reconsider the designation -- but, you see already -- this is separate discussion from the NPT itself.

hmm[QUOTE]

Well I can't seem to figure out how to use your options here. The quote thing didn't work right.

Excuse me while I address this technical difficulty.

I will be right back

Well I don't have the QUOTE function down yet but I managed to work out the Hyperlink one. It seems you designed this site with people who are used to flying Boeings in mind. A little stressful for little old me who only rides a bicycle. Oh well

Oceans Flow, You wrote:

"Nobody has been able to prove that there were not hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the planes hit the towers. Where are the eyewitnesses who say that there were no planes? I don't mean people who said they did not see a plane. I want people who saw the explosion but said there was no plane.

Is there any footage that shows the impact with no plane present? Sorry if these are dumb questions."

Here is a link to a piece I put together for PI that addresses your concerns. Check out the credibility of Veteran New York Daily News Photographer Handschuh, who was underneath the impact zone looking up at the Tower, prior, during and after the impact and saw no plane yet heard what any experienced observer will know is a missile: a great witness.

Theoharis who was up in an Eye in the Sky chopper, flying high above the Towers with an unhindered view of the clear late summer sky all the way to the horizon. She was observing the Towers prior, during and after and saw no plane, and furthermore captured no plane on camera, at least none that was visible to the Anchor who was watching the live feed. The Pilot saw no plane either, you guys should note the relevance of that.

Dick Oliver, the go to guy on the street, a veteran reporter, argues on air with his Anchor, just after the second impact, that they (i.e. the diligent 4th Estate) shouldn't be ruling out missiles because that is what the people on the ground at WTC are telling him they think they saw.

Oliver gets lidded by the Anchor. Great Evidence not only of No Planes but of on the spot Media Cover Up courtesy of the Man In The Studio!

Anyway, like I say, check it out:

Credible Eye Witnesses Bear testimony To No Planes

Oceans Flow, I'm kind of half teasing with you guys about Real Planes being kid's stuff. I mean in retrospect I think it is, but I was confused about this business too for a while. I knew that planes couldn't melt into buildings and was trying to work out all kinds of rationales for this impossibility.

e.g. Maybe the planes atomized, which the perps planned on happening, and they rigged up an explosion to coincide so it gave the illusion of a plane going clean into the building etc.

And before someone picks up that scenario and runs with it, it ain't plausible! Planes don't atomize against latticed targets - They shred!

I drove myself into the ground until I threw in the towel and admitted the obvious, much as I didn't want to. But I had to grow up and face facts.

I realized that this Operation was done by some pretty nasty people with a great deal of power and zero conscience.

They are powerful enough to be able to sponsor an army of friendly witnesses and send them all out in force and ready to spin.

They are going to lid any information that they dont want through coercion, bribery or just plain old "enforcement."

And please don't be naive and say but that many people, someone would talk. Anyone who wants his testicles to remain attached will not talk, believe me. Fear is the factor!

Quite Frankly we are lucky any impeachment evidence is left after what must have been a pretty thorough sweep. Luck is a genuine force though and I am grateful for such as what we've had.

So do look through the evidence I've put together in the link, watch the video and listen to the audio samples. Hopefully you'll start getting the picture too.

Painter (Hi by the way ) you wrote:

"Please spare us comparisons with Santa Clause. We're not children here."

Apart from believing that the Santa Claus metaphor is directly valid - I am not a child either, BELIEVE me!

Relegating the scientifically valid NPT to the Pilots For Truth Pre K just doesn't seem respectful to me. Not in any way. I am tolerating it but it sure doesn't feel good.

I have many decades of valuable experience behind me and have put many years of research into understanding this obscure but most relevant event.

I don't see why the playing ground should not be level. But I accept that it's your (PFT's) playing ground and only hope you give serious consideration to my genuine concern.

Until one person, and there hasn't been one, can furnish me with a scientifically plausible hypothesis for why the alleged planes behaved the way they did, I cannot accept that the Real Plane Theory is scientific and good research has to be IMO.

For sure I can come up with a solid and scientifically plausible hypothesis for why the planes aren't real. Not that there's any need for a mere hypothesis. The data is in. Steel trumps Aluminum for strength and resilience against deformation many times over. The behavior of aluminum in conflict with steel is well known and well established after decades of experiment.

And this is crucial:

Please don't hold on to some kind of misguided notion that it was the speed of the planes that somehow turned light construction airframes into Penetrating Missiles able to to slice clean through steel without structural failure or visible deceleration.

Here's a question for all the pilot's here, is the effect of a crash worse for a plane or better if it's going fast!

If a pilot was headed towards a building and couldn't avoid collision would he apply the breaks or speed up in the hope of going Penetrator?

To use the quote or other features, push the button (you will see a star when you push it) and then push the button again when you're done quoting.

And welcome to the forums. You'll be seeing alot of me.

This is the main reason I continue to entertain the notion that a Boeing or anything like a Boeing didn't strike the south tower. A mack truck hitting a Toyota at X-mph is the same (in terms of what gets damaged and how much) is equivilant to a Toyota hitting a mack truck at X-mph. At higher speeds more damage gets done to each, but/and the Toyota looses every time. I am no physicist but I did well in the subject and I know this property of collision mechanics to be true. The idea that because the plane was going 500 mph the wings would be able to cut through steel beams, while it SEEMS like it could be true, is most probably not. So I have a problem with the idea that a Boeing jet could fly into the tower and not rain at least some part of it's wings and tail section onto the street below. That is a big problem for me.

But, nearly everything else I have seen that promotes NPT or TV-Fakery premises is either fishy, unconfirmable or downright deceptive (... and they span the whole gammit). That of course brings up the subject of disinfo, which I won't go into.

Enough about that - I want to stress that because NPT threads are confined to the Alternative Theories forum that does not mean that there is an "accepted theory" that get's posted in the Lobby in it's place. Look in the lobby, no one is posting any threads in there trying to prove that there WERE planes, and if they did they would be most likely be quickly moved to this forum. WE DON'T KNOW YET how they did it - we suspect, we analyse, we talk and argue in here and try to work it out while keeping the good will between all of the members, who hold each other in respect and yet don't necessarily agree on this controversial point yet, intact. That point is probably what I most concern myself with, since I do believe that all the "water-muddying" is designed to keep people fighting and arguing. And given that there is so much mud in the water, it pleases me greatly to see that these discussions can progress without one side faulting the other for believing or disbelieving one thing or another. I think this is very important.

There are a lot of smart people here, and you can be sure that no evidence that can be backed up or speaks for itself which supports any particular hypothesis will be shot down with personal attacks or an onslaught on the messenger (as opposed to the message) here, at least not by any of the members that have been here for any length of time, and not by any trolls "for long', if you get my drift. Pilots' places high value on "proof" and logical reasoning, and to me, (maybe the admin here that is most leaning toward some sort of "NPT" scenario at this time - later I'll get your opinion on what I think of this) , that makes this a paradise. The backside of that is that these discussions have a place allocated for them. Do not take the title "alternative theories" to be derogatory - it just means that the subject is still controversial. That's the way it works here, and it can't work any other way until there is solid proof of one hypothesis or the other.

You might be aware, a year ago the big discussion around numerous sites was, did a Boeing really hit the Pentagon or not. Rob and a small team of researchers here got their hands on the Fl. 77 black box data from the NTSB and established some things that cannot be disputed - no theories were forwarded, but the evidence spoke for itself and the days when respected truthers argued over how the light poles got knocked down are over ... happily.

Lastly, I just want to say I was very impressed with and enjoyed reading your posts over at PI, and am so glad you took the time to come over and check us out.

And, Welcome

(By the way, all of the buttons place tags at the end of what you are writing, not where your cursor is. I seldom use them, I just type [....] and then [/....] at the end of what I am trying to put in quotes or post as an image or whatever - pretty easy, but I did notice that the PI buttons work a little differently...)

Im new here and not educated as well as some here. IMO it doesnt matter if there was a plane or not. If we are right (truther) we need as many people to "get it" as possible. EVEN IF you had concrete evidence of no planes... I think it would only hurt the chance of getting some people to see what really happened that day. Its one of those things "seeing is believing" everyone watched the planes fly into the buildings. We can show those same people proof, PROOF, that something wasnt right that day and they still dont see it. If you go to throwing "no planes" in there, I think it becomes impossible to open anyones eyes. If we cant open enough eyes we will NEVER know what really happened that day. IMHO our position now should be to make as many people as possible want a real investigation. Then we will (possibly) know everything.

Welcome.

Maybe I am getting cynical but why is it that the people who claim "the whole truth is the most important thing" always seem to support NPT and if you dig a bit deeper, they are often fond of the beam weapon as well? Why do these same people feel the need to sometimes wander the forums of the internet promoting their theories? Why do these self same people often whine about the lack of free speech at Forum X or Forum Y?

Just wondering .......

Hi everyone,


Despite FFG's misstep, in using the Santa Claus analogy, I don't think he meant to be condescending. I can well understand why you guys would feel that he was however. I believe he was going into background, because he as am I, are so used to being dismissed as "fringe NPTers", and I think he was setting the ground for another point to be made later.

Please you guys. I have been so hoping that FFG would come here and offer his perspective. He really did a great job over on PI, and I am sure he will prove to be very thought provoking here also.

So would one of you good people with administrative powers, please correct FFg's inability to quote others here. It seem the quote button, is not working for for FFG, much as it has not worked for jrnsr.

Please you guys.

Natasha

By the way FFG, please feel free to drop by my thread Deliberate Misrepresentation of Evidence. sometime. It goes a bit deeper than just BSreg Fred.

OK - What constitutes proof here? (Genuine Question)

I am so not going to be able to hook up a boeing vs. steel frame scraper demo for you all.

Natasha, I have no idea why FfG can't use the quote buttons -

I suspect he hits the button and it appears below his text and may not see it. In that case you then have to move the cursor down and past the tag, paste, and then hit quote again.

FfG and I worked very hard to bring people to their senses at PI forum (FfG did more of the work) regarding a specific piece of disinfo - we mostly succeeded I think. I think FfG probably just didn't expect that the members here would be different that those on numerous other sites. Please give him the benefit of the doubt - we need posters of this caliber, regardless of their persuasion regarding NPT.

@ FfG: This place is different. (in a good way )

Hi there,

Welcome FFG. I am so glad you are here. Please go to the top of the page and check your inbox. I just PM'd you.

Thank you.

You don't need proof to discuss something or make a case or post an article or a video or anything - I don't have any "proof" either. But as long as the subject is controversial it lives here.

Not a big deal, let's drop the subject - we all get it, I assume.

As a favor to Natasha...

Factfinder General, do you see the "QUOTE" button on the top right hand corner of every post?

If so, that's how you quote another member's post inside of one of your own. Once you hit that, you should get a posting window. To see the other member's post you are quoting, you'll have to scroll down to just beneath your blank posting window.

Reply to the quote and then hit the "Add Reply" button. You apparently have this one down.

The "QUOTE" button works for everyone else, so it works for you. It's not something we can turn on or off by member. If you're quoting just a portion of another member's post or if you want to put something in a quote box, you have to hit the "QUOTE" button first. You'll get this [QUOTE*] (without the asterisk) at where ever the bottom of your typing is in your post window (assuming you've opened your post window). That's when you copy what you want by right clicking and hitting the "paste" option in the drop down window, OR you can just hit CTRL V. To close the quote box, hit the QUOTE button and you'll see a [/QUOTE*] (again, no asterisk), which should close the quote box.

If I'm boring you with basic stuff you already know, my apologies. You can't highlight text in your post window and then hit the QUOTE button here if you want to put something in a quote box. If the text is already there, the [QUOTE*] will show up at the bottom of your post. You can do a cut and then copy in the front of your quote, or you can simply type out [quote*] (no asterisk) at the beginning and close it with [/quote*] (no *) at the end.

Yes, you aggravated me with your condescending post earlier today. Natasha vouching for you is prompting me to have a little patience with you. Operative word being "little." Coming in here with your guns "a blazin" ain't the best way to win friends and influence people. And if you want people to read your posts, try not to go on so damned long, and don't be condescending.

Hope this helps.

One bona fide chopper reporter with her pilot, sitting in her chopper, with a sweeping panoramic view of the Manhattan sky and facing the alleged planes direction of travel, the chopper's camera trained on the towers, feeding a down shot of WTC live to a New York News Channel, and all this pre, during and post WTC2 impact and:

Zero, Zilch, Niente, No Plane!

I don't care how many people say they saw a plane, it doesn't matter how many people offer flaky video tape of a plane as evidence, the FACTS above are totally irreconcilable with anything other than there being NO PLANE.

This, my friends, is what is called solid proof.

The only thing that would allow for the possibility of a plane is if the facts in question were false. They are not.

In Firefox, the "quote" tag and other tags appear at the end of text. What i mean by that is if you type some text and then try to insert a "quote" tag in the middle, it will actually appear at the end of all the text. Not sure if it's a Firefox bug or Invisionfree bug, but that's what happens.

Hi Sanders,

Good to see you this day.

Oh yes. I read, with rapt attention, both of your fine offerings at PI. I could not post however, because I was banned there a few weeks ago. oopsie! I made a rather bad first impression. Having just been banned from Killtown's and Fred's hangout, I posted being still a bit upset, and I had not thought out my postings before hand. My bad.

The quote function works perfectly for me, and I rather doubt FFG would be unable to figure it out. Could it be though, that he and jnsr, are both using a non standard browser or something?

FFG please check you inbox at the top of the page.

Thanks.

Thank you Cary.

You are very dear.

What was irrelevant about my Santa Claus metaphor?

Chubby Men in Red Outfits can not breeze down people's chimneys. Chubby Boeings in their Aluminum Outfits can not breeze into steel frame buildings.

It is perfectly straight forward. We are being fooled like little children. Can you really not see this?

Guys, all due respect here but many of you have flown these planes.

You are aware of their construction.

You are aware of how important it is for you to avoid hitting ANYTHING when you are flying: even a bird.

You know that a plane is not a missile.

You know that every plane that ever existed has structurally failed when pitted against a substantial obstacle AT POINT OF CONTACT apart from all four of the so called 911 planes!

What is your reason for believing in Real Plane Theory if not what I suggested in my Santa Claus post? (Serious Question)

OH NO! Not again. Please dear God not again.

MEN!


Some men, some times, anyway.

Please please please.

Please take a breath FFG. Please read my PM to you, please, and actually bother to reply.

I have my moments Natasha.

FfG,

Now you're starting to really get on my nerves. Loose the Santa Claus analogy or I'll "loose" you. It's insulting and condescending. IF you're trying to get banned, do it again. I'll be happy to oblige. Just because you believe in the NPT doesn't mean the rest of us are children believing in fables. You have some solid evidence, such as physics equations which prove something, some PhD's analysis, etc., then post it. Funny thing is Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth won't go near the NPT stuff. Gee, you'd think they would be all over that like a duck on June bug. But THEY AREN'T.

Like your avatar, you're like a bulldog on a spare tire with this thing. I'd throttle back if I was you. That is, unless you're trying to get banned. Post your evidence. Leave the condescending bullshit at the door. Sanders and Natasha both have a positive assessment of you. That won't last very long with more condescending posts from you.

Savvy?

BTW: I will affirm that:

I have no agenda.

I am under no orders.

I am selling no wares.

I am meaning no harm.

I am trying to spread awareness of what really happened on 911

I am focussing on the initiating event because it is the primary circumstance

The deception of 911 is just one of many ongoing deceptions

It saddens me greatly to see my fellow human beings taken for fools

Thank you Cary. Please be patient. He is not waiting long enough before posting I believe.

Thanks again dear Cary.

Cary, it is possible you are taking umbrage without due cause. it is impossible to assess my demeanor over cyberspace. It is possible we are both viewing this exchange in light of our past bad experiences.

I spent five hours composing what I felt was a heartfelt post about my childhood and how it reflects on the now and did not anticipate the response that it got from you.

I am sorry if it offended. Although it was intended to be thought provoking it was not intended to be anger provoking.

I was hoping that it may strike a chord and not a bad one. I was hoping it would make people realise what is going on.

Accept my apologies, please.

And do allow me to throttle back a bit as you say.



Tell me though honestly, what you have to say in regards to the Theoharis Chopper 4 Evidence? If and when as you see fit of course.

This is nonsense.

FfG, please just stop trying to sell anyone on anything at this point, please take a few days at least to get to know us. Somehow you got off on the wrong foot and I want to fix it, because you are a smart guy/gal who I know to deal directly with facts and evidence that either backs up or repudiates whatever it is that is being talked about. That, to me, especially regarding this subject, is very refreshing and I would like you to be able to engage with me and these bright people - about MANY subjects.

In Japan we say, "mottainai" - not easily translatable, but essentially it means, what a shame if it didn't come to pass for some stupid reason.

To all my friends here @ Pilots', This is me, Sanders, asking everyone, to please back up, understand FfG's anxiousness, wariness of anti-NPT sentiment etc. ... and let this go for a day and let's just start over from square one. FfG has a lot to offer.

please

OK Natasha, Cary et al are correct. I hope we can take a moment to calm things down. Yes I am tenacious by character, that has served me well in my research and not so well in my argument of it.

We can only live and learn and as I said a post or two back, I look forward to mutual revelations here. Growth, forward movement, gaining in understanding, it is what I find most exciting about life.

Allow an old, really quite old, dog to learn a few new tricks, here if you will.

At some point I would like some serious consideration of the points I have raised here (and a focus away from the dust that was being raised would be favorite )

Leaving you for a while so the dust may settle, and please consider addressing some of the genuine questions I raised.

I would sincerely love to know what you guys are thinking, Ffg.

P.S. Just caught a glimpse of Sanders' post, and Natasha is right about there being a crossing of purpose (and subsequent misunderstanding) due to transmission differences. It really would be a shame if an opportunity was missed here due to misunderstandings, as Sanders so adroitly points out.

I hope to experience much benefit here. Planes are a primary issue for 911 truth and it is thus that Pilots for Truth is such an incredible blessing for the truth movement.

It is why, after much consideration, I decided to mosey on over (and boy did I ever mosey! Sheesh! Sorry once again for the misstep one and all)

I don't know jack sh*t about it other than your claim that there was no plane. You got anything to back that up? If so, please post it for all to see.

Again, Natasha and Sanders are vouching for you. I respect that, especially my pal Sanders. Nothing against Natasha, and I respect her presence here for the short time she's been here. I like her style so to speak.

But you FfG, your style is a bit abrasive. At least so far. So, I'll throttle back as well, given Sanders and Natasha's support. Just lose the Santa Claus commentary, and other condescending remarks.

So apology accepted. Post your evidence already.

This is what i suggest FFG. I've asked many times for the NPT/TVF supporters to make a single thread and show their hard-core, undebunkable evidence and let us take a look at it. It's been weeks and months and my request still remains unanswered. I believe that to be that they know they don't have anything that is solid evidence and that is why nobody has stepped up to the plate.

Will you step up to the plate FFG? Make a single thread with what you believe to be undeniable, undebunkable, hard-core facts concerning no-planes and/or tv fakery and let us look at it.

BoneZ, you write:

"Will you step up to the plate FFG? Make a single thread with what you believe to be undeniable, undebunkable, hard-core facts concerning no-planes and/or tv fakery and let us look at it."

This I will gladly do. Allow me the necessary time to prepare everything and I will return with the presentation you are requesting.

Thank you one and all, and a special thank you to Cary whose acceptance of my apology means a great deal to me.



BTW: I am a No Planer and definitely not one of Fred and company's TV Fakery group. IMO: the only thing that is fake about the videos is what I see as a Computer Graphic Model plane that has been composited into the various examples of impact footage that were taken that day.

Your "theory" cannot explain how that "faked" image of a plane came to be on home videos/pictures. If i shot a video and saw one thing, then played it back and it was not what i saw, i'd be wondering how that got onto my tape.

I await your presentation.

moved down stream

BoneZ, you wrote:

"Your "theory" cannot explain how that "faked" image of a plane came to be on home videos/pictures. If i shot a video and saw one thing, then played it back and it was not what i saw, i'd be wondering how that got onto my tape."

BoneZ, If NPT is correct then to reconcile with the theory the Videographers had to have been working in collusion with the compositors, in a joint effort. In this respect they were only masquerading as home videos and like most everything else on that day not exactly what they seemed. Is there evidence of such collusion, I believe so.

Some of the least involved compositing work involving profile shots and excluding the need for simulating projectile entry, i.e. all the so called Live shots, were literally turned around in what i estimate as 15 or so seconds. This would be accommodated within the broadcast delay that is estimated to have been operable on that day.

Some of the other compositing work would had to have been turned around in the space of an hour for it to appear feasible that it was raw, i.e. hot of the press, footage. Though it should be noted that it wasn't unduly involved work or even that high in quality as far as compositing goes.

Some videos had a slower turnaround deadline and show more care in their production.

Does that clarify?

No. Stop talking and post some EVIDENCE, as in some expert with credentials analysis that backs up your claims. Otherwise, it's just you talking.

I believe the impact videos are the place to start, and the way to do that, is to prove with science, that the impact videos can not possibly depict actual events.

Questions of, exactly how they faked the impact vids, should be addressed both separately and at a later time.

Please.

Let us begin .... at the beginning.

So everybody who took home video somehow got involved in the coverup? One might think that at least one person would come forward with their undoctored private footage.

Also, everybody keeps talking about a video delay. But that doesn't explain how the anchors and reporters on the scene could carry on their real time conversations. For instance, the Charlie Gibson footage in which he says he saw a plane while the reporter says he did not. If the video feed had been delayed they could not have had that conversation because they would have been in two different timelines.

Back up the truck a little.

If you are starting from the point that a commercial plane could not have entered the tower in that way, firstly you need to rule out the possibility that it was a modified plane and that there was some "explosive event" to enable said plane to "slide" into the tower.

After all, having caused every person, camera and video-camera to look at a particular place, how do you then control the photos and footage? Or is the whole population of New York in on the job as well?

I've been working and haven't had time to participate but just read through the thread. I wish I hadn't lost my hour long first reply to FfG -- which might have helped avert what is happening here.

1) Yes, lets have a new thread that presents the best evidence you have. (I define "proof" as a reasonable conclusion drawn from solid reasoning and evidence.)

2) Lets keep that thread free from cross talk about how to use posting functions (if you don't understand something either PM an admin or start a thread in the lounge and people will be happy to reply), how they faked the video, meta-commentary on what a forum should be called, etc. Keep it simple evidence to be discussed on its face. DON'T JAM TOO MANY DIFFERENT IDEAS IN ONE POST. One idea per post is best and allows people to use the quote feature to address THAT specific idea.

3) FfG, I really encourage you to get to know us a bit. Look at the work we've done (as I've linked in the post above in this thread). Browse the forums. Get to know people here. This is a community -- actually more like a family. We welcome new people so long as they are respectful and get to know us on a bit more personal level than you might be used to at other forums. We're just folk.

4) (Which should go without saying) Lets just approach this as logically and cleanly as possible. No need for personal attacks or innuendo. We're all adults here and we've learned how to discuss things and look at things from many different angles. All of us know how to change our opinions regarding what 'is' and 'is not' real given sufficient, reasonable evidence that does not over-reach its conclusion.

Thank you all.

I'll have to agree with Cary. We'll await your presentation in a separate thread.