No Plane Theory?

My head is still spinning from watching this video, albeit only half way through....

Warning: explicit lyrics (for certain), which is why I will only link the video.

www.youtube.com...

Other than the music sensationalizing it (only partly, the music also lends incalculable savagery) , the video is quite stirring in the sense that something hidden was afoot.

Originally posted by pluckynoonez
My head is still spinning from watching this video, albeit only half way through....

Warning: explicit lyrics (for certain), which is why I will only link the video.

www.youtube.com...

Other than the music sensationalizing it (only partly, the music also lends incalculable savagery) , the video is quite stirring in the sense that something hidden was afoot.

Im a no-planer

Although you might get booed for that from a few people around here..

IMO - the people that boo you for the NPT are misinformed or intentional disinformation

reply to post by GreenBicMan


The video is new, at least the posting (it says "mash"), but the video is older, taken from some documentary. Does anyone know which one? For some reason I think it is called In Plane Sight but I can't be sure.

Google...drat.

Edit: it's like you have a question and then google (attached to your brain) rears its ugly head.

[edit on 18-3-2009 by pluckynoonez]

Still haven't found out if it is, but the guy hosting this video has o'ton of videos

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 18-3-2009 by pluckynoonez]

reply to post by pluckynoonez


TV fakery has been debunked for some time:

arabesque911.blogspot.com...

Simple research and real physics automatically cancel out anything the no-planers peddle.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by pluckynoonez

 

TV fakery has been debunked for some time:

arabesque911.blogspot.com...

I think that is an overstatement.

The Arabesque site that you link to is a good site from what I have seen of it, specifically the video you link to above, but while Arabesque's video raises questions about points made in September Clues and provides possible explanations for events considered suspicious by September Clues, I think it falls short of ruling out video fakery on 9/11.

The most important point Arabesque makes, for me, is that September Clues edits Theresa Renaud's eyewitness testamony from Chelsea, to remove her explanation of how she can see the WTC from so far away.

Removing that part of her statement to Bryant Gumbel is a serious breach of faith with people trying to take September Clues seriously. Why was it done? Arabesque says it was an attempt to deceive on the part of September Clues. Was it? If so, it is a feeble attempt, easily refuted. I'm more inclined to see it as an error of enthusiasm, overstating a case in the mistaken opinion that the facts distorted are not that germain to the argument. My two cents worth.

The other important point made on the Arabesque site is a refutation of September Clues "nose in, nose out" pixel comparison. The implication being that the so called "nose out" impression is not an example of video fakery and is just smoke from the impact.

September Clues "nose out" pixel comparison may be invalid, but the "nose out" impression created in more than one video, noticed even by main stream commentators is troubling.

One of the axioms of people who think there was video trickery on 9/11 is that it would be impossible for the nose of a plane impacting the WTC to make it all the way through the building without being crushed.

In more than one video it appears as if a fair length of the fuselage emerges from the South Tower after crashing through the building. This is regarded as an impossibility, hence accusations of video trickery.



Arabesque has certainly made valid objections to the methods of September Clues but I don't think they have done away with the notion that video trickery may have been employed on 9/11.

Simple research and real physics automatically cancel out anything the no-planers peddle.

I think this is another overstatement.

Here is an interview with the cameraman who took the video footage analyzed by September Clues with regard to the appearance of the nose of the aircraft emerging from the tower after impact. He himself is not so categorical in his attitude to the events of the day and believes that his footage does record the nose of the aircraft emerging from the building.

He thinks it is not impossible for the nose of the aircraft to have survived a passage through the building. Many would disagree with him.



The last video selection is from the BBC, the same broadcaster that announced the collapse of WTC7 twenty minutes before it happened. Look at their footage of the "nose out".

The video is hard to stop at the precise moment in question using the second timer, but if you pause the video when the announcer says the word "enormity", pushing the button as he says the syllable "norm" you will see quite an extension of fuselage emerging from the building. Look at the shadow on the wall under the emerging fuselage. You will see a long straight shadow.



In other videos of the impact, there is a big cloud of flame around the building but there is no large section of fuselage falling down out of this cloud of flame to crash to the ground below. This is a problem that suggests video fakery to me.

Arabesque has not debunked the notion of video fakery in my view.


[edit on 19-3-2009 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by pluckynoonez


Hey plucky!
Excellent vid, the tunes made it for me.
Ive heard arguments for the no planers, and actually listened with an open mind.
This made i even easier, being it had the little monday night football play by play telestrator.
Thanks for posting this.
And by the way that guy, or girls channel "slave storm" had alot odf other cool stuff on it.
Star and flag, my surrogate parent!

reply to post by ipsedixit


You're going to get different views from different camera angles. The nose-out was neither a real nose, nor a fake nose. The noses are two totally different shapes and sizes:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3c29f00c94c6.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f1744371cf2d.jpg[/atsimg]

And there was no exit hole:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fb3953e10f0c.jpg[/atsimg]

The nose-in/nose-out was just unresearched disinformation by a known disinfo artist. Took me all of 30 seconds to see that neither nose was the same. Yet the disinfo artist that originally made this comparison, peddled it as fact that they were both the same noses and didn't even compare them.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


I gotta say, you do a great job investigating and showing your proofs.
One of the few that dont just hit and run, im right, youre wrong.
I dont think ive ever seen these pics before, thanks for comin by this thread.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
And there was no exit hole: . . .

The nose-in/nose-out was just unresearched disinformation by a known disinfo artist. Took me all of 30 seconds to see that neither nose was the same. Yet the disinfo artist that originally made this comparison, peddled it as fact that they were both the same noses and didn't even compare them.

I don't know if the person/persons who made September Clues are known disinformation artists, but I think you and Arabesque make valid criticisims of September Clues.

What do you think of the third video that I embedded, especially if, as you have so ably shown, there is no exit hole?

Plucky, im pretty sure thes are clips from September clues.
More stuff I havent seen, but just found it.
I may be wrong, but it resembles alot of the beginning.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I don't know if the person/persons who made September Clues are known disinformation artists

Well, I do. The person goes by the name of "socialservice". He also has a few other names, but I did a complete debunk of his video at a forum. He came to that forum to try to debate me. He failed. He brought many of his followers there to debate and they all failed as well.

See, when you debunk their disinfo, all they have left is to attack you. All of them got themselves banned from the forum because they had no "evidence" left to debate and they just attacked. Much like they do here at this forum. You can see in any of the no-plane threads that when I debunk their junk, they start attacking. They really have nothing else left to do.

As far as the third video, I don't know what you want me to say. A plane impacted the south tower.

One other thing to note about the Nose in nose out claim,

Take a look at where that alleged nose is...

If the nose of the "CGI" plane was visible the right wing would also have been sticking out of the side of the tower as a "ghost"

This means that they claim the forgers remembered to remove the wing tip but not the nose.

Has anyone even bothered to ask all the major networks that were covering 9/11 for a copy of their original camera recordings?

Making all these claims of no planes or bombs or other BS from fuzzy compressed youtube videos and captures is of in itself...BS.

Obviously something occured that day, brought two major structures down and a 3rd later. People died that day that should not have. It all started the 8 year war drum beat of war on terrorism and brought upon this country the shreadding of our constitutional rights and has created the economic collapse we are going through today.

And people want to still nit pick at a plane/no-plane nonsense????

Does it even matter anymore if it was a plane, a drone, a laser or phaser?

Does that change anything, or would it change anything today and for tomorrow?

Isnt it time for this country to move forward and stop being stuck in the past while current issues get ignored and continue to grow worse?

Lets fix this economy, lets put people back to work, lets strengthen our borders, lets recreate the industrial might this country once had, and lets most of all...let those people who died that day..rest in peace.



Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by RFBurns
Isnt it time for this country to move forward and stop being stuck in the past while current issues get ignored and continue to grow worse?

In case you hadn't noticed, most everything that is happening today is a direct result of 9/11. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent on illegal wars because of 9/11. Do you have any idea what that kind of money could've done right here at home?

Originally posted by RFBurns
let those people who died that day..rest in peace.

The 9/11 truth movement was started by the families of the deceased. A good majority of those families are very active in the 9/11 truth movement. The deceased will never rest, and neither will the 9/11 truth movement, until the real perps who carried out 9/11 are brought to justice and are sitting in prison.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by pluckynoonez

 

TV fakery has been debunked for some time:
arabesque911.blogspot.com...

and that was then debunked by me back in january here...
davidicke.com...

sorry

oh, and your hero guru and his champion doc gets another debunking
starting @ 30:25m here
video.google.com...

take your pick.

now please stop using old and debunked material to support your claims as it doesn't help your case very much.

i almost feel embarrassed for you.

Simple research and real physics automatically cancel out anything the no-planers peddle.

except i've seen no research, physics that are real, facts or real evidence whatsoever thats done that.

Originally posted by RFBurns
Lets fix this economy, lets put people back to work, lets strengthen our borders, lets recreate the industrial might this country once had, and lets most of all...let those people who died that day..rest in peace.
Cheers!!!!

"Our" role has already been chosen for us. "Lets" join Obama's brown shirts and create the comprehensive security state that the previous administration started.

On topic, I probably should point out that I am not a no planer. I also don't think that every example of video fakery pointed out since 9/11 is really video fakery. To me some of the video looks fake. My personal position is to wonder if there is something about the impacts themselves, planted explosives, rockets, whatever, that is being concealed by faked video.

Arabesque, to my knowledge has not addressed the full range of video thought to be questionable. I don't think we are done with the topic of faked video yet.

Having said that, of course we need to keep our eyes on the political ball and do what we can to prevent another Iraq and address all sorts of other political issues. My two cents worth.

[edit on 20-3-2009 by ipsedixit]

Thank you all for responding. I did not know where that original footage came from, what documentary, but with all of your help I will now go and check that out.

The video I posted, with the heavy metal music, omits the dialogue, and is sped-up (I think) so the it hard to follow.

The most damning piece of information, in my estimation, is the bridge in the background, how much it moves and how close it is. That is strange...what does everyone else think?

(I am currently watching In Plane Sight on youtube because I thought it was the original footage for the aforementioned video. So far it is pretty good; here is the link for that if anyone is interested www.youtube.com... .)

Originally posted by pluckynoonez
(I am currently watching In Plane Sight

While we're on the subject of disinfo (no-planes), you should be aware that the "pod" in "In Plane Sight" is also disinfo and has been debunked for many years here:

www.questionsquestions.net...