It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rethinkng the NPT (oh no! not again!)

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



_BoneZ_... I have so much to say and so much I will bite my tongue on. I am holding on to the best for our ATS debate.

First of all I would request an end to the Ad hominem attacks. Quit calling me a dis info agent. By your own standards you do not accept the fact the planes were involved in two events out of four. THIS BY DEFINITION MAKES YOU A NO PLANER TOO! Albeit a half way one but still since you do not believe in two planes you do not believe in two planes...IE NO PLANES...at least in one instance or more.



Originally posted by titorite
Now I don't think every film is edited. Some films do show an explosion with no plane in the shot.

So your answer would be "yes", every film showing a plane is fake. Gotcha.



Your twisting my words. Your replying to me as if you have the 25 rules of disinformation right next to your keyboard. I Clearly and explicitly wrote as quoted above that I do not think every video is a fake...and you do the middle school thing and turn right around and say "Yes you do" despite what I have written.

I will write it again.

I do not think EVERY video is a fake.

Hell, I could be wrong about the whole hologram thing too. I do not think so but I have an open mind. That means if new information that lends credence to the theory is presented I will evaluate it logicaly rather than approaching it with toilet math attempting to prove what I believe in spite of the evidence in front of me.

The photo a few posts above it two frames of film.

One frame contains the flash of impact with the detention point above in the bullseye. Seventh has provided us an excellent photo reference.

The plane impacts at the flash point BUT the explosion is obviously well above the impact point. DIRECTLY in the corner to help the building fall in the manner we all viewed. This was a very well coordinated and controlled demolition and propaganda attack.

You want to say its logical because math says so but you can not provide the equations.

I, however, will provide the ROUGH concepts needed for extrapolation.

The plane was flying at a down slope into a a metal mesh with a solid concrete core at so many mile per hour.

Now why should the fuel fly up many floors to explode instead of strait or down?

Especially considering that the plane MISSED the core, its is not like the fuel could slam against the core and go in all directions including up because it was a nic by your own admission.

So how did the explosion come from several floors up when the plane hit several floors below?

Please attempt to explain that one logically with out using ad hominems.






[edit on 18-7-2009 by titorite]




posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
The first biggest problem with the NPT, before you actually get into the nitty gritty, is that is unnecessarily complicated, and nonsensical.

Lets pretend for a moment that we are the perps of 9/11, and are planning the operation. What would you choose as the vehicle of destruction: unstable, unreliable, not fully tested and understood technologies that have a high probability of not only critical failure, but exposing the conspiracy, or, would you use jetliners full of people, a tried and tested method (before 9/11, there were plenty of plane crashes in the history of aviation, and even when they did not crash into populated areas, they still caused alot of death and damage)?

For the perpetrators of 9/11, the only way that they would use untried, unproven, and not fully foolproof technology would be if the thing they were trying to imitate, which is real planes crashing into buildings, would not do the trick. And of course, we all know that real planes crashing into heavily occupied buildings will cause alot of death and destruction. Holograms or miniplanes simply do not bring on the damage and death that a jetliner going at 400-500 mph would.

So, since the people behind this thing are not idiots, nor are they insane, they would have used a more reliable, more effective means of carrying out their plan. Real planes. Which also generate the desired psychological effect.

That, to me, is the first stumbling block for the NPT. Before you even get to logistics, physical evidence, eyewitnesses, video footage, ect ect ect ect.


and heres one of many links that adequately addresses every one of those points which I have yet to see anyone refute...

www.911closeup.com...

guess you missed it. Oh well.




[edit on 18-7-2009 by Orion7911]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

First, yes, you have the airliners full of people. But then you have the possibility of making a switch in mid-air to a plane you've already prepared. That saves you the potential risk of exposure through installing Global Hawk in passenger planes. All you have to do is get the pilot to land somewhere.

And of course there are people who say the planes never took off, they weren't scheduled. I haven't done enough research on this to have an opinion but I'd rate it as low probability.

Why NOT use real planes?

The first reason that springs to mind is that it would be impossible for a skilled pilot to do it. I have to admit, it's pretty weak on its face and the guy who's pushing it is John Lear. I'm afraid that anyone who says it's easy on a flight simulator on their PC cuts no ice with me. I have no personal knowledge.

I guess if I get an answer to that question I'll get an answer as to whether John Lear is consciously part of a disinfo op.

I am suspending the idea that the technology involved in holograms wouldn't work, including all the tedious business of timing.

I guess the best reason I can come up with for not using real planes is that there are risks associated with having hunks of metal flying around at 550 knots. What if one of them had missed? What if it had hit another building which then conspicuously failed to collapse? That could have been embarrassing.

It does mean you have to have WTCs 1 and 2 prepared in a more complex manner. This is a weakness in the theory. I concede, but it's not impossible.


That, to me, is the first stumbling block for the NPT. Before you even get to logistics, physical evidence, eyewitnesses, video footage, ect ect ect ect.


I know what you mean. As I say, I'm just thinking this one through, again... and I think I'm coming back to my original position, which is that NPT doesn't work, Sometimes it's good to recosider even the implausible, though. But I can't come up with any compelling reasons not to use real planes (though I suspect that the ones that hit the towers might not have been the ones that took off, for reasons I detailed earlier).



aside from all the overwhelming evidence supporting nREALpt, I guess you missed this too:

www.911closeup.com...

and this

www.freedomdomain.com...

and this

killtown.blogspot.com...

and this

911overview.blogspot.com...

or this

covertoperations.blogspot.com...



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Promoting NPT is suicide for the truth movement. True or not.

That's why not a single 9/11 research organization supports NPT. Many have made public statements on their webpages or forums stating as such. Some have went further by banning the discussion of NPT altogether.


as if that remotely invalidates the evidence


...its irrelevant.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by titorite
Have you watched the September clues videos? If not I would highly recommend it...

Then, once people have seen "September Clues", they can watch:

"September Clues - Busted" which exposes the deception, insidious innuendo, misdirection and lies in the “September Clues” series of videos:
video.google.com...

Debunking "September Clues" - A Point-By-Point Analysis:
truthaction.org...

The Great Nose In -- Nose out Hoax:
www.youtube.com...



which have all either been addressed, refuted and debunked, or failed to prove or disprove anything whatsoever.

oh well.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
You know what I don't understand about NPT's? Is how everyone espousing this can suddenly just dismiss the AUDIO. I mean jeez, we've got multiple videos (and thus audio with it) where you can clearly hear flight 175 coming in, before it hits. I've entertained a few times the various NPT's, but nothing I have seen refutes the fact that AUDIO is heard on all the videos. And the audio is going to be extremely difficult to disprove.


the audio issue has been refuted many times including in Sept Clues.

Are you really claiming it hasn't been addressed? Or that you just haven't done enough research yet to have seen it?



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by titorite
reply to post by rich23
 


Well Rich 23, You have responded to me twice without ever giving my the chance to reply back... But I shall do so here and now.

Why should you pay attention to anything I say? Well the fact that you reply twice without me responding says that you have at lest a microdum of interest in what I have to say. And yes I misspelled Naudet. Its not like that is a common name but why hold the misspelling of an uncommon french name (My wife a Quebecer has never met any other Naudets either) as a personal indicator of my intellect?

I do not think I have been rude nor boring... But I do find offense with being told that I am using this chance to reply with "distracting nonsense".
[edit on 18-7-2009 by titorite]


And U should know its nothing more than a typical disinfo and diversionary tactic we're all aware of from those in denial, ego shock, or who haven't done enough indepth investigation which is intended to distract and intimidate truth seekers.

In other words, ignore it. Those who do indepth objective research, can see there's overwhelming evidence of fakery and nrp.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by titorite
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



_BoneZ_... I have so much to say and so much I will bite my tongue on. I am holding on to the best for our ATS debate.

First of all I would request an end to the Ad hominem attacks. Quit calling me a dis info agent. By your own standards you do not accept the fact the planes were involved in two events out of four. THIS BY DEFINITION MAKES YOU A NO PLANER TOO! Albeit a half way one but still since you do not believe in two planes you do not believe in two planes...IE NO PLANES...at least in one instance or more.



Originally posted by titorite
Now I don't think every film is edited. Some films do show an explosion with no plane in the shot.

So your answer would be "yes", every film showing a plane is fake. Gotcha.



Your twisting my words. [edit on 18-7-2009 by titorite]



thats what he does titor... its his M/O here.

I also find it funny but typical, that those debating you have evaded, ignored and refused to respond to nearly all of your line of questioning.

I'm surprised you've not continued asking why until they do.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The WTC is a different story. We have 40+ videos of the second impact and 2 of the first impact. We have a video that shows plane debris exiting the tower and killing at least one person on the ground. We have hundreds of thousands of witnesses that were outside watching the tower and not a single one has come forward to any news outlet, newspaper or any other media to claim that the TV kept showing planes, but everyone that was standing out there never saw a plane. Then there's the physical damage to the tower that is also consistent with having been struck by a large jetliner.


Originally posted by titorite
Thats why I asked if you wanted to discuss the lack of jet fuel contamination aspect...to which you have not picked up on
Most of the jet fuel burned up in the initial fireballs. And unless every piece of debris from the towers was tested, there's no way you can say there was a lack of jet fuel at the WTC. Peddling something as fact without proof = disinfo.

Originally posted by titorite
Their is also the plane melting into the building factor.
I already explained this in detail in the other thread. You either ignored it or missed it, but here it is again:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by titorite
Whether or not it was a hologram or not REAL planes flying at that speed into a solid object are not "absorbed" into the dirt nor are the "absorbed" into buildings.
Planes don't get absorbed into the ground because the ground doesn't move. Buildings like the WTC will absorb a plane because: a.) the buildings were designed to absorb the planes; b.) unlike the ground, buildings do move and break apart; c.) no-planers don't understand the physics behind how and why it happened. Which is explained in my post to you in the above link.


Keep 'em comin!


-- Debunking NPT Since 2006 --


Titor... seriously m8

All of bonez' rhetoric, claims and assertions above have repeatedly been addressed, refuted and/or debunked point by point here over and over ad naseum so many times without any subsequent response, its not even worth going over again and debating with him anymore. He cherry picks what he'll respond to and ignore whatever evidence isn't convenient for his agenda.

Its kinda like debating a blind person about what color the sky is, or trying to convince david koresh he's wasn't the messiah.



[edit on 18-7-2009 by Orion7911]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Seventh
Not saying i`m a NPT, but then again i`m not saying I am not, could do with someone explaining this though, it`s very confusing.......

It's not confusing when you understand physics, how the towers were built, and how the planes hit the towers.

We know that the first plane hit the north tower near the center and the core of the north tower stopped the plane and the jet fuel fireball was seen on one side. It was a different story with the south tower:




In the south tower, a good majority of the second plane missed the core or nicked it, but the rest of the plane went past the core crumpling up agaist the opposite wall and corner, hence the fireball seen on 2 sides of the tower.

In summary, north tower plane hit the middle, core stopped the plane. South tower plane missed or nicked the core allowing a good portion of the plane to continue past the core. Hope that was explanatory enough.



Except none of those excuses has any logical basis in the real world on 911. And the towers weren't designed to absorb such an impact... in fact they were designed to resist it.

In any case, no matter how much you'd like people to believe this is real:

img401.imageshack.us...

it just isn't. And anyone with one shred of common sense alone can see that.

But then again, for starters, one doesn't need the type of "analysis" you're talking about to see thats absolutely impossible in the real world bonez, not to mention there is NO reaction or crumpling upon impact.


[edit on 18-7-2009 by Orion7911]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by titorite
Quit calling me a dis info agent.

I've never directly called you a disinfo agent. Nice try though. And then you go all hypocritical and say I'm using the disinfo book. Nice one!




Originally posted by titorite
I Clearly and explicitly wrote as quoted above that I do not think every video is a fake

I never said that you think every video is fake. By saying what you said, you said that you didn't think the videos showing no planes were fake, leaving the videos with planes left and also therefore saying the videos with planes are fake. In effect, I was pointing out what you didn't say.



Originally posted by titorite
The plane was flying at a down slope into a a metal mesh

The plane was flying at a down slope up until the last few seconds where it leveled out.



Originally posted by titorite
with a solid concrete core

Disinformation. The cores in the towers were not concrete. That's been thoroughly debunked many places on the net including here at ATS, if I remember correctly.



Originally posted by titorite
Now why should the fuel fly up many floors to explode instead of strait or down?

The fuel didn't go up. The fireball went up. You know, heat and fire travels up not down.




Originally posted by titorite
So how did the explosion come from several floors up when the plane hit several floors below?

Heat and fire travel up.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911
And the towers weren't designed to absorb such an impact... in fact they were designed to resist it.

Les Robertson - WTC Engineer

"We designed the buildings to take the impact of the Boeing 707 hitting the building at any location."


Frank DeMartini - WTC Construction and Project Manager

"I believe the buildings could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners..."


The words "take" and "sustain" are much closer to "absorb" than to "resist".




Originally posted by Orion7911
But then again, for starters, one doesn't need the type of "analysis" you're talking about to see thats absolutely impossible in the real world bonez

I'll tell you what, Titorite and I are getting ready to have a debate in the debate forum here. After I get done with him, if you feel you can do better than him, I'll gladly debate you as well.

Any no-planer that thinks they have enough proof and evidence of NPT at the WTC, feel free to step up and set up a debate in the debate forum.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


SAVE IT FOR OUR DEBATE!

Its coming. Don't use the tactic of disappearing. If I have I too will use my one time extension to give you more time to reply.

You have time and again lumped me up as a dis info agent for being a no planer.


So your answer would be "yes", every film showing a plane is fake. Gotcha.


You said that above.

It was a twisting of my words. I did not say "YES", you did for me when it was not true thus twisting!

The Tube with in a tube was concrete and steel and you know that and so do they!

Save it.

We have a debate coming. I expect you to be a man of conviction and attend.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by titorite]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by titorite
You have time and again lumped me up as a dis info agent for being a no planer.

NPT at the WTC is disinfo and anyone who peddles it is a disinfo agent. I've never directly called you a disinfo agent. You lump yourself if you call yourself a no-planer.


Originally posted by titorite
The Tube with in a tube was concrete and steel

The only significant concrete in those towers (besides the anchors) was the 4-inches of a light concrete mix on top of the floor pans for the office floors. The "tube in a tube" was perpetuated by the government and others that had no idea of how the WTC was constructed.





[edit on 18-7-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 05:27 AM
link   
Some interesting links Orion, i`m still very much open minded as to what hit the towers that day, as far as debunking September Clues goes i`ve yet to see any research done by those for or against the OS as complex or intricate as the 17 seconds cue indicators, wether a beep or some other audio hiccup, this appears in the audio of every major news company accompanying their relative video reports.

The one aspect that really hit home to me whilst viewing your links was aluminium versus steel, very easily explained by the guy`s bug hitting windscreen theory, i`m no physics etc boffin so I am like many others gullible and vulnerable to theories stating planes travelling at that speed with weight on their side would be absorbed into the towers, as that is what they were supposedly intended to do, completely overlooking on why it had to appear like this ofc, a plane exploding on the outside aka reality and what would really happen, would not appear to be the cause of the pre meditated collapse via heat and steel weakening brought about by internal explosions.




posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
as far as debunking September Clues goes i`ve yet to see any research done by those for or against the OS as complex or intricate as the 17 seconds cue indicators, wether a beep or some other audio hiccup, this appears in the audio of every major news company accompanying their relative video reports.

You can find audio and video hiccup's in every single piece of video ever recorded in history. Further, you only think they're "cue indicators" because that's what you are led to believe by a disinfo artist.

Since you've taken the time to look at the links Orion provided, please take time to look at my links that show how the makers of "September Clues" purposely altered images, purposely deceived and lied about things in the video, all to make you believe things that are not true:

"September Clues - Busted" which exposes the deception, insidious innuendo, misdirection and lies in the “September Clues” series of videos:
video.google.com...

Debunking "September Clues" - A Point-By-Point Analysis:
truthaction.org...

The Great Nose In -- Nose out Hoax:
www.youtube.com...

By saying you agree with and/or support "September Clues" means you're also saying you're okay with video and image manipulation and you're okay with the purposeful lies and deception to make people see what's not really there.



Originally posted by Seventh
The one aspect that really hit home to me whilst viewing your links was aluminium versus steel, very easily explained by the guy`s bug hitting windscreen theory

It's only "easily explained" if you don't understand simple physics. A bug hitting a windshield doesn't come close to comparing what happened at the WTC.



Originally posted by Seventh
a plane exploding on the outside aka reality

Again, only "reality" because that's what you are led to believe, and only "reality" if you don't understand simple physics or how the WTC was constructed.

Each section of outer columns was connected together by connectors and welds. Each section of outer column was 3 storeys high and were assembled in a staggered formation:





Had the outer columns been continuous from top to bottom with no connectors, then we likely would have seen the planes crumple up against the towers and fall to the ground. But the welds and connectors were no match for a 300,000 pound plane travelling circa 500mph. That's why the planes so easily penetrated the outer columns with little resistance.

At my job, we have overhead cranes on steel I-beams and we lift sometimes between 4000-5000 pounds. That I-beam sometimes has a 4" to 6" bend in it from the weight. If you took that I-beam down, cut it up into sections, then connected it and welded it back together, how long do you think those connectors and welds would last with that much of a bend at those heavy of loads?

Another example is to take a thick tree branch and note how sturdy it is. You could beat off a bear with that thing! Now take that tree branch, break it up into sections, then tape the sections back together again. That tree branch is no longer anywhere near as sturdy as it was when it was one continuous piece. Still think you can beat off that bear now?

I hope I explained the above in a fashion that's understandable and why the no-planers have no legs to stand on and zero actual evidence of their "theories". If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Out of my deep respect for BoneZ and all he stands for i`m going to agree with him on this side of 9/11, as a lot of what I based my ideas on where related to September Clues and a few other scraps, I don`t want to be part of in house bickering especially towards someone whom is busting their balls for the truth.

My apologies, i`ll put to rest this theory as far as i`m concerned
.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
Out of my deep respect for BoneZ and all he stands for i`m going to agree with him on this side of 9/11

I appreciate the warm comments and kind words. However, we in the 9/11 truth movement have always asked others to never believe what we say and to always research what we say on their own. Everyone should look at both sides of a story and them come up with their own conclusions based on evidence from both sides and not based on what one person or a group of people says.

So, again, I'm appreciative of the comments, and since you've already seen "September Clues", I would hope that you visit the links I provided so that you can be informed of the evidence from both sides before coming to a final conclusion, instead of just believing what I say.






[edit on 19-7-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Seventh
Out of my deep respect for BoneZ and all he stands for i`m going to agree with him on this side of 9/11

I appreciate the warm comments and kind words. However, we in the 9/11 truth movement have always asked others to never believe what we say and to always research what we say on their own. Everyone should look at both sides of a story and them come up with their own conclusions based on evidence from both sides and not based on what one person or a group of people says.

So, again, I'm appreciative of the comments, and since you've already seen "September Clues", I would hope that you visit the links I provided so that you can be informed of the evidence from both sides before coming to a final conclusion, instead of just believing what I say.






[edit on 19-7-2009 by _BoneZ_]


I did watch them, what I meant was I wouldn`t start a debunking the debunking type scenario, that can go on like the proverbial forum tennis scenarios that we see day in day out
.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Well Titorite and I will be having an official debate in the debate forum, so keep an eye there as well.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join