9/11 Bloglines (08/28)

9/11 Bloglines (08/28)

Dave McGowan's rant about Mike Ruppert
NationalLedger complaints about C|Span promoting '9/11Truth'
TimesofIndia: "Osama not associated with 9/11 terror attacks’
Les Jamieson now up at Alex Jones
911blogger members plan poll to ban "no-planers"
08/27: New Paul Craig Roberts article
Stop The Lie - 1-Hour Guide to 911
reopen911.online.fr: 63% believe in 9/11 Conspiracy
CCW, Team8+: "No one NEADS to know"

i posted this comment at the

i posted this comment at the 'challenge to no-planers' blog but it ended up being only an inch wide and i suspect that no-one even noticed it so i will try it over here. if i may?
you want a little no-planes thesis without links to images and analyses, but the very claim of planes relies SOLELY on the images of alleged ua175 so to dispute the claim of planes one has to refer to the images.

reynolds claims that there are holes in the plane story:

and spooked elaborates:

prof. jones insists that there were indeed planes and cites as evidence the eyewitlesses and the video representations of ua175.

regarding the eyewitlesses:

which brings us to regarding the videos. analyses of the manner in which alleged ua175 penetrates the wtc2 reveals the absurdity of an aluminum 767 passing into the wtc2 like a baseball man sliding into home:

as if that wasn't absurd enough, individual images of alleged ua175 have been analysed and found to be flawed:

i don't see how it could be made any clearer at this point.

I can copy and paste too

It's not that there isn't an at the very least a probable case for further examination of the NPT for more expirenced truthers. (I looked at the cgi compare paper [read about half of it] spooked posted and the anomolies are intriguing)

It's the issue of running out to the world with bullhorns shouting it out.

again I ask the question

Is it not our goal to wake up the masses to government sponsored terrorism?

When I go to the history channel forum and there is already a NPT thread there, we have a problem.

We can't toss these people with such degraded reality lines into the deep end first. You have to start at the shallow end. Just getting them to accept they've been lied to about 9/11 is a tremendous task in itself. Without trying to throw on top of it holographic planes!

To reiterate, this is why discussion of this topic should be done in areas where the slanderously pernicious media and the general public don't frequent.

does that make any sense?

if it doesn't, then theres no other thing to do than to vote on it.

I disagree, OWN, sort of...

I don't think the no-planes case makes any sense, and yes, I have followed the links and looked at the sites. The idea that the planes, especially UA175 could not have penetrated the building so easily doesn't stand up to very very basic physics, as others have already pointed out. Mass times acceleration is the key here, that equals force and force breaks things--the no-planers don't ever deal with that to my satisfaction. Their video "evidence" is highly suspect as well--their basic claim, that videos are easy to fake, cuts both ways. This is especially true when you're using highly compressed and zoomed in and cropped videos. Not only does the compression process introduce flaws into the images, but the low resolution also makes it easier to fake things. If the no-planers were serious they would already have uploaded hi-res versions of everything they're showing--instead they rely on very poor quality compressed video. A lot of what they claim is evidence is also more like finding faces in cloud formations--there was one case where they point out a shape in UA 175's explosive cloud (in one frame) and claim it looks suspiciously like the tip of something. But it's just a dense bit of explosion dust from what I can tell. I think we've all learned to not dismiss something that sounds incredible--the difference is found in the evidence. Controlled demolition sounds incredible to some people but I find the evidence irrefutable. No-planers take an idea that is within the realm of the possible and treat it as if it was the gospel truth with little to know convincing evidence--and that does hurt the movement to the extent that their case is welcomed by the perps as a quick and easy way to convince those who want to believe the official story that the no-planes theory is what has all these 9/11 truth people worked up, when that couldn't be farther from the truth. Whether or not the no-planers are doing this on purpose (I tend to think so) it is unhelpful to put it mildly. Then again, it is not such a serious threat unless we make it so by wasting time arguing the merits of it instead of refining the much more clear cases of wrongdoing. I've had a few people assume I was a no-planer when working in public and invariably they are of two types--those who use that mistaken belief to walk by and dismiss me outright, and those who stop to ask me how I could believe that. The second type is more numerous and is always relieved to find that that isn't what I'm saying. From that point it's up to me to present my own version of what the problems with the OT are. Bottom line? Just like LIHOP, this too shall pass. Don't lets let the no-planers git us down!

"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers

"... I appeal to Nico and

"... I appeal to Nico and Killtown to back off from attacking other truthers. If they are right their time will come.

What is needed desperately in the next two weeks is unity, strength and confidence that we will win...."

The attacks are still directed from the other side, too.
When i decided to remain in an own blog, 5-6 anti-blogs against the issue on TV fakery had been established.

I will only respond on that matter over *here.
The word "unity" was orwellianized a long time ago.
You can direct your critique to those, who are too blind to see the suspicious agenda of Prof. Jones.

You also cannot expect that more progressive activists *here in NYC shut up, when the anniversary leaflets and ads are manipulated with hangout messages. This is far beyond constructive criticism, when appeals are ignored over and over again...

I don't attack truthers

I defend myself after they attack me. Perhaps I should just ignore them after they attack me?

I've been trying to push my Flight 93 photo smoking gun find, but the "thruthers" doesn't seem interested in this golden smoking gun find. Just ask Alex Jones, Mike Rivero, and Jeff Rense.

And to show you that I have been trying to back off lately from discussing NPT, please see here.

"""they point out a shape in

"""they point out a shape in UA 175's explosive cloud (in one frame) and claim it looks suspiciously like the tip of something. But it's just a dense bit of explosion dust from what I can tell."""

well it doesn't really look like explosion dust to me - it's poking thru the backside of the tower and is actually casting a shadow (before it explodes):
but truly odd is that whatever it was it did not make a hole in the tower when it came out:
of course that does not prove no-planes but it is very odd.
however, here we see a nosecone that punched all the way thru the backside before the explosion even occurred:
in the TV clip that this still was taken from the very next frame was blacked out by the TV perps and then cut back in with the explosion. we have only two choices regarding this phenomenon: it was a real plastic/aluminum nosecone that punched all the way thru wtc2 before any explosion and the blackout was coincidence, or it was a CGI plane that they screwed up by allowing to go too far and tried to hide with their blackout frame.

""""The idea that....UA175 could not have penetrated the building so easily doesn't stand up to very very basic physics, as others have already pointed out. Mass times acceleration is the key here, that equals force and force breaks things""""

it's elementary physics then? ok then. did the plastic/aluminum nosecone stab thru the steel columns like an arrow or did it bludgeon thru like a hammer or did it flow between the steel columns like mercury?
any discussion of the basic physics of an aluminum plane penetrating the steel/concrete wtc entirely must begin with the very first moment of contact between the 2 material objects.

and, as i will continue to point out, the entire 767 including the wingtips disappeared into the wtc2 before any explosion occurred. not 1 little speck of it broke off on it's way in and fell to the street below.