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 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