Kill your tv. It's lying to you.

herrnimrod

Padawan Learner
I assume we can all agree that the official story of 9/11 is about as truthful as a politician with his mouth open. Theories are abound, and while I can't tell anyone what actually happened, I believe I can share a perspective not often encountered.

What if 9/11 didn't "happen" at all? What if the planes are computer graphics, witnesses actors and victims simulations? If you haven't put me on the ignore list by now you need to see these videos:

September Clues

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWl8mUSDIwU

Did 3000 people really die?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoZEuj1VPv0
 
Hi herrnimrod, this theory has already been addressed on this forum many times, and it is not really so rare, the followers of this theory are called "no-planers", and this idea comes up wanting. It seems to be a distraction from the lies that are supported by overwhelming evidence (instead of a lot of suppositions like in this theory). For example - the lack of a plane at the Pentagon, and the controlled demolition nature of the twin tower collapse.

It's much more useful to focus on what we do know from the overwhelming evidence, the smoking guns if you will, rather than the more fringe ideas that require a lot of "what if's". The main idea is that it was an inside job, a fraud. However, it's been almost 10 years since 9/11 and the general public has either not realized it en masse, or experience cognitive dissonance and don't know how to deal with that realization other than shove it under the rug. Without the general public's consensus realization, nothing will change. And if the blatant smoking guns weren't enough to wake people up, then a fringe idea like the no-plane theory, which has far less evidence than the smoking guns in question, stands no chance either - and might only function to turn people away from the idea that 9/11 was an inside job even more., and perceive "911 truthers" as crazy.
 
It's not a theory. The pictures shown to us speak for themselves. A theory would be what actually happened. I don't know that, but I know the pictures we were shown are not real. That's all this is saying.

Of course it won't change anything. Is that your goal? To change things? Doesn't that entail relinquishing part of your self to what others think? I have no such ambition. What interests me are the implications it has for everything else. It basically means you can't trust anything. And that's why they're making it obvious, so you'll have a shot at becoming independent of it.

The evidence you speak of are mostly witnesses you can't trust, science you may or may not understand, media stories which all could be calculated lies, whistleblowers who may or may not be truthful etc. How could you ever hope to discern what really happened? Past knowing it was a lie, does it really matter?

I think to change others you must change yourself. This has helped me greatly in that regard, cause I realize I have no choice but to trust my own instincts. And once that hill has been crossed it becomes easier to live with the lies.

If I ran a psyop I'd definitely want to have control of every factor.
 
herrnimrod said:
What interests me are the implications it has for everything else. It basically means you can't trust anything. And that's why they're making it obvious, so you'll have a shot at becoming independent of it.

Hi herrnimrod,

I don't understand what you mean to say in the above. Maybe you can clarify? Who is 'they'?
 
SAO said:
Hi herrnimrod, this theory has already been addressed on this forum many times, and it is not really so rare, the followers of this theory are called "no-planers", and this idea comes up wanting. It seems to be a distraction from the lies that are supported by overwhelming evidence (instead of a lot of suppositions like in this theory). For example - the lack of a plane at the Pentagon, and the controlled demolition nature of the twin tower collapse.

It's much more useful to focus on what we do know from the overwhelming evidence, the smoking guns if you will, rather than the more fringe ideas that require a lot of "what if's". The main idea is that it was an inside job, a fraud. However, it's been almost 10 years since 9/11 and the general public has either not realized it en masse, or experience cognitive dissonance and don't know how to deal with that realization other than shove it under the rug. Without the general public's consensus realization, nothing will change. And if the blatant smoking guns weren't enough to wake people up, then a fringe idea like the no-plane theory, which has far less evidence than the smoking guns in question, stands no chance either - and might only function to turn people away from the idea that 9/11 was an inside job even more., and perceive "911 truthers" as crazy.

Hi SAO, I have to respectfully disagree with your statement about the faked videos being part of the "no-planers" theory on the September Clues website. Simply because they prove the videos of the jets hitting the twin towers are fake does not mean they subscribe to the "no-planers" theory. If you look at the site they quote many witnesses who saw something hit the towers. These witnesses saw everything from nothing to small planes to missiles to a gray jet with no windows and blue markings. They also reference an excellent compilation of eyewitness accounts of first responders at _http://www.septemberclues.info/Report%20on%20NYC%20First%20Responder%209-11%20Accounts.pdf.

I believed these videos were faked from the first time I saw them. This seemed so obvious to me that I could not believe anyone ever bought into them. No aluminum jet could just disappear into the side of a steel building with no deformation or crumpling. The videos did not show the planes penetrating the structure, they just simply disappeared as they came to the edge of the towers. It is a physical impossibility. Also if you look at the holes allegedly made by the jets, there are no holes for the tails and engines. if you tried to fly a 757 or 767 into these holes, you would knock off the tails and engines.

While it is true the "no-planers" do say the videos are faked, that does not mean that everyone stating the videos were faked should be restricted to the "no-planers" category. IMHO, both sides are not looking at the totality of the evidence. The videos are fake, there is no doubt about it. Something hit the twin towers, there is no doubt about that. This fits what the C's said on 13 Oct 01:

Q: ....... (L) Well, let's ask again just to be clear. Were the WTC buildings collapsed by internal sabotage, or simply as a result of being hit by jets?
A: Airplanes.

I read this as saying

Q: ...... (L)Well, let's ask again just to be clear. Were the WTC buildings collapsed by internal sabotage, or simply as a result of being hit by {757/767 United/American passenger} jets?
A: {No, not 757/767 United/American passenger jets but smaller craft classified as} Airplanes.

Once again, my opinion FWIW, is that faked videos should be considered just as much of a smoking gun as the lack of any jet at the Pentagon. Look at the totality of the evidence rather than ignoring important pieces of evidence simply because it might come from someone who draws a different conclusion.
 
The notion that any form of "airplane" was responsible for the collapse is quite ridiculous though I think. A big red flag for me with the C's.

And as you say, fake picture doesn't mean anything more than that, fake pictures. That nobody seems even remotely interested in delving deeper in this aspect though is very surprising to me. Cluesforum is basically the only forum in this huge world that talks about it, and they have like a 1000 members, maybe a dozen or so of them active.

Now for such damning evidence, I find that extremely puzzling.
 
herrnimrod said:
The notion that any form of "airplane" was responsible for the collapse is quite ridiculous though I think. A big red flag for me with the C's.

And as you say, fake picture doesn't mean anything more than that, fake pictures. That nobody seems even remotely interested in delving deeper in this aspect though is very surprising to me. Cluesforum is basically the only forum in this huge world that talks about it, and they have like a 1000 members, maybe a dozen or so of them active.

Now for such damning evidence, I find that extremely puzzling.

Hi herrnimrod, I don' think the C's said airplanes were responsible for the collapse. Laura just asked what hit the towers, and the answer was airplanes. If you read through all the transcripts about 911, they discuss EMP shaped charges, satellite based weapons, and even 4th density technology as being involved in the collapses. This also fits the physical evidence if you have ever seen Dr. Judy Wood's presentations. The scenarios put forth by the C's also answer several other questions which to me make sense, such as: why there were no jets scrambled to intercept the 'hijacked jets' before they hit the WTC, why all of the named hijackers were CIA assets, why several of the hijackers named are still alive, why the debris from the jet shot down at Shanksville was almost nonexistant, why the pilot of the Air Force fighter jet that supposedly shot down the hijacked jet at Shanksville has been held in federal prison since 11 Sept 01, etc.

I guess I did not make my self clear. My personal opinion is not that the fake videos are not important. They are definitely one of the smoking guns that should make people go 'hmmmm...'. The attitude here in this forum is that the fake video aspect has been associated with the 'no-planer' theory, a theory that has been strongly discouraged here. My personal opinion is that the fake video evidence fully supports the scenarios laid out here.
 
Back
Top Bottom