No Planes Theory: Its burned out, isn't it?

[john white]

We've already got perfectly decent threads for discussing the No Planes Theory, and although this thread will probably end up being another one of them, that isnt why i'm making it

Im thinking to myself: I really want to know

My instincts are telling me No Planes is burned out, that the argument has gone ragged, that theres no-where for it left to go: many many people say the same

So what do we really all think?

Hence this poll

Kindly indicate your answer by voting in the poll even if you dont choose to post on the thread now that you have come this far, and feel free to place comments below

[iro_]

you're certainly right - its not looking good for NPT!

at this stage, with all the evidence on the table you would have to be making a leap of faith that has no real depth to profess belief in the theories.

..still though, go for it if it fulfils you - but im with john on this one ;)

[sensimillia]

GATEKEEPERS;)

[john white]

Lol!

[iro_]

john, what is that pic in your avatar?
:eek:

[john white]

Its a spacesuit diagram

Artist Alex Grey

[abrilliantone]

space suit you say... so whats inside of this space suit you speak about??? :D

[john white]

Self-aware "nothing"

[boots]

The NWO lost again

[teslafire]

Its more a case of popularity, what the familiar truth leaders are saying, what is easier to explain, what makes 'us' seem more credible, as well as what is perceived as insignificant in understanding the grander scope of 9/11, more than anything else IMO.

I have yet to see ANYONE debunk so many of the anomalies that we've already posted about.

I looked at all the counter-evidence presented thusfar and I've sufficiently noted the inconsistencies in reasoning quite readily. All I received in retort were insults or strawmen.

[adimon]

I had to trump 'MAYBE' in the end JW. The Lawson vid had me partially convinced (do you like my oxymoron?!) about 70% or so. Once I'm up to scratch with all the construction aspects I'll see whats up then.

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

Cordial Felicitations:

I voted for Planes, I think remotely guided Planes.

I also do not think the NPT is burned out. You are being a 'Cock Eyed Optimist'!

Can we 'Put the Fork' in the Concrete Core proposal also?

Kind Regards: Snoopsnuffleopagus

[368jrn]

I seem to remember reading a website regarding the problems with the 2nd plane . Someone had taken the time to examine all the different footage of the 2nd impact, and from their calculations ( plane size against building size in the footage)the plane varied in speed in all the different VT`s. How is that possible?

Also notice how the 2nd plane is black in some footage even though its broad day light , 9am. One site i saw goes down the "hologram" theory. How can an object be black ie reflect no light, but upon entering the shadow of the 2nd tower( the impact face was not illuminated by the sun ) then begin to become brighter ie relective. It certainly is lighter in the shadow of the tower than out in the sun. If you go down the hologram theory then this makes sense. A hologram emits light but cannot relect it, so when it enters the shadow of wtc2 it becomes brighter, maybe?

Im not agreeing with theories but you got to know that the military have much more sophisticate technologies than we the "sheeple" are allowed to know about.

Also i saw a video of a lecture given by a physicist and in it it showed some pictures of vehicles , including a fire truck ,at street level that had sustained some weird damage,from a side on view one half of the vehicle had been melted and warped the paint had bubbled and glass stared to melt, but then it was like a line had been drawn down the middle and the back half of the vehicle was completely in tact. Maybe some sort of"ray" weapon?

Just observations, but with all that is discussed on theses forums , it would seem all possibilities are on the table.:)

If i can find those vids and web sites i will post them, peace out.

[citroen999]

i think the NPT is burned out only as in there has been so much said, and not much left to examine, discuss and debate on this subject that surely the conclusion is there were no planes.

If there were planes, where is the wreckage. Show me an i will shut up.

[helloperator]

Well I don't know. I watched the 11 part youtube video promoting the NPT. The case presented did make me think. I wondered about the dodgy footage, the nose cone, the jumping buildings and all the other evidence the doco presented. But I have not really ever looked into any challenges of that doco (can't recall its name). I have heard a lot of testimonies of all sorts of eye witnesses where they say they saw the planes/ plane. Can anyone direct me to a good rebuttle of the best of the NPT?

edit: never mind, I found something called September Clues Busted

[368jrn]

Newtons 3rd law, when a particle ( or plane !) exerts a force on another particle ( or building), the 2nd second particle exerts the same force simultaneously, ie wtc 2 hit the stationary plane at 500mph !(ish). Planes are aluminium, wtc is steel , who`s gonna win?

watch this vid:)
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[helloperator]

That video says 'fact: shots showing the impact started being released around midnight'

That's not true is it? That's like over 12 hours after the impacts...I was watching impacts on my TV way, way, way sooner than that. Like withing the first half an hour if that.

Or am I wrong...someone help me out here

[john white]

Well theres Tesla's "No Planes Theory" thread

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9698

Or my own "Chek says" September Clues dishonest or disinfo" thread

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11564

There's plenty of high quality info there for anyone wanting to get more gened up on the issue

[picha]

The thing that made the npt quite convincing for me was one of the videos where you can see the plane going in and the building is still in tact between the wing and the fuselage after the plane has already started entering the building.

[citroen999]

when ever i listen to the no planes theory i always go and watch this..

http://www.youtube.com//watch?v=yhF1y-7RCts

Its shows the scot meyers vid and the fox vid. Its shows the the same event happening at the same time but 2 different planes hit the same building.

so one thing is fact, one is fake, cant both be right.

Also check when the nose comes out, it comes out with such force and speed that it should either carry on and fall to streets of new york or if it manages to stop and not fall it should be hanging out of the building for all to see.. it does neither it vanishes.

[veritas2007]

Well theres Tesla's "No Planes Theory" thread

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9698

Or my own "Chek says" September Clues dishonest or disinfo" thread

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11564

There's plenty of high quality info there for anyone wanting to get more gened up on the issue

Hmmm....the unfortunate "Check Says..." thread that turned into a slanging match and had to be moderated to hell :(

Still waiting for a response to the points made on the Debunking SC PDF....

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11564&page=6

[john white]

Debate isnt always pretty. The main thing is, the initial posts on the "Chek sez" thread represent a signinficant body of NPT refuting material and sources

[veritas2007]

I disagree.

Like I've said previously; the Theresa Renaud edited sound bite mystifies me. Why would SS change that to substantiate his claim - I'd like to know his motivation (I'm asuming its a 'he').

One of the things that struck me about SC was the shot from the Fox chopper and the fact that it didn't capture the incoming plane.

From debunkingseptemberclues.pdf:

• When the plane is not visible in the wider-shot, this could be due to it being obscured by clouds and/or smog, or simply because the plane is not in-frame yet.

That old 'could' word has popped up again. It 'could' have easily been swamp gas reflecting the light from Venus that obscured the plane. The debunkers offer no alternate theory or evidence here.

• Safeguards – to ponder whether they had safeguards is begging the question, as it assumes as a premise that some act of fakery was taking place. This has not been proven.

That is correct then again, many things from the fateful day have not been proven. Isn't that the point of the 9/11 truth movement?

• To declare that the “Safeguard was 17 seconds” is again begging the question. It has not been established that there were computer operators, a safeguard, or that it is the reason for the 17 second gap between the seismic records and the official version events. This point, as presented by “September Clues”, is all speculation and does not constitute evidence of any act of “‘TV Fakery’”.

To be fair, there is also some speculation from the Debunkers.

I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything here however, the above illustrates that two wrongs don't make a right. The Debunkers are guilty of using similar/same arguments as SS.

I'm still researching 9/11 and at this stage, I'm not ruling anything out. What I find somewhat distasteful though is the inference of having to subscribe to a particular school of thought and the subsequent flag waving. Why do you guys feel the need to label each other in such a manner and the necessity to fight your corner?

[john white]

Fair enough (though your disagreeing with the material: not that the material is there)

[boots]

john..how did they programme you to become a agent of zionism...hows yours and Tony's bank balance?

The Boots on the other foot (no pun intented) NPT in my opinon is a pure COLINTELPRO It's not the people who question the NPT but thoses saps that get suckered into it that are pushing the agender of the NWO, to see that the whole truth movement is bonkers;)

[john white]

Just a post to say I don't discuss NPT on this forum anymore, simply becuase its a devisive issue and I don't consider it really in keeping with the FA role to be drawn into that

I am of course available for discussion at www.nineeleven.co.uk

[narcolepticwatchman]

Ok John, can you tell me then, why my last post on this topic was deleted. Not sent to the rant room (coz it wasn't a rant) just plain old deleted.

This forum is making me feel queasy these days. Absolutley shocking.

[dave52]

'Cause you asked how much he was getting paid...?

[horror]

cant say for sure no planes, but i have no doubts about tv fakery.

in my opinion they send 4 unstoppable missiles at that day to hit precisely 4 prepared targets .
however this is just my opinion after looking at all the evidence wich is availlable.

if anybody would change the discussion away from no planes to tv fake , we would gain alot cause tv fakery is a simple and prooveble fact.

u can still believe what ever u want but to deny tv fakery means u never looked properly on the broadcasted videos of fl 175.

tv fake doesnt mean no plane but why would they need to fake the plane if there was one?
the only other explanation could be there was a wrong one.
i dont think there was a plane at all, but i cant proove it atm but im 100 % sure about tv fakery and i can proove it to every 1 who is interested.

[penfoldhearts]

Not burned out at all.

While I believe that some kind of plane (it also could be a missile) hit the towers, there's plenty of evidence, that it wasn't two Boeing 767. Reviewing the TV-archives I noticed that most people saw a small plane, a military plane (see also Bob and Bri) or a missile. Even Loose Change FC suggests a small plane hit the towers somewhere in their movie.
And brand new we have the AA11 for sale (http://www.aviatorsale.com/aix5078/) case. (more) (http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=9971)

But I'm not sure whether believing this already constitutes a no plane theory. I'd rather call it a no Boeing theory. But if it does, no plane is alive and well.
On the other hand there's enough evidence, that the idea nothing at all hit the towers and they just exploded has been debunked.

[sidlittle]

911 Taboo Part 1

http://www.livevideo.com/video/embedLink/1666F9D3661E461EA858D7300117BAEF/433338/911taboo-part-1.aspx

911 Taboo Part 2

http://www.livevideo.com/video/embedLink/20B1D80FABD140D28DA9B5FFB0A2CB3E/433570/911taboo-part-2.aspx

[narcolepticwatchman]

'Cause you asked how much he was getting paid...?

money was never mentioned....my post was along the lines of....

Glad to see that the transparency of the agendas of the mods and 'advisors' is becoming all too apprent.

I used to think Icke was right, however, his silence on this issue coupled with the behaviour of the personnel he emplots on this forum is making me doubt his credibility.

Oh and the manner in which this poll has so spectacularly fell on its arse it heartening:D

Not verbatim as it was a few days ago i wrote the original, but that was the jist of it. Deleted without trace nor explaination. My point totally villified by the actions of the mods and advisors. This place is beggining to stink big time. Sinister.

[lottie]

Ok it was me that deleted your posts...i apologise for not informing you, that was my mistake and i admit it, i had a lot on at the time, but i felt the posts were inflammatory and derogatory toward john, this thread is a poll regarding the NPT not a discussion about moderation or john so imo it went off-topic...

Any questions regarding moderation should be addressed via pm to one of the moderation team. You are welcome to pm me narcolepticwatchman and we can discuss it further,

Please can we stay on-topic here.

Thankyou....

[veritas2007]

911 Taboo Part 1

http://www.livevideo.com/video/embedLink/1666F9D3661E461EA858D7300117BAEF/433338/911taboo-part-1.aspx

911 Taboo Part 2

http://www.livevideo.com/video/embedLink/20B1D80FABD140D28DA9B5FFB0A2CB3E/433570/911taboo-part-2.aspx

Thanks for the links, I haven't seen those videos before.

NPT burned out? Not a chance.


EDIT: Just came across this one.

South Tower Anomalies - YouTube

[Anders Lindman]

I just watched 911 Taboo Part 1. One thing that struck me was the still frames showing the plane moving into the building without being the slightest wrinkled up. :confused: That's weird. The very facade of the buildings were made of massive steel beams fitted very close to each other as they showed in the video. It really is a bit strange how the planes could have floated so smoothly into the buildings without as it appeared even being wrinkled up.

[ukor]

I just watched 911 Taboo Part 1. One thing that struck me was the still frames showing the plane moving into the building without being the slightest wrinkled up. :confused: That's weird. The very facade of the buildings were made of massive steel beams fitted very close to each other as they showed in the video. It really is a bit strange how the planes could have floated so smoothly into the buildings without as it appeared even being wrinkled up.

It really is even stranger that you're perceiving the violence of a 100+ton, 500+mph (733 feet per second) collison passing through a 14 inch hollow steel and glass wall (travel time less than 1.5milliseconds) in terms of 'floating' and 'wrinkling'.

That weight at that speed is a bit outside everyday experience to be expecting recognisable results don't you think?

[veritas2007]

It really is even stranger that you're perceiving the violence of a 100+ton, 500+mph (733 feet per second) collison passing through a 14 inch hollow steel and glass wall (travel time 1.5milliseconds) in terms of 'floating' and 'wrinkling'.

That weight at that speed is a bit outside everyday experience to be expecting recognisable results don't you think?

That's a fair comment as there is no precedent for what happened that day. Forgetting for one moment what the media has reported ad infinitum on the circumstances that day, what would you have expected to see?

You see, it illustrates a point on how; when confronted by something irregular or unusual, the natural human reaction is to look to someone else for an answer or an opinion to validate what you have experienced. The media gladly gave everyone the assurance that it was planes ergo it must have been planes. Anything else would be mad, wouldn't it?

When you look at the videos again and again though, you can't help the nagging feeling in the back of your mind that something just isn't right.

Scary, isn't it?

[narcolepticwatchman]

It really is even stranger that you're perceiving the violence of a 100+ton, 500+mph (733 feet per second) collison passing through a 14 inch hollow steel and glass wall (travel time less than 1.5milliseconds) in terms of 'floating' and 'wrinkling'.

That weight at that speed is a bit outside everyday experience to be expecting recognisable results don't you think?

no.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.


Bird strikes

http://killtown.911review.org/images/2nd-hit/bird-strikes/767-bird-strike6.jpg
http://killtown.911review.org/images/2nd-hit/bird-strikes/767-bird-strike7.jpg
http://killtown.911review.org/images/2nd-hit/bird-strikes/767-bird-strike1.jpg

[ukor]

Some interesting items in your post above.

The Phantom in tyhe crash test obliterates itself against against that reinforced concrete wall without crumpling, wrinkling or the tail slowing down. Hollow steel columns spaced by glass in the impact zones don't have the mass of that wall.

Interesting also to see that the bird impacts have caused skin punctures but no structural damage to that B767. More honest and representative than conman Morgan Reynolds sheared light aircraft tailplane illustrations.

Yet also shows that a birds mass and relative speed and therefore its impact force is secondary to its material composition when it comes to knocking chunks out of stressed aluminium aircraft skin.

[Anders Lindman]

It really is even stranger that you're perceiving the violence of a 100+ton, 500+mph (733 feet per second) collison passing through a 14 inch hollow steel and glass wall (travel time less than 1.5milliseconds) in terms of 'floating' and 'wrinkling'.

That weight at that speed is a bit outside everyday experience to be expecting recognisable results don't you think?

I see what you mean. It's not the same type of crash one would see when a car crashes for example.

[hagbard_celine]

I voted "maybe" on this one. I'm still not 100% sure either way.

Really it doesn't matter though, not in the final outcome. Whether they were real planes or holograms the fact remains: The official story is still a lie.

[steevo]

I voted "maybe" on this one. I'm still not 100% sure either way.

Really it doesn't matter though, not in the final outcome. Whether they were real planes or holograms the fact remains: The official story is still a lie.

I agree.
The "no planes theory", I am definitely gonna keep on the back-burner, I am not at the stage where I need to seriously consider this theory. And also the theory is gonna hinder the progress of the truth being passed onto the sheeple because they will just say "it is bollocks :rolleyes:" and stick to the more realistic (to them) official story.
Also I sometimes think that alot of this type of theory is started up by agents who want us to go down the wrong path to waste our time and get ridiculed.

[steevo]

I agree.
The "no planes theory", I am definitely gonna keep on the back-burner, I am not at the stage where I need to seriously consider this theory. And also the theory is gonna hinder the progress of the truth being passed onto the sheeple because they will just say "it is bollocks :rolleyes:" and stick to the more realistic (to them) official story.
Also I sometimes think that alot of this type of theory is started up by agents who want us to go down the wrong path to waste our time and get ridiculed.

When I say "no planes theory" I am talking about holograms.

[ukor]

cant say for sure no planes, but i have no doubts about tv fakery.

i dont think there was a plane at all, but i cant proove it atm but im 100 % sure about tv fakery and i can proove it to every 1 who is interested.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but TV fakery is a crock.
There is TV fakery - but it's editorial, not technical.

There is not one single solitary case of U175/WTC2 TV fakery that stands up to honest examination.
It's all sleight of hand, suggestion and misdirection by conmen, just like any other con job.

[masonfree party]

john white...still not answered my question...how much are you getting paid to policel this site?

[mr_pixie]

The Plane hugers are losing the battle look at the poll it's starting to change:o