Why do No Planers need "planes" ?

[stannrodd]

Why do No Planers so desperately need faked video/photo shopped planes to prove or support their theory.

This has always puzzled me.

It's a bit like Christopher and his concrete core .. if you can't prove steel columns .. then by default it must be concrete? There is still no proof of concrete .. so it could quite easily have been Swiss cheese instead. A theory full of holes = Swiss cheese.

Similarly, if you can't prove there were planes, then by default .. should there be "no planes" ??? .. Perhaps it was a flying toasted Swiss cheese sandwich since the NPT has so many holes in it. :)

If there were no planes at the WTC, then why call it the No Plane theory? Why introduce the concept of planes at all, let alone .. name the NP theory with the word "planes" in it?

After all, if it is fact as they assert, then that in itself should speak for itself and be self evident.

There must be some underlying suspicion/evidence about the 9/11 events at WTC which are not related to "planes" at all .. since there were apparently no planes.

I challenge no planers to prove their theory without relying on any form of plane v no plane argument.

Show us what you think happened .. and offer the evidence which supports how the towers were destroyed.

Remember .. no planes .. real or otherwise are allowed to be mentioned in your proof.

All comments are welcome.

Stann ;)

[secondsun]

If there were no planes at the WTC, then why call it the No Plane theory?

...amazes me as to why so many people base there whole belief system on the Theory of Evolution!

...no planers probably evolved from monkeys though!

...;)

[bryan]

If there were no planes at the WTC, then why call it the No Plane theory? Why introduce the concept of planes at all, let alone .. name the NP theory with the word "planes" in it?


If the fake videos showed a giraffe flying into the South Tower, NPT would be NGT.

[killtown]

If the fake videos showed a giraffe flying into the South Tower, NPT would be NGT.
I was going to say don't bother responding to the trolls, but that was frickin hilarious!

[helloperator]

For the slow: I am on the fence about planes/ no planes.

Anyway....I wanna see some 'vanilla' footage which shows the wings not slicing straight through the facade of the building.

Has all the footage available been doctored to show complete plane slicing entry?

Should the wings have sliced through with as much ease as the fuselage. The wings do seem to cut right in like a knife into cheese. Should that be? Did they in fact reaslly slice through with ease? Or am I just basing that on dodgy/ doctored video I have seen? Where can I see 'legit' footage?

Is it feasible that:

a) probably no plane at Pentagon
b) probably no plane at Skanksville

=

c) possibility of no plane at wtc?


To what extent do we know what we think we know?

Do we really know what technology is available to the insanely rich and powerful?

The media teaches us about technology and what we can do...we think it's rediculous to fake planes...is it? People thought the world was flat once....that kind of reasoning...


The only thing that makes me interested in the no planes angle is the wings.

I must admit, I have been out of the 911 loop for some time so I don't know where all the narky snipey investigations have gone....just that back in the day we all seemed to be determined to prove that some group of people planned this and that the governments investigation was a farce. Now it seems that the focus is just on bullshit.

But hey...this is the internet....it's the home of snark and narkyness!! Just like when you hear about nonmainstream groups such as the archeological sets and their infighting and bitchiness.

Hahaha hohoho

What would help all us middle of the road dudes is if the evil fuckers who pull strings in this world suddenly decided to tell us all how it went down...promise never to do it again and then kill themselves on public TV or something.

Hahaha....I seem to be getting side tracked.

Intriguing

[bryan]

Anyway....I wanna see some 'vanilla' footage which shows the wings not slicing straight through the facade of the building.

Has all the footage available been doctored to show complete plane slicing entry?

Should the wings have sliced through with as much ease as the fuselage. The wings do seem to cut right in like a knife into cheese. Should that be? Did they in fact reaslly slice through with ease? Or am I just basing that on dodgy/ doctored video I have seen? Where can I see 'legit' footage?

Helloperator, it's great to see you asking all the right questions. There are at least three ongoing threads discussing whether planes can melt into buildings:

Kindergarten Physics Lesson
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50161

Boeing 767 vs. tower wall (simple analysis)
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=58476

Continuos Pieces - 9/11 (Watch online or download)
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57981


It's just common sense and honesty really, but the common sense can be backed up by basic Newtonian physics. The trouble is, the shills, trolls and general debunkers try to twist the science to make it look like it's normal for a plane to go into a building without any parts breaking off. They're good at introducing red herrings and smoke & mirrors, but there are only so many tricks and after a while you learn to see through them all.

The media won't release good quality footage from 9/11. There's a petition to get them to, and it's mainly the no-planers who want it to happen.

[helloperator]

Maybe the 'no planers' are in some ways considered to be Johnny Come Lately's in the 911 internet investigative field. Maybe the 'planers' see themselves as having more ownership of the investigation because they got there first....the no planers came in a little later.

Maybe it's some good old fashioned jealousy and some good old fashioned internet rage.

Maybe the 'no planers' are completely deluded. Maybe people want to ask them how....how in the hell could a 'no plane' plan guarantee its success when every man and his dog would have been aiming their Pentaxes and Lumixes at the wtc after the first 'impact'? People, not just the media, had their good eyes glued to that spot...

How good's a hologram? Can a hologram be photographed from anhy angle and distance? If it was a hologram and it can be photographed, then there's no need for a cgi plane right? Because all the TV cameras would have picked up the hologram.

If it's a cgi plane, then that means every single image taken by dudes on the street must be:

a) legit because there was a real plane or
b) not legit and every single person who took an image/ video was working for the criminals

How many citizens have images/ video?

Why did the wtc facade show damage where the beams were dented inwards? Were those forced inwards by.....what? Or were they cgi/ hologram too? Why not cgi the facade damage if you can cgi the planes?

If the hologram/ cgi is so sloppy as to have a nose cone coming out the other side....then it's lucky and highly risky at the entry point....they must have had explosives to mimick the shape and angle of entry....what if the entry of the hologram/ cgi fucked up there and the plane entered at a different angle but the explosives went off as per script? You know...they fucked up the 'exit' by having the cone come out....lucky the entry didn't fuck up! What a risk they took!

If the cgi is so precise, why did the nose cone exit? Seems like a bit of a bumbling error.....It's been perfect til there and then some guy falls asleep at the wheel and lets a nose cone come out the other side?

Now before you come chucking a hissy fit that I'm a crazy planer or whatever your snarky little terms are.....turn around and fark off....I don't believe any of you.

[kblood]

If the NPT is true, then it shouldnt be that hard to prove that no people died on those flights.

Or did they just have two planes dissapear and kill all their passengers?

Same goes for disproving it though. Anyone knows of people being in the planes that crashed into the towers?

Instead its all this bickering about videos and photos and how they dont add up. Well they dont, and maybe or maybe not its because it wasnt planes at all. Still the no planes theory doesnt seem to add up either.

[helloperator]

Nothing adds up. This will go on and on and on like the JFK thing. Today it doesn't even matter. The world has moved on. If I say '911' these days people think I'm talking about the time of day....11 past 9am or pm. Noone gives a shit.

[secondsun]

If the fake videos showed a giraffe flying into the South Tower, NPT would be NGT.

...for someone that has usually so much to say!... is this best you could come up with!?!

...but you can always rely on a fellow cohort ay!?

I was going to say don't bother responding to the trolls, but that was frickin hilarious!

[gribz]

If there were no planes at the WTC, then why call it the No Plane theory?

Eh????

Simply because the 'official' version / story reported planes.

I think there is another theory that splits a lot of people and is much more realistic. - Its called 'The no commercial planes' theory.

[slartibartfast]

Eh????

Simply because the 'official' version / story reported planes.

I think there is another theory that splits a lot of people and is much more realistic. - Its called 'The no commercial planes' theory.

The even better theory is Occams Razor. The simplest explanation is usual the right one. I still believe that most 9-11 Conspiracy Theories have arisen because people in the US cannot entertain the thought that an attack using low tech, low cost methods could possibly be successful against the US. They are more comfortable with the idea that it was the "PTB".

[guntherznads]

The even better theory is Occams Razor. The simplest explanation is usual the right one. I still believe that most 9-11 Conspiracy Theories have arisen because people in the US cannot entertain the thought that an attack using low tech, low cost methods could possibly be successful against the US. They are more comfortable with the idea that it was the "PTB".

Actually I'm more comfortable with the idea that arab terrorists hate me compared with the idea that evil reptiles control my every thought.

[helloperator]

It's important to be comfortable

[stannrodd]

Eh????

Simply because the 'official' version / story reported planes.

I think there is another theory that splits a lot of people and is much more realistic. - Its called 'The no commercial planes' theory.

If they said it was a giraffe would you call it the no giraffe theory ??

This is a no planer comment by your leader bryan !

I did ask for evidence to be provided of the theory without the mention of planes .. which is a simple request based on the theory's name.

If there were no planes .. explain your theory .. you don't need planes or need the crutch of the MSM reports of planes ... because according to the theory there weren't any !!

You don't need them !

Do it politely or don't bother posting here.

If you can't do it then at least say that.

It's not a trick question .. !

Stann :)

[bryan]

This is a no planer comment by your leader bryan !


I'm nobody's leader. I just enjoy taking the piss out of people who make idiotic statements.

[guntherznads]

I have a new theory about 9-11. It goes like this...........about 8 years ago some crazy shit happened. The end.

Prove me wrong. I win.

[stannrodd]

I'm nobody's leader. I just enjoy taking the piss out of people who make idiotic statements.

Should read ..

I just enjoy taking the piss out of people who don't believe my idiotic statements regarding physics and plane collisions.

By your own admission you are simply here for your own pleasure .. hardly a contributor to the knowledge base.

As for the leadership thing bryan .. it would seem that you are the prime mover of NPT garbage here. The whole lot of you are like one big tag team .. no wonder your lack of theory has been relegated to the garbage can everywhere else .

How about you explain your theory without using any mention of planes. You don't need them remember .. there weren't any according to you.

Explaining your theory shouldn't affect the matter of the great unwashed being duped by a lie .. your theory needs to be something more than taking the piss mate !!

Stann

[bryan]

By your own admission you are simply here for your own pleasure .. hardly a contributor to the knowledge base.


It depends who I target. I've no interest in taking the piss out of anybody who's not doing any harm, but if I ridicule people who are lying and deceiving, like you and a few other are here, I'll be making a small contribution to truth and knowledge.



no wonder your lack of theory has been relegated to the garbage can everywhere else .


You mean the subject is taboo among the 9/11 Truth orthodoxy.

Like here, for example:


Forum Rules

The Loose Change Forums are a place for the intelligent, respectful exchange of ideas.

. . .

On a final note, NPT theories, and support of movies like September Clues, is not allowed in any way. Planes hit the WTC. We refuse to allow that to be disputed on this forum.


http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/42684/1/



How about you explain your theory without using any mention of planes. You don't need them remember .. there weren't any according to you.


Try proving God doesn't exist without referring to God. (Paraphrasing is not allowed)



your theory needs to be something more than taking the piss mate !!


If your theory is wrong, mine is right.

If your theory is right, it should stand up to any amount of ridicule.

On the other hand, if it was right it wouldn't need meaningless, idiotic threads like this one.

[stannrodd]

..but if I ridicule people who are lying and deceiving, like you and a few other are here, I'll be making a small contribution to truth and knowledge.

Would you care to explain this insinuation .. I find it rather rude and unnecessary. There are certainly people here who do not understand basic physics and the dynamics of collisions and are prepared to spout forth endless volumes of provable trash to support a dodgy theory.

There are also a few here who do understand the basics of physics and forces at work in collisions, and are prepared to be open minded about anything in an honest attempt at debate ... rather than preach disinformation .. or simply like to take the piss !!

I never said or otherwise inferred that the NPT was a taboo subject .. in fact I've been quite generous in entertaining the idea that there might just be something to it. Having done that .. and seen my error I now look at debating the facts rather than the NP theory.

You however are simply preaching .. using falsehoods and a forked tongue.

Try proving God doesn't exist without referring to God.

Why would I want to do that ?? You are not trying to prove there were NO planes .. you are trying to disprove that planes did not hit the towers .. and by default hope to claim a victory for your theory. The dilemma you face now is that you have to disprove the official story .. rather than have a valid theory which does not rely on that MSM misinformation.

Chris Brown lost his theory because of the exact same sort of illogical reasoning.

If your theory is wrong, mine is right.

If your theory is right, it should stand up to any amount of ridicule.

On the other hand, if it was right it wouldn't need meaningless, idiotic threads like this one.

I don't have a theory .. therefore it isn't being tested.

This thread is about your theory being tested for validity ..and relying solely on it's own merits .. rather than the lack of merits of any other theory which may come along or may already exist.

Stann

[bryan]

Would you care to explain this insinuation .. I find it rather rude and unnecessary.


You want me to explain it AGAIN?



I never said or otherwise inferred that the NPT was a taboo subject


Exactly my point. It's me who's saying it's a taboo subject. You said NPT "has been relegated to the garbage can everywhere else", which implies it's been rejected after an 'intelligent, respectful exchange of ideas'.

The reality is, the subject has been banned by 9/11 forum admins because it's a taboo subject.



The dilemma you face now is that you have to disprove the official story .. rather than have a valid theory which does not rely on that MSM misinformation.


Ha, ha. Try telling David Ray Griffin and UK 9/11 Truth that it's not enough just to disprove the official story!



This thread is about your theory being tested for validity ..and relying solely on it's own merits .. rather than the lack of merits of any other theory which may come along or may already exist.


Even though we know planes didn't hit the towers, there's not enough evidence for us to know what did hit them or if they were hit by anything at all. We could speculate, but that would play right into your hands, since you'd then be able to say our theory is based on nothing but speculation.

I know a con artist when I see one, and there are at least five or six here at the moment.

[noewhan]

I think this argument is so strange. Planes & most likely missiles were used in 9/11.

But just to be a b!tchsnitch...

Everything we see as physical, is a hologram. So yes, holographic planes hit holographic towers killing holographic people.

[gribz]

If they said it was a giraffe would you call it the no giraffe theory ??

This is a no planer comment by your leader bryan !

I did ask for evidence to be provided of the theory without the mention of planes.. which is a simple request based on the theory's name.

If there were no planes .. explain your theory .. you don't need planes or need the crutch of the MSM reports of planes ... because according to the theory there weren't any !!

You don't need them !

Do it politely or don't bother posting here.

If you can't do it then at least say that.

It's not a trick question .. !

Stann :)

Im not following your line of question. How can we not refer to planes in a 'Plane v No plane' debate?

I did ask for evidence to be provided of the theory without the mention of planes which is a simple request based on the theory's name

The more i read this it doesnt make sense.

What are you looking for - a missile theory?? Explosion theory??

The giraffe argument can actually be a decent point. Ok nobody would beleive it was a giraffe. But what if it was supposed helicopters?

I have always said that there was more chance of a hot air balloon slamming into the pentagon that AA77 - and thats not an exaggeration

[bryan]

Im not following your line of question. How can we not refer to planes in a 'Plane v No plane' debate?


It's just a diversionary tactic. They're so embarrassed by the number of questions they can't answer, that they've decided to go on the offensive and ask us for details we can't possibly know, like what did hit the towers if it wasn't planes.

When we say we don't and can't know the answer, or point out that it's not even necessary to know the answer in establishing whether planes hit the buildings or not, they throw their toys out of their prams and say:

"Well, if you can't answer our questions, we're not answering yours".

Christopher A Brown first mastered the technique and now Stann and secondsun are taking it to a new level by devoting entire threads to these non-issues.

[slartibartfast]

Im not following your line of question. How can we not refer to planes in a 'Plane v No plane' debate?


By a positive theory that says how the damage was caused rather than a negative theory of "we don't care what caused it, it wasn't planes."

[bryan]

By a positive theory that says how the damage was caused rather than a negative theory of "we don't care what caused it, it wasn't planes."

This is interesting, because slartibartfast is a defender of the OCT and this argument is a typical debunker's line of reasoning. It's known as 'demanding complete solutions' and is one of the famous Rules of Disinformation (http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html).

In direct contrast, the truth movement has always argued that we don't need to provide alternative theories - we only need to prove the OCT is wrong and that a new independent inquiry is needed.

So why is Stann's reasoning more like that of a debunker than that of a 9/11 truther? Why does he think that disproving a theory is not enough? After all, he claims to have the truth movement's best interests at heart when he bashes NPT.

What's even more interesting is that Stann has just said he doesn't have a theory of his own! Using his own logic, what good is he as a 9/11 truther if he doesn't have an alternative theory to the OCT?

[stannrodd]

So why is Stann's reasoning more like that of a debunker than that of a 9/11 truther? Why does he think that disproving a theory is not enough? After all, he claims to have the truth movement's best interests at heart when he bashes NPT.

The reverse logic is very obvious bryan but not effective.

My reasoning is more like that of a debunker .. because that is what I'm currently doing !!

Correct !!

Well done !!

What I'm debunking though, is the NPT .. and I'm doing it by "forcing" you and your cronies into validating your theory without using the Official Story as a crutch.

So ... is it true that you need the Official Story "planes" to be a part of your argument, in order to prove that there were NO planes ??

Simple question bryan.

Can you show us your theory & how it worked .. without the use of the Official Story?

As consumers of the NPT theory .. people like me .. and other like minded researchers, should be able to see the falseness of the Official Story .. without it being a part of your theory.

As for my not having a theory .. well I don't need one .. but I can tell you there are gaping holes in both the Official one and your one.

Debunking is part of the process of getting to the facts.

Stann

[gribz]

It's just a diversionary tactic. They're so embarrassed by the number of questions they can't answer, that they've decided to go on the offensive and ask us for details we can't possibly know, like what did hit the towers if it wasn't planes.

When we say we don't and can't know the answer, or point out that it's not even necessary to know the answer in establishing whether planes hit the buildings or not, they throw their toys out of their prams and say:

"Well, if you can't answer our questions, we're not answering yours".

Christopher A Brown first mastered the technique and now Stann and secondsun are taking it to a new level by devoting entire threads to these non-issues.

See, I understand your post and it makes sense! For me this confirms 1 point Ive tried to make all along. - We have always just tried to debunk the current 'official' story rather than gave an alternative exact happenings of events.
Not much REAL eye witnesses saw exactly what happened but the official story has so many flaws in it that it is easy to debunk.

So anyone who looks for an alternative isnt going to get anything other than opinions (some strong and pretty much true / realistic opinions) but they wont be classed as official until they are accepted by the media - thats the messed up world we live in.

[stannrodd]

Even though we know planes didn't hit the towers, there's not enough evidence for us to know what did hit them or if they were hit by anything at all. We could speculate, but that would play right into your hands, since you'd then be able to say our theory is based on nothing but speculation.

First off bryan you make an unsubstantiated claim by saying ..

Even though we know planes didn't hit the towers ..

At the current state of your theory you have failed to provide any evidence to support this.

Perhaps you should stay on the path of the faked video .. perhaps you could show this .. but so far this is indeterminate and the counter arguments are far more convincing from an outsiders point of view. It is them who you need to convince.

If you are to have a stand alone theory then you probably need to re-organize your team, and how to develop a theory which doesn't involve planes.

Using a theory, which is claimed to be a load of bollocks, as a path to proving your own theory doesn't logically add up.

It was like Chris Brown using FEMA photos to bolster his concrete core theory .. while at the same time discrediting that very organization he is using for a source of evidence.

So it comes back to a circular argument. You can't use a "theory" claiming planes .. to bolster a "theory" claiming no planes. It will never work!! Just a merry go round of stupid discussion. T'is so .. t'is not .. etc .. ad infinitum !

If there were no planes involved in the 9/11 events at WTC why aren't you rationalizing and finding facts to support what you perhaps speculate may have happened (if not planes).

Speculation and conjecture are useful tools in developing a theory .. but that is all they are. They are not facts and as long as you guys know where that line is drawn and are seen to be doing logical and honest research .. you will find some truth in your outcome. Sometimes it's not what you expect .. but that's research. Fudging is always found out.

So why was the concept of "no planes" introduced .. ?? That to me is the root question and I was doing 9/11 research when that concept came barging into all the forums around the web.

The group who were pushing that concept were also very rude, obnoxious and got themselves ousted for basically bad behaviour. It also gave that concept a very bad aura. Not surprising really.

If you've been downtown Manhattan when the towers were there .. you will know how difficult it was to see them from street level. Like being in a canyon. Not surprising then, that you could interview a thousand pedestrians and not find anyone who saw a plane hit a tower. But this is not evidence of "no planes at WTC" it's just reporting what was not seen. Similarly photos of an unexpected event are rare too .. It's hard to photograph an event involving a "no Plane" !!

If there was conspiracy done .. as an inside job .. I would almost guarantee there will be footage of everything that happened.... somewhere and someone knows of it.

So why do you need planes .. simple question .. and my answer is that you don't NEED them at all.

Stann

[guntherznads]

I'm going to end this debate once and for all. There were planes that hit the towers, but not the ones we saw on tv....those were fakes. The real planes that were used came in too fast and their impacts were never clearly caught on film. The perps were all upset because they really wanted to scare folks with the videos of passenger airliners blowing up. So they had to used phoney shots that they made with windows movie maker to replace the footage that was botched. So that explains why the planes look fake in the videos. And we can all rest easy knowing that real planes were used which explains those plane shape holes.
I know that if we can just meet in the middle on this that we can finally take our message to the streets with a nice easy to swallow concept that the public will get behind..and then we can all go back to bickering endlessly about who killed JFK.

[stannrodd]

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/impact6.jpg

[guntherznads]

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/impact6.jpg

great pic. how could anyone have a doubt about the realness of planes after looking at that pic is beyond me. if thats a fake then I just don't know whats real anymore. No way thats fake. Real as it gets. I like the video that this still is taken from, when you speed it up and play it on a loop the plane bobs up and down instead of flying in a straight line.....just like you would expect a plane to behave. everyone know planes bob up and down like a cork in the ocean...duh.

[stannrodd]

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/noplane.jpg

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/impact6.jpg

great pic. how could anyone have a doubt about the realness of planes after looking at that pic is beyond me. if thats a fake then I just don't know whats real anymore. No way thats fake. Real as it gets.

Which one is the fake ?? :)


Stann

[guntherznads]

They are both real.

[stannrodd]

They are both real.

Real images .. correct !

One has obviously been manipulated to make it a "no plane" pic .. I know .. I did it.

So which pic would a "no planer" use in their theory ??

You got it in one ... the one with a plane in it .. you gotta wonder at the logic they purvey !

Stann

[bryan]

One has obviously been manipulated to make it a "no plane" pic .. I know .. I did it.

So which pic would a "no planer" use in their theory ??

You got it in one ... the one with a plane in it .. you gotta wonder at the logic they purvey !


If I had a manipulated image theory (MIT), I'd use the manipulated image in my theory.

If I didn't, people would think I was an idiot.

[slartibartfast]

If I didn't, people would think I was an idiot.

I don't think it matters if you use it or not...:)

[bryan]

I don't think it matters if you use it or not...:)

Aren't you the one who believes that Bin Laden masterminded the total destruction of the WTC complex?

[guntherznads]

your missing the point. if i say the plane looks fake would i show you a picture with or without a plane in it? they're fakes....all of them. go find one shot of 175 penetrating the s. tower that was shown live. doesn't exist. all those cameras pointed right at the buildings and only two of the live shots show planes and those two are from the side showing the plane disappearing behind the building....not one live shot from behind that shows the penetration. so yeah......no planers do use the videos and pictures of the planes as evidence....BECAUSE THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY FAKE.

am i up at 5 am posting about this again? fuck i need to get a life..

[white horse]

Been off the net for a while, but glad to see the discussions don't disolve into personal attacks as usual..

Oh, they are!

[stannrodd]

Been off the net for a while, but glad to see the discussions don't disolve into personal attacks as usual..

Oh, they are!

Shame when that happens .. usually indicates that they have nothing to say..

ahem !! :rolleyes:

Just gotta have them planes ... so there can be "no planes".

:D

Stann :cool:

[bryan]

Been off the net for a while, but glad to see the discussions don't disolve into personal attacks as usual..

Oh, they are!

Nice to see you back, white horse. If you manage to work out what this thread is about, let us know. Some of us are a bit puzzled. :confused:

[stannrodd]

Nice to see you back, white horse. If you manage to work out what this thread is about, let us know. Some of us are a bit puzzled. :confused:

I wonder why ..?

Is it that your theory just doesn't make sense by itself .. perhaps.

That you have no useful way of proving it .. without the planes argument perhaps..??

Come on bryan .. let it out ..!

I did say I was going to start a thread looking at the no planer theory from a new angle. Well this is it pal !!

Much more to come on this ..

You could of course start being rational and figure out that you were duped into this load of snake turds.

That it's now become an obsession .. that it has no validity.

That it's simply an excuse to waste time on a forum.

A pointless exercise.

Did you ever see the movie "The Point" by Harry Nilsson .. it was all about a small boy who didn't have a point(ed) head. !!

Stann

[white horse]

I'm going to end this debate once and for all. There were planes that hit the towers, but not the ones we saw on tv....those were fakes. The real planes that were used came in too fast and their impacts were never clearly caught on film. The perps were all upset because they really wanted to scare folks with the videos of passenger airliners blowing up. So they had to used phoney shots that they made with windows movie maker to replace the footage that was botched. So that explains why the planes look fake in the videos. And we can all rest easy knowing that real planes were used which explains those plane shape holes.
I know that if we can just meet in the middle on this that we can finally take our message to the streets with a nice easy to swallow concept that the public will get behind..and then we can all go back to bickering endlessly about who killed JFK.

As daft as it sounds this is actually a clear theory that fits most of the facts!

The one thing some people seem unable to concede is how fake the footage looks.

That's where NPT/TV fakery stems from Stann... not some whacko theory - 'O how can we mould 911 events to fit this bizare theory'

No - it starts by watching the footage - live TV and recorded video and seeing how faked it looks. THAT is the starting point,

Then you scramble around trying to find a reason why it is faked. Some more far out than others.

1 - It was faked because as above, the real planes looked too crap so they faked some CGI ones on top to boost the psychological impact. (this is like photoshopping a models face on the cover of a magazine. The model is real, she lives and breathes like the rest of us and was really photogrpahed, but if you look closely you can see the photo is obviously 'faked'. (OMG she's a hologram!! :eek:)

2 - It was faked because whatever hit the towers looked nothing like passenger Boeing 7#7. Obvious reasons why; the OS needs planes full of Americans to add a dimension of human drama to the horror of the psyop, and effect everyday life. Missiles is no good, it had to be planes so that Americans would be reminded of it evry time they flew. IT affects ALL Americas that way - missiles is too 'far out'.

3 - It was faked becasue there was nothing in the air at all. Again, same as 2 above, just having the buildings exploded and fall down, not psychological enough. They needed people to see this live on TV, and those few seconds before impact and the following explosion is the thrust of the drama of this psyop.

NB - BTW I am fully prepared to concede and admit that there were planes, just show me the proof. I have seen plenty of faux evidence, and some other evidence (photos of plane wreckage on one of the other buildings) that can easily be faked.

What I am looking for here is an investigation like that of all other major airline crashes in history by a civilian authority that is not liek a piece of swiss cheese; even the alleged passenger lists have been shown to be highly suspect. Where are the black box recorders, where are the air traffic logs? If there were alleged thousands of witnesses, show me the transcripts of just 12 reliable witnesses who can describe the livery of one of the planes all in agreement.

It goes both ways - you have to as much prove there WERE planes as you have to prove there weren't.

What I will come down on without doubt is WHATEVER it was that hit, somewhere between 1 and 3 above, is utterly irrelevant when discussing the TV/video footage - IT IS FAKE!!

I admit - that does NOT PROOVE there were no planes - but it sure as hell throws the topic wide open for scrutiny - and it comes back very wanting.

THE TV/VIDEO FOOTAGE IS OBVIOUSLY FRAUDULENT

---------------------------------

"I declare that last year's European Cup Final was faked - the players were not real, the match never took place, there were not thousands of witnesses."

See the problem here? The TV/Video footage of that event is crisp and clear, from many many angles, and a few independantly filmed TV companies. Thousands of fans would be able to produce a foiled ticket and they all would be able to describe events pretty much in line with each other. The match was recorded by officials on the ground and by UEFA before, during and after. Plenty of fans may have got to shake hands with the players or slap them on the back. Etc etc etc.

This can easily be shown to be pretty certain it was a real event.

911 - Very iffy and dodgy video record of the event. The few witnesses that have been recorded cannot agree on what they saw. Very little and very suspsect and dodgy 'official' recording of the event.

This cannot easily be shown to have been a real event.

See the point??

Dodgy through and through... so it is well worthy of discussion!

[white horse]

This thread is about your theory being tested for validity ..and relying solely on it's own merits .. rather than the lack of merits of any other theory which may come along or may already exist.

Stann

It's a theory in the negative. NPT is all about pointing out holes in the official theory.

That's what people like us do.

As for putting ofrward a solid provable alternative to the official bullshit, I can't cos I have NOTHING to go on.

My starting point is deconstructing the offcial theory, which is easy to do. In it's place I put a whole lot of ? question mark place holders to show where the official story is riddiled wiht holes.

I use ? question marks cos I do not know what the alternative is = hence I cannot prove it. (Anymore than anyone can prove pplanes hit.)

[onourwayto2012]

It's a theory in the negative. NPT is all about pointing out holes in the official theory.

That's what people like us do.

As for putting ofrward a solid provable alternative to the official bullshit, I can't cos I have NOTHING to go on.

My starting point is deconstructing the offcial theory, which is easy to do. In it's place I put a whole lot of ? question mark place holders to show where the official story is riddiled wiht holes.

I use ? question marks cos I do not know what the alternative is = hence I cannot prove it. (Anymore than anyone can prove pplanes hit.)

Exactly WH... I think of myself as an NOS..... no official story...... don't know what happened, but except for the date EVERYTHING in the OS ranges from highly suspect to flat out impossible ............ so when someone purports to buy certain aspects of it I am not real enthused about their other beliefs/theories..... and as for GooseWeick types... fuggedaboudit

[gamolon]

Exactly WH... I think of myself as an NOS..... no official story...... don't know what happened, but except for the date EVERYTHING in the OS ranges from highly suspect to flat out impossible ............ so when someone purports to buy certain aspects of it I am not real enthused about their other beliefs/theories..... and as for GooseWeick types... fuggedaboudit

Yup, you are right. There is MUCH more proof of holograms and planted explosives as there is for anything concerened with the official story.

I mean really. Everytime someone talks about holograms and explosives and proof is asked for, we get the same line:

"You mean to tell me you don't BELIEVE the government has that technology???"

Which has more holes in it? Your theories or the official story? Have you ever compared? Where is the proof of holograms? Where is the proof of explosives? All you ever say is it LOOKS like a controlled demolition. It LOOKS fake. Never any proof. Why hasn't ONE person come forward and admitted that they were part of the conspiracy?

[onourwayto2012]

Yup, you are right. There is MUCH more proof of holograms and planted explosives as there is for anything concerened with the official story.

I mean really. Everytime someone talks about holograms and explosives and proof is asked for, we get the same line:

"You mean to tell me you don't BELIEVE the government has that technology???"

Which has more holes in it? Your theories or the official story? Have you ever compared? Where is the proof of holograms? Where is the proof of explosives? All you ever say is it LOOKS like a controlled demolition. It LOOKS fake. Never any proof. Why hasn't ONE person come forward and admitted that they were part of the conspiracy?

I said I don't know what happened. And how many times does someone have to go over every step of the OS and explain why it's 99.999% impossible..... I don't say a 100% because there is that one in a 47.54 kajillion chance that things happened just like.... you know...just an unfortunate coincidence...after another...after another, after another.....etc.... even ONE thing in the story should make people go WHOAHH!!...how did THAT happen?...but it was so successful and shocking that people bought it hook line and sinker.... good job elite asshole motherfuckers..... and your corrupt to the bone politicians,billionaires...etc....

[onourwayto2012]

Yup, you are right. There is MUCH more proof of holograms and planted explosives as there is for anything concerened with the official story.

I mean really. Everytime someone talks about holograms and explosives and proof is asked for, we get the same line:

"You mean to tell me you don't BELIEVE the government has that technology???"

Which has more holes in it? Your theories or the official story? Have you ever compared? Where is the proof of holograms? Where is the proof of explosives? All you ever say is it LOOKS like a controlled demolition. It LOOKS fake. Never any proof. Why hasn't ONE person come forward and admitted that they were part of the conspiracy?
And yes I DO think that WAY above Top Secret DEW's(of some sort) is MUCH more plausible than the ludicrous OS. And once again...the fact that they got billions to buy this shit just goes to show how good they are at it...heck even smart persons like you!!!

[white horse]

And yes I DO think that WAY above Top Secret DEW's(of some sort) is MUCH more plausible than the ludicrous OS. And once again...the fact that they got billions to buy this shit just goes to show how good they are at it...heck even smart persons like you!!!

I went along with it for years... maybe 4...

Then I randomly looked at it again for the first time since it happned... and :eek:

[stannrodd]

Now I'm not accusing anyone in particular here .. but ..it seems to me .. that there is a group who prefers to fight with another group, rather than work things out together.

The reason is .. that there are people who go quite easily with the plane scenario and there are those who vigorously oppose it.

Logically .. they can't both be right .. unless of course there was perhaps one "plane" .. and perhaps one "no plane". :eek:

Then both parties can be half right.

Currently .. there are two concepts which are mutually exclusive, and the result is divisive .. this means nothing is achieved. Just endless bickering.

That is probably the agenda of whoever is responsible.

Anyway, I like to think outside of the box .. so I thought I'd throw the combo theory into the fry pan and see what cooks.

Stann

[white horse]

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/impact6.jpg

Ok ok...

That sure looks like a real plane.

But hey wait a minute!

The light is all wrong!

If you watch this video this plane flies in and is basically a black shape... this is one of the few frames where you can see any details.

Why is this plane in so much shadow when the area it is flying through is bathed in glorious sunshine?

Look at the buildings around it - there are no buildings that are casting a shadow; the sun is up at 30 odd to 40 degrees, not a cloud in the sky.

Why the plane so dark?

[stannrodd]

Why is this plane in so much shadow when the area it is flying through is bathed in glorious sunshine?

Look at the buildings around it - there are no buildings that are casting a shadow; the sun is up at 30 odd to 40 degrees, not a cloud in the sky.

Why the plane so dark?

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/HiresA-1.jpg

This is the full frame from which the image was cropped.

Check out the sky .. It's not exactly free of black smoke and when you assess the direction of the sunlight and the position of the plane .. perhaps it's in the smoke's shadow... ?

Stann

[stannrodd]

If you watch this video this plane flies in and is basically a black shape... this is one of the few frames where you can see any details.

I wonder if you could point me to a source of the video which you claim this frame comes from. You see I only have the 18.5 Mb stills and have not seen this as part of a video.

Thanks
Stann :)