Why planes were not used.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

Considering that four WTC buildings were blown to smithereens is it still so unreasonable to consider that there might not have been any planes at all?

Yes. VERY. The fact that plenty of people on the ground saw it happen (at the WTC anyway).

I have to agree. Even if one states that the second plane was a hologram (which, if it was, was a far better one than I've ever heard of) the first plane was caught on film rather by chance. There's too much coincidental evidence surrounding the two crashes for them to be as sophistically operated as would be necessary by not having planes in the first place.

If they went to such great lengths to create such outstanding holograms for the first two plane crashes, why did they screw up so horribly on the plane wreakage at the Pentagon? The Pentagon story looks like the gang that couldn't shoot straight with all the anomalies committed. If the masterminds were so detail-oriented for the WTC towers, why did they botch the Pentagon and flight 93 so badly?

Heck, the first film is worse than the second! Supposedly, the Naudet brothers (=CIA assets in France? Or, French secret service agents?) were professional camera operators. Pluueease!!! Anyone with a cell phone camera could have done a better job (albeit they were rare in 2001). Still, their footage is so horribly bad, that one has no choice but to assume this was done on purpose (the low quality imagery).

Again, there is nothing physical or theoretical pointing toward the use of real aircraft on 9-11. Only flimsy film images. And there was nothing ‘sophisticated’ about 9-11. Simply reckless ruthlessness.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

My friends,

I would like to take this opportunity, seeing as this is a conspiracy forum, to shed a sort of, "new light", on this subject. More important than how it was done is why it was done. Unfortunatly to understand why something happened you must understand what happened during 911 and its outcome on the world. You've all seen (im guessing) The enormous amount of video footage of the incident followed by testimonials from eyewitnesses and, indeed, Experts that would seem to contradict their account of what happened. Personally Im not sure those where planes equipped with conventional equipment for a commecial airliner (or planes at all, for that matter). However, I will not say that im 100% sure that they were holograms or complete illusions. The fact of the matter is There is simply not enough proof at this time, one way or another, to disprove either theory. I say this because The video provided in this thread is proof enough that someting wierd was happening during that 18 minutes, Whether it be the missing plane in the wide angle shot, or the hole in the tower the exact size of the 767. Briefly touching on that point, Physically speaking, on impact (if it were true that you could puncture through the steal reinforced building with an aluminum plane With obviously less mass than the building)
The resulting hole would be significanly smaller that of the wingspan of the plane itself. So the photo of the 767 overlaying the tower hole is largley inaccurate, However this does not mean that photo is useless, It can tell us a great deal of how the people "in on it" want us to think about what happened on that day. Concordantly, The same logic can be used for any video That may give hints as to what actually happened (any video posted on this thread) So why would WE be allowed to see an raw Video of live feed or what actually happened? I can think of 3 reasons right off the bat

1. All video is fraudulant (meaning it shows exactly what "they" want it to)

2. After the incedent happened the TRUTH was controlled so well that the majorty of people believed what they were told to and the people "in on it" would have no problem overcoming claims of conspiracy theorists who saw the footage and started typing about it online in forums

or 3. they are trying to show a select group of people something and we as observers and thinkers are a sort of "social experiment" the likes of which have not been seen (meaning our very reaction to the information given is being recorded and studied, purpose unknown)

It is at this point that i would like to take a step back from the logic trains already rolling in this thread to propose a new idea, that the towers falling was an event bigger than previously concieved in the worldview. Currently (in this thread) it is percieved that there was some alterior motive to the fall of the towers, and since this is a conspiracy thread i thought this vid would be approriate. It does not tie in the WTC until the last 3rd of the video so you will have to watch for a little bit untill it gets really interesting.

www.youtube.com...

It is at this point i would like to say to anyone who belives my words have merit, Please share your thoughts i am very interested as i have talked with people who wholeheartedly believe every word of what that video was saying, they make some very good points, and i'd like to hear your thoughts.

Also, a warning, narrow minded is the one who seeks to prove his brother wrong, but wisdom belongs to the man that seeks to prove his brother right, and yet is not able to do so.

[edit on 16-5-2007 by WooManChu]

[edit on 16-5-2007 by WooManChu]

Originally posted by piacenza
They had to plant the explosive perfectly and a plane would have been to much of an asshole even if remotely guided. They might have used a missle but I am not sure.

Have you ever flown a 767 before in your life? Have you ever flown any plane at all? Do you have any experience in missiles and missile guidance?

Originally posted by piacenza
The second its a footage I hardly beleive it was not photoshopped.

You can't Photoshop video, but okay. Have you ever edited video before?

Originally posted by Johnmike
You can't Photoshop video, but okay. Have you ever edited video before?

Actually, there is a video editing function in photo shop.

I'm no expert but i remember seeing that function.

I have to weigh in on the whole no-plane issue.

It is fanciful, but totally unsupportable.

First you have to discount thousands of witnesses on the ground and in the towers.

That's a lot of people to fool, coerce, bribe, involve or whatever, when it is far simpler to simply fly planes into the buildings.

Next, you must produce a technology which can generate projected images in broad daylight.

I don't think there exists such a technology at this time, and the aircraft debris scattered across the Manhattan streets would be tough to pull off.

If this was some tiny podunk town in Alabama, where maybe ten people would be outside at any given time, and over half of them drunk, I would say there could be plausibility for a hoax of this type.

Not in the middle of New York City.

On the subject of planes, I found this awhile back, and the site is till up:

Joe Vialls footage of the south tower impact.

On this page, the author makes a very good point about how all of the long range footage of the planes disappeared from the mainstream media rather quickly.

I realize that a lot of the impetus for the no-plane camp considering the mystique around the Pentagon and flight 93 in Shanksville. The circumstances around those two planes may have been different from the planes which were flown into the towers. Both flew several hundred miles east while hijacked, and with transponders off before turning back towards their intended targets.

It is possible that they were swapped out in the air, on the ground or crashed in a remote region and replaced with a military plane. The Air Force had some prototype Boeing KC-767s around that time which would have been perfect replacement planes. They would have been due for scrapping, since the planes were not going to be put into service.

My feeling is that there is enough evidence to suggest that these planes were flown by remote with computer-aided control. The low-level turbulence over Manhattan would have made manual control of these planes extremely difficult - maybe even impossible. Human reaction time is just too slow at those speeds, yet the planes were able to line up and hold a straight course into the sides of the buildings.

Not bad for rookie pilots with no jet flight experience.

There were ample opportunities to swap these planes out in the air, since they all flew over several other airports, air fields and military air bases on route to their targets.

It is also possible that the planes had been rigged for remote hijacking and were flown by shadow planes flying ten to twenty miles from the targets.

One of my favorite graphic explanations of this "bumblebee effect"is shown on the Team8Plus website


It details the coincidental passes of the hijacked airliners as well.

I think the necessity for remote control stemmed from the fact that the buildings had been loaded up for the event and human error needed to be minimized, or the explosives might be discovered.

My intent is not really to hijack this thread, but it seems to have run its course on the original subject.

Wizard_In_The_Woods

I am merely doing this to show the logical flaw in the reasoning many here have engaged in concerning --CGI used by the news media, Planted evidence, Holograms.

I hold to the fact that real planes were used, but will argue for an alternate theory to prove logical fallacies in the arguments your promoting.

Beginning with...

No, of course the twin towers were never holograms. We have razor sharp images showing their demise. And we have lower Manhattan covered with physical debris from the towers.

If your going to hold the PLANES BEING HOLOGRAMS then you have no argument against the WTC being holograms. In fact, the Damage Debris and all the rest using the logic your employing could easily be holograms!

You talk about "RAZOR SHARP" images. One could argue in the reverse. If the image is too sharp CGI becomes the suspect.

Another thing to note is that "RAZOR SHARP" is meaningless here, since many people here are talking about 'holograms' so convincing that they can fool millions upon millions of people.

From the ‘planes’ we have NOTHING. Except for horrible quality, phony-looking film.

They do not look 'phony' they look perfectly fine. The 'horrible quality' you allude to in most cases has to do with compression and the unexpectedness of filming such an event.
There are pictures, there are amateur films shot at a distance.

There are numerous digital artifacts that happen, that is normal.

ot as much as even a small screw from those Boeings was found. Oh, sure, there were plane parts. A piece of landing gear (with the wrong type of tire). An engine (wrong model).

Wrong Model? So they are that smart to duplicate a Boeing by using a HOLOGRAM so convincing that millions are fooled---- but they are that stupid not to know the model? So they plant the wrong evidence?? Come on, that is ridiculous.

You just drop the 'planting' of evidence at a drop of the hat because it supports this theory.

What your talking about is a huge number of people being added to this conspiracy, the larger the conspiracy the more likely people will talk. The amount of people needed for what your talking about is what makes this theory highly suspect.

no damage reports by FBI or NTSB — for the first time ever, no official and definitive passenger lists directly from the airlines, impossible cell phone calls making the reported stories from inside the airplanes also impossible, no film — fake or otherwise — from the Pentagon ‘attack’, ridiculous crash site layout at Shanksville, PA, and so forth.

Look at lot of that can be explained without evoking holograms.


Look Wizard, you are a gifted and talented person. In my view your using your god given gifts and brains to chase a theory that is ludicrous and hurts the search for truth.


At the end of the day, even *IF* this was true. *IF* holograms were used, unless you come up with something better the vast majority of people are never going to believe this and this includes large numbers in the truth movement.

It will remain in the discussion phase and remain there, but we need to move forward and to try and put together a circumstantial case that most people will think is rational.

Again, I ask you to reconsider your position and to head over to a film studio and or get in touch with people who work on CGI for a living. In my case it is easy since I have friends who work in film and with special effects, what people think would be easy to do would actually be enormously difficult especially considering how fluid the events were that day.







[edit on 16-5-2007 by talisman]

Why can't you guys just accept that some of you will not accept the no planes theory as a possibility and that some of you will consider the no planes theory as a possibility.

There is really no need to try to sway the other side for the purpose of changing the other persons opinion to be the same as your own.

I mean, it's like arguing to someone that a band is good and the other person doesn't agree. At this point the person should not try to force the other person to change his opinion.

Live and let live.

At least most of us in here agrees that it was an inside job, we can agree on that aspect of the truth.

I am just pointing out that this thread was originally created to offer evidence and theories on how no planes could have been pulled off.

This thread has turned into a debate on the theory it self.

Maybe i am wrong, maybe i am not seeing it right but that's how i currently see it and it's just my opinion.



[edit on 16-5-2007 by selfless]

selfless

Because it is one of the most detrimental theories to attach itself to the 9/11 truth movement. I have already encountered many people on other forums lumping this with what I personally believe.

It is also an idea that is highly dis-respectful of people who lost loved ones on those planes, and if by chance they do happen to search for answers I want them to be sure that ideas such as this one are held in the minority of the truth movement.

This idea should be challenged as it has come straight from people who are disinformation specialists.

I am not saying people here are, I am just saying I have my reasons to be highly suspect of some of the people who have produced films promoting this theory.

I also think there are a lot of smart people here who need to take a step back and really think about this.

[edit on 16-5-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by selfless There is really no need to try to sway the other side for the purpose of changing the other persons opinion to be the same as your own.

Dear selfless:

Wise words spoken you have. While I consider the no planes theory an absolute certainty and not just a mere possibility, that’s neither here nor there. Indeed, it is practically impossible to change other people’s opinions. I have yet to convince a single family member or friend of my 9-11 convictions.

Yes, many of us on ATS agree that 9-11 was an inside job. And that’s an important first realization. For me, once I accepted that, I immediately started researching answers to ALL the questions which had been nagging me for years including many about events prior to the ‘attack on America’.

Understanding that 9-11 was a self-inflicted wound caused a far-reaching shift in my thinking, enabling me to see the ‘big picture’. But in the end, it’s strictly a personal choice how far one wants to put the puzzle together. My guess is that comprehending the workings of our world is too scary and, especially, too depressing for many if not most of us. And that in itself is perfectly ‘understandable’.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Maybe the reason this is true...

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

I have yet to convince a single family member or friend of my 9-11 convictions.

... is because you also believe this...

While I consider the no planes theory an absolute certainty

I'm not trying to tell you what to believe or not, but you have to understand that people who are not obsessed with 9/11 like many here are going to think you're a loon for believing that no-planes is even a remote possibility.

In other words, the more extreme theories, whether they are true or not, take away credibility from the more plausible theories. This is especially true when theories like the no-plane theory are based on almost no verifiable evidence, but instead are based only on imaginative speculation.

Dear nick7261:

Strictly rationally speaking, it’s even loonier to think that our own fellow citizens and leaders would blow up our flagship and landmark building complex — the WTC site. For personal gain, for ‘strategic interests’ (ours and an ally’s) and for whatever other ‘wacko reasons’.

No planes, means no one got hurt (in plane crashes). That thought appears much more benign than the colder-than-marble precisely premeditated murdering of thousands of people. Isn’t THAT more far-fetched — to presuppose that persons actually exist so ruthless to do such a thing?

The no planes theory is harmless compared to the we-ourselves-purposely-blew-up-our-proudest buildings theory.

Going bananas,
The Wizard In The Woods

Wizard_In_The_Woods

Well even if the planes were holograms though, you do believe people got hurt? I mean people were hurt in the WTC as well.

I think you raise a good question and I have thought about it as well. We do see however things like Operation Northwoods which did include operations that were treasonable.

We do see things like Operation Gladio, MKULTRA and I wouldn't be surprised that there are many things we don't know.

Now, there is debate whether Pearl Harbour was allowed to happen.

But let us look at this carefully. Do governments really value human life so much? By governments I mean elements within them and not just gov.

Hiroshima? It was done we are told because it saved lives.

The Planning of Operation Nortwhoods. The excuse is the cold war.

Gulf Of Tonkin, so many dead afterward. Again the fight of communism.

And we see even now during the recent debates on Fox the question of torture was brought up if it served a greater good.

So simply put if there were those in the black operations who thought Al'Qaeda could strike with a nuke or dirty bomb say 10 years in the future, perhaps they reasoned this action as serving the 'greater good'.

So they saw 9/11 as the beginning of the end of Al'Qaeda and securing the Homeland against any terrorist nuke strike.

Of course this can be manipulated by Sociapathic people in power, sold as security to the rest of the people involved in such a conspiracy and vital for the Country but in reality serving the interests of very evil people.

Just like the shooting down of a plane on its way to crash into a building, although many innocents are killed it prevents more death, it becomes a moral dilema.

Perhaps they thought this needed to prevent a nuke disaster in the future?

I just think that all this proves that they don't value human life, they do value their objectives and many times Gov's play God.

At the end of the day these elements within gov do not value human life, I think it safe to say neither do they value a 'building'.







[edit on 17-5-2007 by talisman]

talsiman,
what they value is TOTAL control.

so, how do you control six billion sentient beings, of which the majority are completely rational?

with irrationality. things that, 'don't add up' instantly in our minds, are reduced to rationalize-able chunks. cognizance is a complicated thing. billions of input/output boxes in a matrix are how our brains work. the sum output is the result of an input 'survivng' the trek through all these kernels.

and, so, with many preconceptions built up in our minds, it is literally impossible to see certain things as real.

check out the 'hollow face' illusion.



[edit on 17-5-2007 by billybob]

billybob

Everyone will have to decide for themselves what they feel 'rational' to be, but if we go down a certain route we must face the logical implications.

If the unbelievable is introduced then fine but be willing to then suspend any rational objections of 'Any Kind'.

That just leaves us all without 'rationality' and just with the unbelievable and people could just make up things as they go along, find a few anomolies and viola, instant new theories.

I personally think you have to find a 'middle ground', something that meets the middle point. Because rationality and skepticsm to a point is healty, of course challenge it but at the same time be open to rational explantions.

As for me, I believe that the OFFICIAL STORY is bogus. I do so rationally based on an enormous amount of circumstantial evidence.

Now, at times I have had to re-adjust my viewpoints on certain things if pointed out on certain details. That is fine. That is what the search is.

Sometimes extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Now this isn't always the case, but for most times it is.

One weakness of this whole theory is that usually the people that have the talent to CGI or Blue Screen at a high level are in fact people in the film industry.

I mean CGI with equipment that can render at a very high level and BLUE SCREEN like INDUSTRIAL LITE AND MAGIC.

They are usually artists and as such would be a very unlikely culprit in such a conspiracy. ITs unthinkable.

Now if one were to suppose they were, then this had to be 'story boarded'.

This isn't just made in a vacuum. It has to be laid out on paper, and that quite frankly is impossible given what was happening that day.

You know the money and the budget that goes into making a STAR WARS movie?

Its not just 'copy and paste' everything. It is rather a difficult thing.

BTW I liked the link on the illusion but I also think that this is a perfect example to illustrate how far off people are when examining different viewing angles of the Planes.

You to have to be open to the fact that such theories might be based on pre-conceived notions, not just the other way.

Because something on film looks wrong, doesn't logically follow it is. We might want to examine it further, but jumping to conclusions are wrong especially when the conclusions are things like 'holograms crashing into the towers' or 'CGI effects by the entire MEDIA'.







[edit on 17-5-2007 by talisman]

[edit on 17-5-2007 by talisman]

OK, ive done a bit of mild research into the no planes theory, watched a couple of videos on youtube, one mentioned something called WESCAM. That idea intrigues and caught my attention i must say.

What bugs me though is that there are so many people from NY who say they saw the planes crashing into the towers, and one or two bits of footage where the plane can be seen coming in from distance and people commenting on this as it happens..

Im still open to the idea of no planes, but it just seems more logical that they used real planes. Why bother taking such an unnecessary risk in trying to fool people like that?

I have a few specific questions for those who know there stuff, and would appreciate some answers, or links to relevant material for me too look at

-First, would the planes be holograms, or just added in later/realtime on TV (the wescam idea)?

-How would they create the roaring sound of the planes, especially so far away. The guy who filmed "9/11 Eye Witness" said he heard the plane rumble over where he lives, and he's on the opposite shore from Manhattan Island

-How would the engine found on the corner of Murray Street be planted when there were people running around that area?

Appreciate any answers, thanks.
-

What if the hologram was actually built around a bunker missle? The famous Pod might have been the only real thing on 911.
That would also explain the police officer that saw the missle being fired from another building.
Just a wild guess as good as any others.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
I have a few specific questions for those who know there stuff, and would appreciate some answers, or links to relevant material for me too look at

This article is a good assessment of logical points why it's possible there were no planes.

www.911closeup.com...

This article is Forensics evidence why it's possible there were no planes.

www.911closeup.com...

This just offers some logical points. I know there are also some logical points why there could have been planes as well but, let's not just close our minds to one possibility here.




[edit on 17-5-2007 by selfless]

selfless, that EXACTLY the kind of writing i was hoping someone would post, although i was hoping for some kind of photo/video analysis aswell. It is very convincing as writing most definatly, and i understand the point its trying to make, although i must admit id never thought it through in such detail before. I also like the mention of Tom n Jerry, my childhood cartoon of choice

Can anyone point me to some links of actual photo/video/physical evidence analysis? Many thanks.

You can watch this video, holograms are not going to do this. Go into the building and come out the other side. This is a piece of the fuselage of the aircraft that went through.

Now this is perfectly logical and consistent with the eyewitness who saw a piece of the planes wing inside the building!

Of course the NO PLANE people just claim everyone *A LIAR* when it doesn't support them.

The following is the video

PLA NE

Do people honestly think people "ran around" with pieces of a plane and stated planting stuff??





I have already shown *WING MARKS IN THE SOUTH TOWER ON ENTRY POINT* How is a hologram going to do this?










[edit on 17-5-2007 by talisman]