An open challenge to no planers

I think that a reason there are no photos of no planes is because of the whole hologram idea. Wasn't there a big thread a while back on the holograms, and I thought even John Lear didn't rule out the possibility. I have read/watched a lot about the 'no planes' in the last few days, and I am totally open to the possibility of it now. Just think of the money that goes into black projects, and how advanced the military must actually be.

To me, the videos of the second plane going in also look very strange. I suppose most people accepted it because they had no previous experience to refer it to, most people not having actually seen planes crash into buildings. But now when I look at it, it does seem very plausible. But that's the great thing about life. Depending on your beliefs at that moment, any view/perspective belief system is plausible/the truth. Our truths are constantly changing, so to see the current truth as "truth" is kind of funny, isn't it? When we know we will have a different "truth" soon in the future. That's the way it always has been with knowledge.

I am having fun exploring this new possibility and am sharing it with others. Thanks to all perspectives!

Originally posted by talisman
You are absolutely correct in your assertion. IT IS PURE DISINFORMATION

That is an unfounded statement because it's all speculations, you can't say one theory is more right then another when there are no confirmations established.

-Unfounded
1.without foundation; not based on fact, realistic considerations, or the like: unfounded suspicions.
2.not established; not founded: the prophet of a religion as yet unfounded.
3. Not yet established.
4.without a basis in reason or fact; "baseless gossip"; "the allegations proved groundless"; "idle fears"; "unfounded suspicions"

to quote a snippet from: www.architectureweek.com...

..."The exterior walls had been reinforced with steel beams and columns, bolted where they met at each floor. Some of these reinforced walls very near the point of impact remained in place for a half hour before collapsing"

Also same article states that the gash was 100 ft in length....
Length: 155 ft 3 in (47.32m)

If the walls stayed standing and the gash was only 100ft long where was the 55 ft 3 in the didn't enter the building go? better yet - by their comment that the exterior wall stayed standing after the impact where is the crumpled up aluminum can on the lawn?

Originally posted by Fowl Play
Saying that is unfounded is deflection and disinformation, it is claims of no planes that is unfounded, an absolute lie and disgrace actually.

No....

You see, I am open to all theories but this does not mean that i will absolutely believe one over another.

It's not disinformation to be open to possibilities, it's being open minded.

An absolute lie and disgrace? You leave me to believe that you just post replies with out reading the posts. You did call me sleeper after all....

I am not lying, i am stating the fact that your accusations of this theory being disinformation is completely and purely unfounded, you are only saying this because you personally aren't open the the possibility of this theory and so therefor you accuse it of being disinformation simply because you don't like it.

selfless

That is an unfounded statement because it's all speculations, you can't say one theory is more right then another when there are no confirmations established.

It is not unfounded at all, it is like me saying the following...

I take it you would be open to the idea then that 9/11 never happened then? That the WTC was a hologram or visual effect as was the entire city of New York and all the witnesses are just working for the gov.


Do you see now where this leads? You can go from No planes to No 9/11. And the very same things *YOU* use to say 9/11 happened are the very same things I use to say PLANES HIT THOSE BUILDINGS.

Again, I want to stop this thread from going off.

The OP is looking for Original Sourced Un-Edited films of No planes hitting the towers.

Originally posted by talisman
I take it you would be open to the idea then that 9/11 never happened then? That the WTC was a hologram or visual effect as was the entire city of New York and all the witnesses are just working for the gov.

No, now you are just putting words in my mouth.

Originally posted by talisman
Do you see now where this leads?

Yes, it leads to unfounded accusations towards me.

Originally posted by talisman
You can go from No planes to No 9/11. And the very same things *YOU* use to say 9/11 happened are the very same things I use to say PLANES HIT THOSE BUILDINGS.

What?

Just because there are reasons why it's possible there were no planes used doesn't mean that 911 didn't happen and that 3000 people didn't die...

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say.

Originally posted by talisman
Again, I want to stop this thread from going off.

The OP is looking for Original Sourced Un-Edited films of No planes hitting the towers.

Well I didn't see such videos released yet, but then again i don't watch much videos on the internet due to my connection.

Perhaps there are some videos he requested but I won't be the person to contribute them.



[edit on 6-6-2007 by selfless]

selfless

You said No planes are just speculation. So I want to ask you point blank.

With what media or information do you rely on to tell me 9/11 happened?

Originally posted by showmeproof
Also same article states that the gash was 100 ft in length....
Length: 155 ft 3 in (47.32m)

Because the gash length is the width of the gash, and the 155ft 3in is the LENGTH of the 757, not the width. So you're comparing the width of the impact area, to the length of the plane. There is no "55ft that didn't enter".

[edit on 6/6/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by talisman
selfless

You said No planes are just speculation. So I want to ask you point blank.

With what media or information do you rely on to tell me 9/11 happened?

I fail to see the connection just because I'm open minded to a theory doesn't mean I have locked my self to it and will deny any other possibilities...

I know that 911 happened and that 3000 or more people died. I fail to see the point...

Please don't tell me I think New-York city is a hologram now.

will people debate this to the end of time seriously.

absolute power corrupts absolutely

the bigger the lie, the harder it will be to believe

people can't believe the gov't would sacrifice a couple thousand of it's citizens. why?

operation northwoods. is it too painful to imagine? btw i am being completely honest and sincere in these questions (curious you could say)

would it be frightening to believe the gov't would do this?

selfless

My point is that you think people who claim planes hit the towers are 'speculating' but what I am saying is the very same things that tell you 9/11 happened tell us planes hit the buildings.

Like, eyewitness testimony, the media coverage that day. Face it, if it wasn't on the news you wouldn't know about it. So on the one hand you chastise people continually for sticking to their guns and holding to the *FACTS* in the face of absurd theories, yet you refuse to see that the said event itself is supported by the same!

The same thing that tells me 9/11 happened is the same thing that tells me planes hit the buildings and that isn't speculation!

Talisman, again you are misinterpreting my intentions.

Yes planes hitting towers is possible speculations and yes no planes hitting the towers is possible speculations also.

Please stop being so defensive towards me talisman, I am not telling anyone that there was no planes, I am just open to the possibility, that's all.



[edit on 7-6-2007 by selfless]

Planes hitting the towers are speculation? Despite having eyewitnesses ON ATS that saw it?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Planes hitting the towers are speculation?

Well yes it is speculations because there is a theory that holograms did it and well I am not saying that it's true, I am just saying it's a possibility.

You see, nothing is actually confirmed about what happened on 911 exactly, it's all speculations until something is confirmed.

Or else, there would be no need for a 911 forum here ON ATS.

selfless

Your missing my point entirely.

I am saying that if you honestly think the CGI thing on 9/11 could have happened, then by that same LOGIC you would have to also be open to 9/11 not happening!

I am not putting words in your mouth, I am looking for some Logical consistency.

For example, if the media had that many people working for the military that day, including all their camera men and all the eyewitnesses in New York.

Then what are you honestly left with?

How then can you even claim 9/11 was a real event? With what? You think it is possible the media went All out on a deception campaign.

The conspiracy of NO Planes involves so many people being in on it, and not only that involves so many New Yorkers to have seen nothing, but saying nothing.

Excuse me! That is impossible. IF NO PLANE HIT THE TOWERS, then the City of New York has a loud voice. They would let the world know----NO PLANE HIT.

That fact alone is enough.

You keep saying it is speculation. Well to me it isn't. It is engaging in something that can be readily refuted. And again I stress without the media reports that day, you wouldn't know 9/11 happened. So if you throw the media out that day, what exactly are you left with?

Because part of 9/11 happening is the *FACT* that planes with real people, including HOCKEY PLAYERS and others were killed.



[edit on 7-6-2007 by talisman]

All i can say is,

Where there is possibilities there is speculations.

Remember that the media you speak of is also the media that says 911 was done by terrorists but do you believe that because it comes from the media?

It's all open to interpretation my friend, I am not more tied to a theory then another.

I am trying to figure out how the planes reacted the way they did after they penetrated the buildings, if there were planes at all (Yes that's a theory that i consider a possibility but still a speculation like all the other unconfirmed theories)

I am exploring a possibility right now that consists of timed explosives inside the building that made sure the planes would reside inside the infrastructure within the center core and the cosmetic facade so that all evidence of a inside job that comes from the planes are also destroyed with the buildings being exploded.

It's all speculation my friend.

Just remember that if there were absolutes, there would be no need for ATS.

selfless

Yes the media can believe terrorists were behind 9/11 as do other people, but that doesn't mean they are all going to engage in such a wide sweeping conspiracy. That doesn't say much about many people now does it?

There are good people out there. In my view, it was the black world and ops that was behind this, however I do draw lines.

You can't honestly sit there and say it was a possibility NO PLANES were used and then proceed to use the same source of Info to say 9/11 happened.

I don't believe the whole entire media was in on the 9/11 set up. There maybe a few people, but not the entire thing. *IF* I truly believed that then I wouldn't even bother with anything they say at all.

But as it is that day, we have to rely on the people in New York, the news crews on the scenes etc.

Planes Not being Used is not speculation. It is a fact that planes hit those builidngs. Eyewitnesses saw them from inside the Towers, people outside saw them, people who were on the flights are gone.

To deny that much eyewitness testimony is beyond belief. TO be open to denying that much testimony is beyond belief.

Talisman,

I choose to be open minded about the theory, you don't.

That's all there is to it and it's fine, i don't force anyone to be open to multiple theories.

There is no need for me to keep arguing with you that I am just a person who's open to the idea, I am not someone who wishes there were no planes.

I have absolutely 0 motivations to prove there were no planes.

I see some evidence that would suggest a possibility of not being any planes.

I see some evidence that would suggest there were planes.

This means that they are both speculations until confirmed or proven otherwise.

I hope this was the last time i had to explain this...

Dear talisman:

Hey mister talisman, talidi banana…daylight come and we wanna go home.

Well, well, well. Let’s see. I’m a die-hard no-planer, and I think it’s perfectly logical. Of course 9-11 happened — just not the way we were led to believe. Duh, that’s a no-brainer. All it takes is one single occurrence outside the theoretical capabilities of any ‘terrorist organization’ to prove with absolute certainty that it was an inside job. And 9-11 was the Zapruder film festival of false flag incidences.

So, all one needs to do is review the hard physical evidence to logically conclude there were no planes. You’re saying if there were no planes people would “proclaim” that to “high heaven”. It doesn’t take an anthropologist to figure this out — since when do people assert not having seen something? Heck, that was the case the ‘noise’ would be unbearable. We DIDN’T see Bigfoot! We DIDN’T see UFO’s! We DIDN’T see Paris Hilton streaking. Or did we? Yuck!!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Ok. Heres my problem with this TV fakery theory.

I am all for investigation into what happened on 9/11. I think the public needs to be made aware of what happened so that it never happens again.

But with theories such as these, without hard proof, they are making the real researchers into 9/11 look crazy. Instead of putting forward 1 theory to the public we are putting 300 out there and by the time someone gets through 5 of them they are put off the rest of the theories and therefore missing out on some important info.


my $0.02


Edit grammar

[edit on 7/6/2007 by Conspiracy Theorist]