Who wants to see No Plane's / etc moved to the Skunk Works forum?

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


This thread is not about debunking the theory. I could not careless about the flashy thing or any other specific area of the theory. This thread is about moving a topic/ theory of 9-11 into Skunk Works. With all due respect, what you are bringing up in your post has nothing to do with where this topic should be. Using your line of thinking... if I were a person who believed the official story of 9-11, could I then say all conspiracy related 9-11 material be moved to Skunk Works cause I think it is ridiculous? Cause I feel I debunked it? Thats the issue we are talking about here, not weather or not it is a viable theory.

SteveR: I agree 100% but again, my belief about the events of 9-11 are not the issue here. What you quoted I had said was an example, and I was using my beliefs as that example. Please do not let the debates cloud the actual issue on this thread. Which is should the No Planes Theory be moved to Skunk Works, and again my opinion is no.

I respect everyone else's opinion if they believe it should be moved, however the only reasons I have seen to do so have all been about one person's belief vs another person's belief or one person saying it is ridiculous while another says it is not. This topic in NO WAY can compare to the circumstances that surrounded the whole Reptilian Shape Shifting issue which was the reason for it being moved and the OP made that comparison in the argument for why this topic should be moved. To move this topic is completely counter productive.

Originally posted by section8citizen
To move this topic is completely counter productive.

Counterproductive to what? Ongoing firey poo-flinging debates centered around technologies which border on fictional? The biggest issue is that its counterproductive towards the well being of not only America but the entire world.


It is to 9/11 that Reptilians are to aliens/"UFO's". And it can even go as far as "the reptilians used THEIR directed enrgy weapons on 9/11".

I'm done.

Please read this post.

In my opinion it is counter productive to what ATS is all about.

Again- your whole argument about why it should be moved has been centered around your belief of the events of 9-11. That is not a reason to move a topic based on 9-11 to Skunk Works. It can not compare to what we saw with the Reptilian issue which technically (and as stated by the Mods) does not even qualify as "Alien" or "UFO" therefor did not belong in that section. Are you saying this theory is not related to 9-11? Of course it is related! That is why it is in this section. The Reptilian topic was not moved because it was believed to be bunk. Just cause you may think the topic is bunk, does not mean it should be moved.

Originally posted by icybreeze
here here!
MOVE IT, MOVE IT, MOVE IT!!!

[edit on 7-10-2007 by icybreeze]

yes same here this has gone on long enough

reply to post by Fett Pinkus



Ok WHY should it be moved??

I still have yet to see anyone give a good reason for WHY other than personal belief.

reply to post by section8citizen


OK here's why it should be moved-the reptoids garbage was moved because it was, well, garbage, regardless of how much the mods want to deny that. Do reptoids fit in aliens and ufos? Of course they do, the prevailing theory about reptoids is that they are aliens from another planet or are descended from aliens from another planet.

Therefore, it should not matter whether or not no-planes fits in 9/11 or not, it is garbage and should be treated as such. Voluntary boycotts of the threads are not enough, this board has a policy of not tolerating hoaxers because they drag the board down and lead people astray, ergo, ban the no planers.

Yeah, I know you're going to say "hey, you're persecuting no planers, they might have a legitimate point!!" but when the evidence is so clearly and plainly (no pun intended) against these buffoons, I think you have to start considering the harsh reality that they are hoaxers and should be treated as such.

reply to post by uberarcanist


Again... besides personal belief in the validity of the theory..WHY should it be moved? I have said it a million times already. A person's belief should not dictate that a topic be moved. If that was the case, you would have to move ALL of the 9-11 forum to Skunk Works if the theory goes against the official story.

Hoax?? Ok, so according to you John Lear is a "hoaxer"? Seriously, a guy who has accomplished as much as he has, and has received the commendations that he has I am sure has much better things to do with his time than to perpetuate a hoax.

Besides that... this must be one heck of a hoax if it is going to be heard in court. This would take "hoaxing" to a whole new level.

Really aren't you going just a bit overboard? Reaching just a little?

Again this topic has NOTHING to do with if you or I believe that there were or were not planes. It has to do with moving a topic out of the 9-11 forum, and this topic is based on 9-11. Moving it makes no sense at all. I am not on here debating if there were planes or not... that is not the issue. So please...show me a reason why it should be moved NOT based on your personal belief about the events of 9-11.

reply to post by uberarcanist


You seem to be under the impression that I am PRO No Planes. That is not the case and I have stated that a few times. This thread is not about debating no planes vs planes. This is about moving a topic related to 9-11 theory into Skunk Works.

So again, I am not going to debate weather or not there were planes involved in 9-11. I am just saying that the topic should not be moved into Skunk Works and I am asking anyone to show one good reason why it should that is not based on what you believe happened on 9-11. What you or I believe happened on 9-11 is completely irrelevant to this thread.

What would happen if we just applied the logic of this thread to ALL topics on ATS? Pro NWO vs No NWO, Pro UFO vs No UFO's. Which would you put into Skunk Works? Which would be the official position of ATS? Get my point? Just because someone disagrees with a theory does not mean the topic should be moved.

Personally, I think all 9/11 conspiracy theories are far out there, but yes, I agree the no-plane, holograms, etc. 9/11 theories are even further out there. Still, I don't agree with a separation of forums. If I recall correctly, the 9/11 forum itself was split off from the War on Terror forum to provide a suitable area for these types of theories.

reply to post by section8citizen


I will conclude my contribution to this thread by stating that some theories are just so utterly implausible that the forum should not stoop to accommodate them. When all of the evidence is clearly and plainly (again, no pun) against a certain theory, I feel it has no place in the forum.

Opinion: Remove 911 Forum entirely

911 happened in 2001. Since then the world has moved on and there are many other interesting events taking place. Many of them with more significance and danger (from a conspiracy point of view) than something that happened many years ago. I think the 911 forum should be deleted and all discussion about it should happen in the general conspiracy section.

Otherwise the topic will serve to divert from more current issues for many more years. Just like the JFK Assasination doesnt need its own forum, 911 doesnt either.

Even though I really enjoy talking to John Lear, and as he the main purveyor of this particular theory (at least at ATS), I'm almost 100% sure he's dis-info. That doesn't mean 100% of what he says is a lie, it means he'll intentionally throw you off on one subject so that you'll disregard the validity of his opinions on other subjects, and he'll even do it within the same subject. He thinks 9/11 was an inside job, which I believe, but thinks the planes were holograms, which I almost 100% don't. He thinks there are structures on the moon, which I do, but thinks one of them is a "soul collector", which I don't. That is the nature of dis-info.

You have to use your common sense sometimes.

Oh and BTW, no plane hitting the Pentagon would be correct.

Peace

Personally I think we should move it into John Lears forum since he is the one that is continually perpetuating the idea of "no planes" and holograms. Since he believes so strongly in these theories (with no proof to back up his claims other than his "awards"), let him answer those theories, and let the rest of us get back to trying to prove the real inconsistencies with the official story.

I really wanted to let this one go, but I can no longer resist...

Originally posted by section8citizen
Ok WHY should it be moved??

I still have yet to see anyone give a good reason for WHY other than personal belief.

Because it's been debunked, over and over again. That's the fact. My OP in this thread in itself clearly demonstrated that it holds absolutely no water. This is a matter of fact. Another matter of fact is that all of the technologies they're proposing are as good as fictional. While they're at it they might as well say that weather modification satellites were also in play to make the weather nice and clear that day. Why do I mention this? Because these theoretical technologies are what SKUNK WORKS is all about...

Originally posted by section8citizen
This thread is about moving a topic/ theory of 9-11 into Skunk Works. With all due respect, what you are bringing up in your post has nothing to do with where this topic should be.

Read above, then read your quote there, and then read this:
My AGI "ATS Email SPecial" was dumped into Skunk Works even though it is based entirely on absolutely verifiable facts. It could have been placed in either "Military / Government Projects" or in "Science Technology", but it wasn't. Why? I figured because it was about advanced technology, perhaps that is rather unknown, and even bigger because it involves the convergence of many sciences and agencies and players. I assume that because of those criteria it made "Skunk Works". This is an exact parallel to the issue here. Read that last sentence, and the one before it, and each point applies directly to No Planes. But then dig this: The difference here is that my "theory" is a matter of fact (feel free to try and debate that one), whereas No Planes is raw ficton, based on technologies that probably don't exist nor in their present state (TODAY) couldn't do what is said of them if they did exist.

It has been proven false, even in this very thread, but beyond that virtually every single talking point is bunk or a far stretch of desperation. The evidence they promote to explain it doesn't add up (would you like an itemized listing?). The theory holds no water, except in the minds of people who made up their minds that it was real before they even looked closely at it (John Lear), and no matter how overwhelming the contradictory evidence or arguments they keep on truckin'.

The real matter of belief that you keep stating is that it has become the belief of some people out there, and no matter what is shown they wont give it up. Read John Lear's challenge thread. In it they even admit that they've attached faith in it, after I drew out the parallels of the theory paralleling blind faith religion.

And people are arguing, like you are here about No Planes, that Reptilians are "alien" related. They're supposed to be a alien race, after all. That issue is more about consensus was reached in clearing up a "problem", and if you read that thread few are upset while the majority are delighted. If our thread here wouldn't have been moved from the 9/11 forum right away, you'd see a majority in support of doing the same with no planes, and it'd probably be much longer than the "EFFECTIVE TODAY" thread.

Originally posted by Springer
After much consideration and thought it has become evident that the "Reptilian Shape Shifter" craze has got out of hand in the Aliens/UFO Forum here on ATS.

The No Planes craze as been out of control for most of the year (go to the 9/11 forum and look for the BIG yellow letters, those are a product of No planes.

Originally posted by Springer
Since Reptilians are not technically "Aliens", they are certainly not UFOs and since the vast majority (if not all) of the "video evidence" is nothing more than lights reflecting on the glossy, spherical shape of the human eye and creating an elongated shadow that when viewed on a terribly pixelated, low resolution video appear to be something they are not, it is now ATS POLICY that these threads be started in the Skunk Works Forum.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That is what the best No Planes "evidence" is. My thread here wasn't unwarranted.

Originally posted by SpringerThe Skunk Works Forum was created for exactly these sort of theories and or speculations.

FACT: No Planes is pure speculation and conjecture.


While we're at it why not squeeze 9/11 into the War on Terror forum? The War on Terror is the direct product of 9/11. The War on Terror is supposidly even centered around 'stoping' the "same people who carried out 9/11". Therefore, going by your logic, War on Terror & 9/11 & No Planes and maybe even Peak Oil and Political Conspiracies should all be the same unified forums, because after all their all directly related to one another.

Lastly, and a key issue of why I decided to reply here again, is that I answered your talking point of the Court Case issue, in my first response to you. I'm here because I'd like to use this as an example of how these people operate. You destroy a no planer argument, and they keep talking on as if it never happened. The next page and they're right back at it again, and I'm even talking about when the asnwer/etc was directed at that very person; meaning, it's not like they were just coming into the thread and 'missed the memo'. That is exactly what you did when here on the next page you brought up your point again as if it never happened, and that with your persistence despite admitting you haven't looked closely enough at the issue really makes me question your fervor.

I must say that I'm one of the biggest freedom promoters around, like hardcore style, but this issue is like an abomination to all reason, the 9/11 tragedy, and hope for mankind, for starters, in addition to all aforementioned.

Alright, I'm really done this time. Go ahead and get the last word, but answer this: How ISNT "No Planes" a "Skunk Works" topic by definition?

[edit on 9-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

As a semi-new member, I have often questioned the theory in the threads and have asked John Lear a few times to explain to someone who was there that day, someone who saw the 2nd plane...that there was no planes. I have only asked him in the threads themselves, but do not recall seeing an answer to this.

Sorry folks, there is not anyone in the world who will convince me that those were not planes. Beyond the planes....bombs in the buildings and such, thats up for debtate. But for me.....NOT THE PLANES.

I even have a post concerning my theory as to why there was bombs in the buildings to begin with.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Do We Really Want A Ministry Of Truth?

If we decide to remove certain theories from the 9/11 forum based on how plausible they are, then where should we draw the line?

"No planes" is being suggested. How about "Substitute Planes"? "Missile Theory"? "ABL"? "Micronukes"? "Demo charges"? Should those be moved, too?

Should the ATS staff decide what is plausible or implausible? If it was my decision, I'd label nearly all of them "implausible", because none of them has been proven.

Alternatively, and what seems to be the effective goal in this case, should members vote on what belongs in the 9/11 forum? Reality by consensus?

The Internet is full of discussion boards that are managed that way. Defy "the pack" and be ostracized or banned.

I would rather see members decide for themselves what to believe.

In my opinion, the problem isn't that some members are promoting the "no planes" theory, but that some other members can't tolerate different opinions. :shk:

Intellectual freedom is the only true freedom, and the right to be wrong is just as important as the right to be right.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

Originally posted by traderonwallst

As a semi-new member, I have often questioned the theory in the threads and have asked John Lear a few times to explain to someone who was there that day, someone who saw the 2nd plane...that there was no planes. I have only asked him in the threads themselves, but do not recall seeing an answer to this.

Sorry traderonwallst I must have missed your post. What you saw, in my opinion, was a holograph. It was a projection of an image that is totally indistinguishable from the real thing.

There were no planes that hit the WTC on 911 it was a PsyOp, a magic trick an illusion. Neither was there a plane that crashed into the Pentagon and there was no plane at Shanksville.

No. I don't know where the planes are. I would speculate that they are being used for other purposes by the perps.

No. I don't know where the passengers are. Maybe some are dead maybe some are not. But none of them died in a plane crash on 911 because there was no pane crash to die in. It was a PsyOp, a magic trick and illusion.

Thanks for the post and for your input, it is truly apprecaited.

I knew when I saw the reptilian threads moved to skunkworks that it was a potential slippery slope.

Good luck to ya.

One man's hoax is another man's truth, it seems.

PLEASE MOVE THESE TO SKUNK WORKS!!

Thanks,
Shiman