The Dummies Guide to "No-Planer" theory

reply to post by PepeLapew


PepeLapaw

The development of this thread illustrates your long original starting post to be highly prophetic.

The planted 'no-planer' trolls are at it again. Unfortunately this no-planer rubbish shows that the deliberate misinformation damage is already done, and the truth behind 9/11 is probably never going to be uncovered now.

The perpetrators have done an excellent job. They must be toasting themselves with champagne every time another 'no-planer' troll starts yet another pointless thread discussion on ATS, and more knowledgeable members using rigorous scientific methods and common sense are dragged into engaging with them.

What a result!

Next: look out for the 'no buildings' theory - i.e. the planes were real, but the WTC & The Pentagon were secretly removed the night before and replaced with holograms. It's a bit more credible than 'no planes', don't you think?

For Pepe...There is no video of planes not hitting the buildings, because these videos do not exist. I know what you mean and how you feel when no one can or will properly address your question. And it's an easy question at that. Most here have trashed your thread out of their own selfishness. All of us dream of an answer for all of this, and wish we had it for ourselves. And wish we could be the one who puts it right. Can you imagine a poster coming on here, and in one swoop explained it all, and ended all of this? Imagine that, an end to all the confusion, and someone was to be absolutely dead on right....no more questions...Amazing.

I don't have any answers or ideas about the planes or non-planes. I started thinking it was a demolition job the minute I saw it on tv that morning. And when building 7 fell, I couldn't believe it. Fell straight down, untouched by a plane or even a ghost plane. I was embarrassed to have been thinking that. But I thought it anyway, and have thought this way ever since. Somebody did something they weren't supposed to do.

Videos of jet damage ocurring to the buildings without jets or images of jets in the film do not exist...That's my contention about that. You folks have the right to believe what you want. Please also have a desire to at least seem intelligent. Maybe question a few hundred eye witnesses from the scene?....Maybe do that? Most of them are probably still around.

But none of this makes me right...or the bashers after me.

reply to post by bovarcher


Here you go. This is how you control a plane from outside of the aircraft.

en.wikipedia.org...-by-wire

Analogue
The fly-by-wire flight control system eliminates the complexity, fragility and weight of the mechanical circuit of the hydromechanical flight control systems and replaces it with an electrical circuit. The cockpit controls now operate signal transducers which generate the appropriate commands. The commands are processed by an electronic controller. The autopilot is now part of the electronic controller.

The hydraulic circuits are similar except that mechanical servo valves are replaced with electrically controlled servo valves. The valves are operated by the electronic controller. This is the simplest and earliest configuration, an analog fly-by-wire flight control systems, first fitted to the Avro Vulcan in the 1950s.

In this configuration, the flight control systems must simulate "feel". The electronic controller controls electrical feel devices that provide the appropriate "feel" forces on the manual controls. This is still used in the Embraer E-Jets family of aircraft and was used in Concorde, the first fly-by-wire airliner.

On more sophisticated versions, analog computers replaced the electronic controller. The cancelled supersonic Canadian fighter, the Avro CF-105 Arrow, was built this way in the 1950s. Analog computers also allowed some customization of flight control characteristics, including relaxed stability. This was exploited by the early versions of F-16, giving it impressive maneuverability.

Digital
A digital fly-by-wire flight control system is similar to its analog counterpart. However, the signal processing is done by digital computers. The pilot literally can "fly-via-computer". This increases flexibility as the digital computers can receive input from any aircraft sensor. It also increases electronic stability, because the system is less dependent on the values of critical electrical components in an analog controller.


F-8C Crusader digital fly-by-wire testbed.
The Airbus A320, first airliner with digital fly-by-wire controls
The Dassault Falcon 7X, first business jet with digital fly-by-wire controlsThe computers read positions and forces from the pilot's controls and aircraft sensors. They solve differential equations that move the flight controls to carry out the intentions of the pilot.

The program in the digital computers let aircraft designers tailor an aircraft's handling characteristics precisely, within the overall limits of what is possible with the aerodynamics and structure of the aircraft. For example, the software can prevent the aircraft from being handled dangerously by preventing pilots from exceeding preset limits (the aircraft's envelope) such as the stall, spin or limiting G. Software can also be used to filter control inputs to avoid pilot-induced oscillation.

We're all familiar with these now, controlling a big plane by remote is no different than a small one.
en.wikipedia.org...

An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is an aircraft with no on-board pilot. UAVs can be remote controlled or fly autonomously based on pre-programmed flight plans or more complex dynamic automation systems. UAVs are currently used in a number of military roles, including reconnaissance and attack. They are also used in a small but growing number of civil applications such as firefighting where a human observer would be at risk, police observation of civil disturbances and scenes of crimes, and reconnaissance support in natural disasters.

There are a wide variety UAV shapes, sizes, configurations, and characteristics. For the purposes of this article, and to distinguish UAVs from missiles, a UAV is defined as being capable of controlled, sustained level flight and powered by a jet or reciprocating engine. Cruise missiles are not classed as UAVs, because, like many other guided missiles, the vehicle itself is a weapon that is not reused even though it is also unmanned and might in some cases be remotely guided.

The acronym UAV has been expanded in some cases to UAVS (Unmanned Aircraft Vehicle System). The Federal Aviation Administration has adopted the generic class Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) originally introduced by the U.S. Navy to reflect the fact that these are not just aircraft, but systems including ground stations and other elements.

I hope these links are what you wanted as far as a source. When the people behind the attacks put out an OJ Simpson style book called "If We Did 9-11" I'll be sure to put direct quotes from it in my posts.

The US Government did not plan the attacks of 9-11, some people within the US Government and some of those people's associates did.

[edit on 11/3/2007 by Spoodily]

Originally posted by bovarcher
Where is your evidence for this claim please? I never saw any.

Well bovarcher, you are in luck. That is my area of expertise. Do you remember Leika the Russian dog sent in space? Leika was the first of 29 dogs sent in space by the Russians and the Americans would soon follow with chimps.

Of course you and I agree that neither the dogs nor the chimps were trained to fly the spacecraft, correct? In fact all these missions were performed with remotely controlled spacecrafts from the ground, and that was some 60 years ago!!

The same goes with Uri Gagarin, it is a little known fact that the first man in space just sat in his seat and enjoyed the ride, he had no control over the spacecraft which was, once again, controlled from the ground. So if we could send dogs and monkeys in space 60 years ago, isn't it reasonable that we might just have the technology to fly a Boeing with remote controls today?

If you want to know more, here is a post from me, I highly recommend that you read it. Some of the stuff is out of date and it needs to be revamped with some newer information and more evidence. Let me know what you think:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Presently I am working on making a small documentary which will go along the lines of that thread but it will be much more provoking and with some very revealing new information to it.

Cheers,
PepeLapiu

Do you understand the text you are quoting at such length?

Are we getting fly-by-wire aircraft systems mixed up with remote controlled aircraft?

The first, long text you have copied and pasted does NOT describe any kind of 'remote control' technology. Fly-by-wire is a technology which IS DESIGNED TO ENABLE THE PILOT TO CONTROL THE AIRCRAFT EFFECTIVELY FROM THE COCKPIT. ALL, REPEAT, ALL MODERN AIRLINERS HAVE FLY-BY-WIRE TECHNOLOGY TO ENABLE THE PILOT TO FLY THE AIRCRAFT. IT IS STANDARD.

Pointing out that small remote control aircraft exist does not get anyone anywhere. I haven't seen any evidence that remote control devices were used on any aircraft on 9/11. Because something is technically possible is not evidence that it was done. It's just an opinion, unsubstantiated by any evidence. If I missed the evidence, please be gracious enough to direct me to it.

And anyway, what does any of this have to do with holograms or the 'no planes' disinformation-troll rubbish designed to send genuine researchers down stupid, pointless blind alleys and so keep the truth from the people?

Originally posted by tenplusone
The wings did not slice through like butter, the nose of the jet did.

If you watch the videos, you can clearly see the perfectly in tact nose of the jet pass through the entire WTC.

I do not see a nose coming out the other side. Some have claimed that a puff of smoke consists in a nose but that is not the case. Many things can be made out of smoke and clouds, I see a cloud in the form of a sheep, an other one looks like my dog .....none of this is a proof that my dog is in the sky, now does it? A puff of smoke that might look somewhat like a nose in only one video frame of a single video doesn't prove the nose was seen on the exit side.

Also, it is a FACT that every single footage known to the population has been in the hands of FBI. The very second someone tries to show a NEW video about 9/11, the FBI confiscates it. Don't believe me? RESEARCH!!!

Show me just one example of the FBI confiscating some videos from amateurs or pros. Of course you would have to show me that they were ALL confiscated but I am going to ask you to show me just one example .... and keep in mind that WebFairy or Killtown are not reliable sources.

Cheers,
PepeLapiu

Originally posted by bovarcher
Because something is technically possible is not evidence that it was done. It's just an opinion, unsubstantiated by any evidence. If I missed the evidence, please be gracious enough to direct me to it.

See my post to that effect:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by PepeLapew



OK Pepe, I read it. Interesting idea, if true.

I look forward to some evidence in due course, if you can uncover it. Because something might be possible, or there might be suggested circumstantial involvement, does not make it true. It might be another blind alley, and for all we know might be more transplanted disinformation. If there is anything in it, it will stand up to rigorous, skeptical analysis, and many investigators will be on to it.

You seem to be suggesting that Raytheon deliberately conspired to murder several of its top employees on 9/11. Have I understood this correctly? If not, please enlighten me.

So the best of luck. I do not believe conspiracy theories unless I can see a bit of irrefutable evidence. Just a small, eensy-weensy bit would be good, for a start, instead of just wild proclamation and rigid, conspiracy-theory belief systems, which are all too evident from many contributors to ATS. These keep us from the truth, as you so eloquently pointed out in your opening post.

Whoaaaa!!!
I received 13 applauses so far for this thread. Thanx all, I will not IM each and everyone of you but thanx a lot!

Now is there a way I can turn those ATS points into bucks to pay my rent?

Cheers,
PepeLapiu

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear PepeLapew:

Bonjour!

Your newly posted thread is indeed very well written and well researched. Naturally, now comes my big objection however. You actually addressed an important point why there were no planes on 9-11. You just view it in the opposite way. Exactly because every Tom, Dick and Harry had cameras pointing at the twin towers, there should be loads of footage showing UA175 hitting the WTC-2. But guess what, there aren’t. There is not a single ‘independent’ image to be found, anywhere. ALL stills and films of UA175 are cut from the same mold reeking of (lousy) CGI trickery.

Since the CGI is so lousy, show examples of it and how it was accomplished using which programs.

I’ve typed this so many times, my fingers are hurting. All the civilians filming that day, recorded nothing relating to airplanes.

What makes you say this? Please provide evidence of this statement.

And since all the TV feeds showed Boeings, they either just scratched their heads and said ‘oh-well’ to themselves, ‘we must have missed the shot.’ Or their work is being condemned as ‘uninteresting’ and ‘irrelevant’ because it doesn’t show what everyone wants to see, the planes!

Yes ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE who took a picture or filmed thought that? EXTREMELY unlikely at best

reply to post by SteveR


Shouldn't the heavy black arrows be reversed? The main strength of the wing supports the aircraft in the air. It isn't used to slice through the air.

Originally posted by bovarcher
reply to post by PepeLapew

 

OK Pepe, I read it. Interesting idea, if true.

Well, every single detail I wrote on that post are 100% accurate. I did not suggest anything, I provided facts and you drew your own ideas and conclusions.

I look forward to some evidence in due course, if you can uncover it.

Well, just don't expect a smoking gun like a video of Bush saying he deployed remote controlled planes. If I had such proof, you would not believe it and I would not live long enough to click send on this message anyway.

Because something might be possible, or there might be suggested circumstantial involvement, does not make it true.

You are correct, circumstantial evidence does not prove a case. But we have motive (weapons sales), we have modus operati (the planes flown just weeks before 9/11) and we have means and opportunity (the remote technology). I will put on top of that a very large mountain of circumstantial evidence. But what's important is not the evidence, circumstantial or otherwise. What's important is that you learn to realize that your own government and your TV and your newspapers are all trying not to show you that evidence. They are all trying to ignore it.

In fact, we can't even find circumstantial evidence pointing to the 19 Muslim terrorists .... unless you know something I don't?

You seem to be suggesting that Raytheon deliberately conspired to murder several of its top employees on 9/11. Have I understood this correctly? If not, please enlighten me.

Again, I did not suggest anything. I merely showed you the facts and you drew your own conclusions. I didn't tell you what I think, I told you what I know for facts. In anyone can show me those facts to be wrong, I would be happy to correct them.

So the best of luck. I do not believe conspiracy theories unless I can see a bit of irrefutable evidence. Just a small, eensy-weensy bit would be good, for a start

Well, see my video here for a "eensy-weensy bit" of a proof:
www.youtube.com...
Just tell me, you will see only the facts as reported on that day from the actual reporters - so just tell me, what does that building collapse look like to you?

If you want to view my video when it comes out, just send me your addy at [email protected] When the video is ready I'll send you a link to it. It will be many times more provoking then the post itself!!!

Cheers,
PepeLapiu

reply to post by Insolubrious

Are you sure this wasn't a twin engine aircraft? The splat sort of looks twin engined to me. The wings did not penetrate the hull of the ship as far as I can tell.

Over all though I think Pepe did a good job with the original post. I wonder if a lot of the videos are the disinformation element involved not simply some lies. People act as if there were hundreds of videos. There are quite a few, but not hundreds, maybe not fifty, maybe not thirty. I don't know how many there are, but some don't look "real". Some appear to be tampered with.

I think the oddball theories about 911 are irrelevant. The real problem with the movement is it's inability to get a prosecution going on any aspect of 911.

reply to post by jfj123


Dude! You are trying to have a reasonable discussion with a holograms no-planer ..... do you realize what you are doing?
You should try and bang your head on the wall repeatedly, that would be more enjoyable and certainly more productive.
That's like someone telling you that 2+2=5, you can't argue with that reasoning. The guy wants to look like an idiot, he wants the world to believe that you and I are as kooky as he is.

His conspiracy theory isn't supposed to be rational, that's the whole point, it's supposed to look ridiculous.

Only one thing you can do is state that you are a truther and you do not endorse these fools and ignore them as best as you can.

Cheers,
PepeLapiu

reply to post by bovarcher

Okay dude! I am going to stress this a bit. I asked you to view my video here:
www.youtube.com...
Now I know you are not a demolition expert or an engineer. I am not asking you for your professional opinion here. I just want you to tell me what does that building collapse look like to you?

As you see the building come down PERFECTLY VERTICALLY inside 6.5 seconds, what comes to mind for you? What's your first gut feeling about that collapsed building appearing to be falling out of the sky?

Cheers,
PepeLapiu

an event like 9/11 is a giant operation including mass media tv fake control many months planned before.
this site shows theoretical arguments for no-planes motives
killtown.blogspot.com...

neither a remote control plane nor a real Flight 11 or 175 with the passengers they said were on it would penetrate and give a cover for the "collapse," and both might cause other problems

The fly-by-wire flight control system eliminates the complexity, fragility and weight of the mechanical circuit of the hydromechanical flight control systems and replaces it with an electrical circuit.

That's true.
The problem with this related to 9/11 planes is that the B767/757 is not
Fly By Wire.

TV Fakery wouldn't prove NO PLANES. All it proves is TV Fakery. Next, again even *IF* there was TV Fakery, how could anyone jump to the conclusion of NO PLANES?? It could be that different military planes were used and the film of such was doctored.

However....

IF there truly was something significantly different on the NEWS that night and during the day then what happened in reality, then.......

NEW YORK would riot.!!

We are talking about a major population, where it would be logical to conclude given the height of the WTC buildings and the major fire before the second strike, that logically hundreds of thousands of people would have witnessed this LIVE with their own eyes.

So even if some missed it, some might have got a wrong angled look, but enough would see it correctly.

Considering it was fresh in the people's minds, if what was on the NEWS differed that much.....

Well again, NEW YORK would riot.

Next a conspiracy of that magnitude would not work, it couldn't. There would be just to many artists, camera men, news people etc etc.

Every single witness is claimed to be a liar. Every single man or woman working with a camera that day is now a liar.

This type of theory shows that people who hold to this have a generally LOW VIEW OF HUMANITY. A view of humanity that suggests that such a large number of people would be in on this.

That is a negative paranoid view of people. It denotes a problem. Camera man for the news are your people just like you and me trying to make a buck to live, pay the mortgage or take the wife on vacation.

Sure there are bad people, sure there are conspiracy's, but this one is getting to large, expecting to much and makes zero sense.

#1. No CGI of the Pentagon, proves they would be reluctant to use CGI.

#2. The lack of a riot in NEW YORK proves what was on the news was not so different then what people saw.

#3. Humanity has bad apples, but if it is that widespread then you shouldn't even trust your NO PLANE theorists!
How do you know they aren't doctoring things, or lying intentionally??





[edit on 3-11-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Shouldn't the heavy black arrows be reversed? The main strength of the wing supports the aircraft in the air. It isn't used to slice through the air.

Think.. what are we talking about here in this thread?

Could it be... striking the WTC?



Not that I'm a no-planer - but I would of thought the arrows were self explanatory.

Originally posted by PepeLapew
Show me just one example of the FBI confiscating some videos from amateurs or pros. Of course you would have to show me that they were ALL confiscated but I am going to ask you to show me just one example .... and keep in mind that WebFairy or Killtown are not reliable sources.

The FBI confiscated all the photos and videos taken by the military or civilians at the Pentagon.