The Dummies Guide to "No-Planer" theory

To the OP, the reason no one can produce a video showing no planes is because they simply do not exist. They do not exist because the no plane theory is one made up in the minds of toil foil wearing hat individuals who have nothing better to do all day. These same toil foil hat people follow the rantings of individuals who claim to know more than they do, and who rely on their "famous" if not "infamous" last name. The difference between the tin foil hat famous last name following individuals and the Manson clan...well in my opinion there is no difference. Both "groups" follow a charasmatic man without ever questioning his intentions, theories or beliefs, and never ask for a thread of evidence to back up the "leaders" claims.

Planes hit the towers period. The only Hologram is in the over active imagination of an older gentlemen who borders on the fine line of genius vs. insanity. My vote is for the insanity claim.

You will never find a video of no planes because non exist. It's nothing more than a "B" movie type script where all the players are unknown trying to make a name for themselves.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


That is such a crock of crap it isn't even funny. I have yet to hear one individual claim to have the incident on film and no longer in custody of that film due to the FBI confiscation. Do you EVER PRODUCE ANYTHING TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS??? Nope you don't.

Originally posted by anti72
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

Answer my questions:
So if there was no planes hitting the towers, how is it that every single video footage available show us a plane hitting the buildings? You can't drive a snowmobile into a shed in cottage country without people seeing it so how is it that we can't find a single video footage that reveals no plane hit the second tower? Surely some people would be on the opposite side of the building and would not see the plane coming in, they would only see the ensuing explosion without the plane. But of all those who were on the proper side, how is it that none of them can tell us that they saw the building explode without a plane going in? How is it that the perpetrators managed to confiscate every conceivable video of the impact and add "digital fakery" to them? How did they manage to make sure that nobody catches the building on video exploding without a plane going in?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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.

Yup, they did and that was widely reported. So if you believe that they did the same in NYC, there must be some sources reporting it. But don't divert the attention from the questions I ask about THE SECOND PLANE at WTC, flight #175 that is (not the plane at the pentagon):

So if there was no planes hitting the towers, how is it that every single video footage available show us a plane hitting the buildings? You can't drive a snowmobile into a shed in cottage country without people seeing it so how is it that we can't find a single video footage that reveals no plane hit the second tower? Surely some people would be on the opposite side of the building and would not see the plane coming in, they would only see the ensuing explosion without the plane. But of all those who were on the proper side, how is it that none of them can tell us that they saw the building explode without a plane going in? How is it that the perpetrators managed to confiscate every conceivable video of the impact and add "digital fakery" to them? How did they manage to make sure that nobody catches the building on video exploding without a plane going in?

Originally posted by PepeLapew
So if there was no planes hitting the towers, how is it that every single video footage available show us a plane hitting the buildings?

Maybe because there are only a few videos showing the planes hitting the buildings. How many civilian videos do you see showing the planes hitting the buildings? Most of the civilian videos show after the planes hit.

Originally posted by PepeLapew
How did they manage to make sure that nobody catches the building on video exploding without a plane going in?

The same way they managed to only release 3 videos of the first plane hitting the tower.

You would think, all those security cameras, or cameras from local news, and all those other fixed cameras we see on actual 9/11 footage, would catch the impact of the first jet, but no? Only 3 videos of the first impact? Does that sound right in some weird warped way in your mentality?

[edit on 3-11-2007 by tenplusone]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by PepeLapew
So if there was no planes hitting the towers, how is it that every single video footage available show us a plane hitting the buildings?

Maybe because there are only a few videos showing the planes hitting the buildings. How many civilian videos do you see showing the planes hitting the buildings? Most of the civilian videos show after the planes hit.

I have over 100 videos on my hard drive which show the second impact. Well, some of them only turn around to catch the explosion but didn't turn around in time to catch the plane hit. However there must be at least 30-40 videos of the second impact which show the second plane and the ensuing explosion. If you want I can give you the link to a torrent to download all the videos of the second impact. CameraPlanet has at least 4-5 amateur videos showing the second impact.

In addition to the 30-40 videos, there are probably some videos which have not been published on the net, they just collect dust in people's living rooms.

reply to post by PepeLapew


Where are all these no-planers coming from? Gee, they are multiplying like rabbits.

Originally posted by PepeLapew
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

You are completely correct but to be honest, his answers amuse me It's like watching Wyle E. Coyote doing a cliff fall
By the way, good job with the common sense and thorough research. Also, how exactly do I do the applause thing?

Originally posted by SteveR
reply to post by PepeLapew

 

Where are all these no-planers coming from? Gee, they are multiplying like rabbits.

Rabbits? I'd say more like cockroaches or rats!

Originally posted by jfj123
By the way, good job with the common sense and thorough research. Also, how exactly do I do the applause thing?

Bah! Don't worry about it, I wouldn't know what to do with those points anyway.
Just join a new group and post my OP as your own post and that will be sufficient applause for me.

Besides, I don't know how to applause anyone other then by clapping my hands.

Cheers,
PepeLapiu

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by PepeLapew
So if there was no planes hitting the towers, how is it that every single video footage available show us a plane hitting the buildings?

Maybe because there are only a few videos showing the planes hitting the buildings. How many civilian videos do you see showing the planes hitting the buildings? Most of the civilian videos show after the planes hit.

Actually there are quite a few videos from different civilians that can be easily found on the web. If you're looking for them, start at YOUTUBE. Most of the videos I have seen were showing the 2nd plane as most people weren't watching until the first plane hit.

Also, aside from the video and photo evidence, there are the thousands of eyewitness' which would be impossible to fake.

You would think, all those security cameras, or cameras from local news, and all those other fixed cameras we see on actual 9/11 footage, would catch the impact of the first jet, but no? Only 3 videos of the first impact? Does that sound right in some weird warped way in your mentality?

Thats because security cameras are aimed at the street to watch activity
there - not looking up 1000 ft for any stray airplanes flying by. Prior
to the first aircraft impact was no reason to look up. After first impact
every eye and camera was now looking up at the WTC.

Just for the record on the amount of video that is supposedly in the possession of the FBI is something like around 850 videos from the WTC events and around 85 for the Pentagon event.

We have seen nothing compared to what the "Officials" have seen.

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
Just for the record on the amount of video that is supposedly in the possession of the FBI is something like around 850 videos from the WTC events

And your source for this information would be?

Originally posted by jfj123Also, aside from the video and photo evidence, there are the thousands of eyewitness' which would be impossible to fake.

There are only a few videos that show the second plane hitting the building, you mostly just see different clips of them.

As far as witnesses go like those at the Pentagon they could not agree on what they saw and their testimony would not hold up in court.

addressing the pentagon WTC comparison question, i have no dout in my mind that there WERE planes hitting the WTC. however i also have no dout that there ws NO plane that hit the pentagon. from the only video that i have seen of the pentagon impact i see no evidence of it being a plane, a tomahawk maybe!

reply to post by SteveR

I thought this was a thread for dummies. I need more explanation. Doh!! I get it. The dummies are doing the explaining too. Forget about it. Moe, I need another beer.

Okay dude!..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?

PepeLapiu

Pepe

You don't have to convince me that the collapse of WTC1, 2 & 7 look like CDs. They DEFINITELY look like CDs to me. However although I am a qualified pilot, I am not a qualified structural engineer so can not speak about this issue from a position of any real knowledge and authority. I can't even do the equations without looking them up.

However, there has been some pretty technical high-level debate amongst engineers here on ATS, as well as in other fora, about the CD issue. This thread for example:

www.abovetopsecret.com...#

is worth reading and persisting with, to become acquainted with the engineering science involved.

Basically, engineers have differing opinions and do not agree whether or not WTC1 & 2 could have collapsed as a result of the impacts and the fires. Unfortunately, 'it looks like CD to me' from a non-expert like me (or you, or anyone unqualified) is just not good enough. It's not evidence. Evidence would be:

-how, when and by whom it was planned; dates, places, a paper trail
-who supplied the explosive charges, when, what types, how much - plus paper trail & documents
-ditto detonation charges
-ditto cabling & control devices
-someone, ANYONE in fact, going on record who fitted out any of these buildings for demolition, describing how, when and by whom it was done
-POs, invoices, memos, any type of taped or recorded communication of any kind to support any of this obviously huge operation, which must have involved dozens if not hundreds of people over a long period of time
-any evidence of any kind, or corroborative testimony of any kind, from any witnesses - even one - who can and will attest on record to having seen any of this, or having any reliable information about it all

Without any evidence, all you have is a debate between qualified engineers who do not agree with each other, and unsupported opinion. This, in the real world, ain't worth diddly squat.

The debate about the planes, to me, is pointless. There is very strong evidence that the AQ operation precisely follows their normal modus operandus of striking several similar targets simultaneously (hundreds of examples from the US embassies in Tanzania & Kenya, hotels in Egypt, hotels in Jordan, commuter trains in Madrid, hundreds of AQ orchestrated bombings in Iraq against US & civilian targets, the bombings in London on 7/7/2005 & 21/7/2005, and those this year in 7/2007 - the list goes on & on & on). Osama is on record as having admitted to planning the strikes on 9/11, financed and supported the operation. Pilots were trained and the operation planned and executed. Aircraft were hijacked, reported hijacked and subsequently crashed into buildings. The identities of the hijackers, the passengers and crew of the 4 flights are all known and on record.

In Amman in 2003 I saw an interview with Bin Laden on Jordanian TV, where he expressed surprise that following the strikes on the WTC the buildings collapsed: they had not expected this. He praised Allah for this additional miracle, stating it to be evidence of the rightness of the cause. That's his view: it seems he does not have a conspiracy theory.

If people want to assert the additional and distracting fantasies about no-planes, or remote controlled planes or whatever, just provide SOME EVIDENCE to support the claims. Then people will listen. Otherwise, it's just a CT belief system which refuses to deal with facts, refuses to answer awkward questions which do not fit the belief-system, and in the end don't amount to a pile of beans. Which you so eloquently expressed in your opening paragraphs of this thread.
:up

Valhall has started another thread for discussion of the engineering issues surrounding the WTC collapse. See:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The mods declare they will not allow it to be derailed, and that attempts to sidetrack it into other 9/11 CTs will meet with zero tolerance.

Should be worth following.