Why is it important whether or not Planes struck the Twin Towers on 911?

This post has NOTHING to do with whether or not planes struck the twin towers, so any post to that would be off topic and irrelevant.

The post simply begs the answer, what difference does it make?

I believe, that if it was proven there were no planes on 911, then it would create a new paradigm for researchers to investigate and get to the truth behind 911.

For instance, if there were no planes....or if it was proven the videos were faked and CGI animation.....then that would mean....

1.) The Media was in on it, at least at a very high level.
2.) The Media was complicit and subpoenas could issue for media representatives to be compelled to testify.
3.) The Media leads us to the 911 Commission Report leader Philip Zelikow, who is a CFR Member, and there is HEAVY cross membership with Media people and the CFR.
4.) It would lead to less focus on the arab hijacking connection, and bring us closer to the people who actually blew up the building, and how they did it.
5.) Basically, the entire upper administration of the government all the up at the Pentagon who oversee the material fed through live TV, would be implicated, and

THIS FOLKS, WOULD MEAN OUR OWN GOVERNMENT WAS PROVEN TO BE INVOLVED, AS WELL.

Currently, the main focus is on hijackers. That's the problem. The media hijacked our eyes and ears with CGI, so this would implicate the government on a new, major level, never before realized by the masses.

Now, does anyone have any thoughts about this, and how maybe, it would be meaningless, and why?

Because you see, whether or not it was thermite...
whether or not the hijackers trained at a flight school in florida...
whether or not people made money off insurance claims filed weeks before...
whether or not bets were hedged on wall street ahead of time on the airline companies....
whether or not Cheney gave orders to stand down...
whether or not the orders were given to "pull it"...
whether or not WTC 7 came down with controlled demolitions....even

None of this proves government complicity and intentional coverup and direct involvement.....

But if it was proven and shown that the Videos we were all shown on the morning of Sept. 11, were all faked and CGI, then

It's all over for the government and the media and someone is going to go to jail!!!

reply to post by videoworldwide



Okay lets say the videos were CGI. Lets just say that a scientist studied them and determined them to be fake.

What about the witnesses on the ground that saw them hit the building?

You say that this has nothing to do with whether or not planes struck the towers and yet you talk about them being CGI as the basis of your theory. So to discuss your theory one would have to talk about the possibility that the planes really did hit the buildings.

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by videoworldwide

 

Okay lets say the videos were CGI. Lets just say that a scientist studied them and determined them to be fake.

What about the witnesses on the ground that saw them hit the building?

You say that this has nothing to do with whether or not planes struck the towers and yet you talk about them being CGI as the basis of your theory. So to discuss your theory one would have to talk about the possibility that the planes really did hit the buildings.

The theory has been discussed to death. I would like to discuss the potential implications, instead.

Someone who doesn't believe it's important can argue it from that basis. Like, I don't think it matters either way because if it were true, ....blah blah blah..."the conspiracy movement would be exactly the same", etc.
Or whatever....

I would like to hear why people don't think it matters one way or the other, and why not?

Or perhaps, you're no planer and you have other ideas on what might happen if people realized this, and how it would change the whole focus or direction., etc.

The point is, i'm trying to open discussion in other ways, that people may not be as contentious, but still allow for good discussion points. I think it's interesting in and of itself, as a separate question and issue.

Also, I truly believe people fail to realize the MAJOR implications of this and the effect it would have, and this being a very real incentive for the government to be involved in deliberate disinformation campaigns to discredit the no planers and TV fakery crowd.

So, therefore, to discuss this as it's own seperate issue and to get distance from the issue of the debate itself, is almost as important as the debate itself.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by videoworldwide]

Originally posted by videoworldwide

......then

It's all over for the government and the media and someone is going to go to jail!!!

In that case, let's hope the truth never comes out!

A few high ranking officals would take the fall, willingly or not. The media would aid in creating a visage of evil, a persona we can hate. They would limit the extent of guilt and ultimately I believe the structure that thought it up would remain intact.

Did I mention I'm quite a cynic?

reply to post by videoworldwide


Okay if they were deemed CGI there would be an investigation and a lot of people would go to jail. Including the hundreds or thousands of people at ground zero who said there was.

But since there were planes I'm not seeing the reason you want to discuss what would take place if there wasn't any.

eh, maybe someone else would like to try and play around with you.

The issue is highly heated on both sides, so it matters to somebody.

But, the issue itself, is a very small detail to many people. Many people say, "what does it matter whether or not planes hit the WTC?, they were destroyed and we have to get to the bottom of it".

So, if it is such a small detail, then the non-believers must have a reason for thinking "what does it matter?" and in their own minds they have concluded "it is not true", and "it doesn't matter anyways".

That's what i'm examining here, and inviting others to examine.

It's either a small detail that doesn't matter much, or it's a big deal, but in the whole realm of 911 truth research, it APPEARS to be a very little detail.

Actually, though, the implications are MUCH BIGGER.

So, for 911 truthers that pay no attention to it, ......why not?
For non believers..... How come, if it's such a small detail that doesn't matter, WHY MAKE ALL THE FUSS DEBUNKING IT? (After all, we agree on almost everything else) -- That's the funny thing, 911 truthers agree on many issues but the issue of no planes makes people want to duck tape each other to the bench. If it's such a miniscule issue, then why all the fuss? And if it's a small detail, why is it?, and at the same time, a big deal to make sure others do not believe it.

This is the ideological and philosophical roots of the no planer/planes argument. The implications are a whole issue in themselves, and they can be discussed separately, so please, let's try....

Why is it a non-issue? (Plane-Huggers)

Or why is it important? (No-Planers)

I know I have'nt posted much on ATS but I feel the question is pointless.

My reason for that is hundreds of people watched with there own eyes the planes hitting the building, not through a camera or on the news later but as and when it happened.

By asking the question about CGI you are calling every one of them a liar.

I would find hard to accept that every single person who saw it was/is a liar, conspiritar, goverment agent, or just plain been forced by TPTB to keep quite.

I do agree that there are many questions to be asked/answered about the twin towers and building 7 but wheter planes hit the buildings or not in my opinion is not one of them.

Originally posted by jpmail

I know I haven't posted much on ATS but I feel the question is pointless.

Exactly! It all boils down to the same, tired argument of whether 9/11 was an inside job or not.

It doesn't actually matter what happened on 9/11. There's no way to prove any particular claim, either for a conspiracy or against.

Let's say there were no planes, that this is the true reality. Nothing changes. Everyone has their pet theories, and no one is going to believe anyone else's theories. No matter how much evidence you muster up to "prove" there were no planes, most people simply aren't going to accept it. They'll cry "Photoshop" or "fake" or "crackpot theory", and ignore it. The same thing applies to any of the conspiracy theories about 9/11. There are already too many other conspiracy theorists who believe something different.

AFAIK, most people accept the Government's explanation of events, more or less. Most people are convinced it was some Saudi knuckleheads who flew planes into the buildings, and so on, and so forth.

But even if I'm wrong, there is not a majority of people who believe *any* of the conspiracy theories. There aren't enough believes of any theory, to compel another investigation into the facts. And even if they did, the other theorists wouldn't accept the decision.

There aren't going to be any subpoenas. There aren't going to be any investigations to get to "the truth". All you'll ever get are shocking revelations that "prove" one theory or the other, or supposedly debunk some theory. You'll get supposed "eyewitnesses" who make claims for and against airplanes. You'll get supposed perpetrators who will claim they saw or were involved in Government plotting. You'll get everything you want, except certainty about what really took place. That will never happen.

This discussion is pointless.

Planes hit the towers and if you really believe that they didn't or even that its a remote possibilty.you are living in fantasy world.

There is no point even discussing the possiblle implications it just introduces this talked to death insane belief to more loons.

If you think 9/11 was an inside job at least focus discussion on something the least bit believable.

reply to post by videoworldwide


How about this?




Pretty neat trick - who else would think of putting aircraft seat into
someone trunk to make us think a plane was involved!

Or this



Dropping a jet engine on a Manhattan street in broad daylight - that real
gnarly ....

Here's the kicker



A supposed piece of aircraft landing gear just shows up in Manhattan
right outside WTC

So explain why are we supposed to take anything you say are being rational?

It's important because they did. Note that I didn't say may have, but did. If you choose to investigate an event that didn't happen, that's your call, but the importance to an investigation of the events on 9/11 must include the planes - because they hit the buildings.

I mean, I guess we could start a new investigation of the Titanic and decide the iceberg wasn't a factor, or maybe look at the JFK assassination and decide the bullet that blew his head open wasn't important, or even investigate the death of about 20 million people from 1918 to 1920 and decide the Spanish flu didn't have anything to do with it...

but those would be as futile as investigating the events of 9/11 and deciding the planes or the hijackers didn't play any part. It all comes down to whether you want to deal with facts or not, I guess.

So everyone who SAW these planes must have been seeing things?

I really think you answered your own question in your OP. An assumption of NPT skews the investigation in that direction, and likewise with an assumption of there being planes.

Here it is, nearly 8 years later, and we still have many questions. I think one of the best ways to get back on track would be to start with what the various camps can agree upon.

The investigations radiate out from central points. Thus, every facet of the investigation matters, and hopefully each element and all its associated variables can one-by-one be put to rest.

You say this:

Originally posted by videoworldwide
This post has NOTHING to do with whether or not planes struck the twin towers

Then you say this:

Originally posted by videoworldwide
The media hijacked our eyes and ears with CGI

That's an oxymoron. You contradicted yourself in your own post. Others and I have already debunked your CGI "theory" in the other threads you've made here. Peddling something without proof is disinformation, especially when several of us have shown evidence to the contrary.

The topic of no-planes itself has been an embarrassment and a pain in the side of the 9/11 truth movement for years. Thankfully, all of the 9/11 truth movement research organizations and affiliates have either made public statements that they do not support the no-plane theories, and/or have completely banned the discussion of such theories on their forums.

It really doesn't matter so much anymore that these "theories" still float around on the few forums they're allowed to post them on.

I mean, who's going to buy into the no-plane "theories" anyway when no-planers like "videoworldwide" act like the following towards those who would try to debate or refute his evidence:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Nuff said....

Its definitely not CGI for one. Secondly, If it is CGI it does not prove government involvement in the slightest.

reply to post by videoworldwide


Wait! Who said the planes were fake? I know someone said the plane that hit the pentagon wasn't a boeing, but no one said fake. Why isn't it both? Plane and controlled demolition.

I can see the demolition being controlled even if it was a terrorist attack like they said. It would keep it from toppling over into other buildings and a larger area of destruction.

reply to post by chiron613


That's a completely valid opinion, and you just may be correct.

The topic of no-planes itself has been an embarrassment and a pain in the side of the 9/11 truth movement for years. Thankfully, all of the 9/11 truth movement research organizations and affiliates have either made public statements that they do not support the no-plane theories, and/or have completely banned the discussion of such theories on their forums.

Herein lies the problem - within the truth movement there is a fringe and a mainstream. The mainstream ardently maintains that the planes hit the towers, despite there being no positive ID of either plane in any form. The fringe believes in plane-switching or no-planes or projections surrounding missiles or something or that sort. The mainstream uses its considerable power to marginalise the fringe yet further, to the applause of its followers.

However, there are several problems with this. The first is that the mainstream part of the movement widely refers to the reports of the alleged hijackers being alive post 9/11. If this is true then who or what flew the planes into the buildings, and why were the passengers apparently phoning up relatives etc. to report hijackers? The mainstream lacks a coherent explanation for how its assertions add up.

Likewise, many in the mainstream believe no plane, or at least no large commercial airliner, hit the Pentagon. The suggestion seems to be that some sort of missile or drone flew into the side of the building. Yet the same possibility is ruled out at the WTC, vociferously so.

Logically, it's all to cock. Regardless of what you believe, what you're actually seeing is the same dynamic between the mainstream media and the truth movement play out within the truth movement itself.