Originally posted by Togetic
Call me naive. In fact, this is (I think) my first post to the 9/11 Forum. There has been a lot of chit chat about this forum--and this thread--lately. Can someone explain in 500 words or less what the No Plane movement is all about? I presume that it's arguing that there were no planes on 9/11. I have three questions that I am hoping someone can answer so that I can get a better idea of what this is about.

If there were no planes, what about the people who saw planes?

If there were no planes, where did the people on the presumably vanished planes go?

What evidence is offered in support of this theory?

I appreciate anyone who can help me--and presumably others--get up to speed on this.

[edit on 6/7/2007 by Togetic]

The planes were either missiles, holograms disguising missiles, or CGI faked on video. That's the gist of it.

I watched all four videos and I thought they were interesting. Thank you for posting them.

Yes definitely interesting videos, not ALL of the items, call them errors, or anomalies, are all that convincing, but some are mighty interesting. Check out PART III of the video series (see MY above post) and see what you think of the MISSILE path anomaly in the beginning of that video....

About that "japanese" video :
There's been a LOT of talk about that video, in this forum and on other sites, about a seagull flying past the camera, also in that video, and mistakingly "identified" as an Unidentified Flying Object.
Btw, not all posters do adhere to the theory, yet, or ever.

[edit on 7/6/07 by LaBTop]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The planes were either missiles, holograms disguising missiles, or CGI faked on video. That's the gist of it.

Missile's are highly unlikely. Virtually no chance. I can't see how there wouldn't have been huge cavities blown out on the insides of the towers, yet we could see the floors 'intact' on the inside right until the second the towers collapsed. The shockwave from high explosives would have been so far beyond everything that was delt, and regardless of the video anomlies there were catroon holes cut into the buildings. That's some E.T. munitions there.

Somewhere I believe I recall testimony of jet fuel stinch inside there. Oh, wait, we're not to accept any eyewitness testimony whatsoever. What was I thinking

[edit on 7-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Yeah, I know, I was just pointing out the alternative theories brought up by the no plane crowd.

I think the thing that catches my eye the most is the altitude changes between some videos. Some come in mostly straight, yet some come in at a steep angle. Can somebody explain why this is? Does it have to do with the camera angle itself? I can see how the camera angle could do that, but it doesn't explain all of them.

Originally posted by greatlakes
and see what you think of the MISSILE path anomaly in the beginning of that video....

Again, the deceptive techniques of the creators of these videos need to be closely examined.

They rely on the analysis of a badly compressed video, then use obvious compression artifacts as evidence that "something" is there. Yes, Staten Island is there, and the moving landscape (as the camera pans) is causing compression artifacts in the third+ generation digital video.

So let's direct our attention to the "comparison" shot.

These deceptive videographers try to convince you these two shots are the exact same angle, but they are clearly not.

Based on what we see here, the shot from "camera one" is clearly more to the east and much higher in altitude than camera two. This is because we see more of the sunlight eastern-face of the towers, and, we see Staten Island in the background.

While the overhead shot I composed is certainly not accurate in scale or positioning, it clearly illustrates the distinct possibility that the North Tower blocked the view of the oncoming aircraft from camera "one".

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Again, the deceptive techniques of the creators of these videos need to be closely examined.

If you plan on doing several examples you should save it for a new thread so we can give you Flags (WATS "votes"). Like:
"New Thread exposes SEPTEMBER CLUES Video Fakery"

By now everythings so buried in here, and it sucks we can't give your primo analysis ( ) votes

It sucks there's no votes. Apparent disinfo artists like the OP here can get all these flags (votes) for posting the thread, but when people step in and start dropping bombs we can't give them their recognition.


[edit on 7-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

mister.old.school

Didn't a lot of this start with the 'Webfairy'?

Rosalee Grable (if one can believe that name!)supposedly some grandmother from Chicago who happened to be internet savy with her hand on a whole bunch of rare never before seen things?

Should we all when dealing with the subject matter the OP brought up, seek original source material? I am getting to the point where this has to be exposed and the way to do it is with good quality images.

How can you guys explain plane parts on the street after the towers were hit.Where did these parts come from?.I just can't seem to grasp the no plane theory.And I watched all 4 parts of the video.Too many things left unexplained,like the wing impressions in both towers.Thousands of actual eyewitnesses saw planes,including fireman,police and everyday folks going to work that morning.Too many holes in this theory.

mister.old.school

Thanks, I don't want to derail this thread. Its just that some of the video's posted are sourced from this person 'the webfairy' and since she has a very dubious past and seems to be involved with suspicious things, I would think we have to get at the original source as much as possible.

Quick question. They say that the Pentagon witness saw the type of airline, numbers on plane, and even the faces in the windows?

Is this a possibility for an aircraft og that size going 500+ mph? I remembe the video they released of the Pentagon crash. That one seemed pretty blurry.

Just asking...

AAC

crowpruitt


You will notice there is a lot of manipulation in those 4 clips that you have watched. It really is as if whomever put that together did it with the wrong intentions.

Here is a case in point.

I believe it was on part -2, they were talking about the plane being a different color (darker) then in another shot (whitish).

However what they fail to mention is that the Tower itself is different in color in the 2 different shots!

That was one thing that irked me. The other was the very deceptive use of film comparisons claiming 'same angles' and things like that. Very, very deceptive. The other was the trajectory of the flight path they were talking about, which of course would look different from different angles and keeping in mind we are viewing this in 2 dimensions.

I guess what irks me more then anything is not the theory itself, but the way it is presented with obvious deception at hand. That is what bothers me and of course this WebFairy person.

Originally posted by talisman
You will notice there is a lot of manipulation in those 4 clips that you have watched. It really is as if whomever put that together did it with the wrong intentions.

I gotta admit I admire some of his editing approaches; I'm talking about the video itself, not the content tho. Unless he spent some seriously tedious time consumption, I cant see how it was for first editing attempt. To some it may not look all too impressive, but when you actually try to do it to his degree of quality it's not like picking up Paint Shop pro and banging out some edited images. This makes me wonder where his experience came from? For example compare it to the other videos bsreg posted up which mimic many other loosly thrown together clips you find across youtube in abundance.

However, now that I think back, I wont go as far as to call it professional as there was some masking on the TV bit that I would have expected.

I believe it was on part -2, they were talking about the plane being a different color (darker) then in another shot (whitish).

I caught that part. That was definetely one of his presentations biggest waeknesses actually as the plane is flying in the buildings' shadow.



Someone let me know if you find the 'original' clip from that Japanese footage.