I want everyone to take notice of the LOGIC that the "no plane" people are using. I am leaving out the HOLOGRAM PEOPLE AT THIS POINT, this is the CGI and the whole media tricked us logic.

On the one hand they believe 9/11 happened. But on the other hand they believe the media was totally *IN ON IT*~!

The very MEDIA that told them 9/11 happened! Now sure we might disagree on the *WHO* but certain things are not disputed. Along comes people to say the media faked the planes. Why stop there? In reality their logic leads to the rejection of the entire 9/11 event.

Their LOGIC can actually be used to say 9/11 never took place and the whole thing was staged! But they don't go there. They stop short. The very same things they will use to proclaim 9/11 as an actual event are the very same things we use to say REAL PLANES were used.

They have no good answer to this.

I would also like to point out a striking similarity on something. I have come to notice that people who supposedly support this theory post it 'spam' like. Not just one person, but they mostly all do. 90% of them post this way, and that tells me there is an alternative motive here. Why post numerous topics spam like? Why does more then one person from the side of NO Planes do things like this? You will notice other subjects come up form time to time, but this subject will get numerous threads. If it was just one person doing this then we can conclude it is their personality, but when you see more then of them doing this, then I see something else at hand. You be the judge on that one.

They discount the MEDIA. They discount eyewitnesses, those on this forum. They discount eyewitnesses in the Towers who saw the planes coming. They discount everything that tells us something happenend! Using their logic a person could never believe what happened unless of course they were there that day to see it. Which means everything incluidng 9/11 could be doubted! This is totally irrational, it is irrational thinking without any consistency in logic. They assume to much, that a very wide range of camera crews plus anchors, plus eyewitnesses and workers in the buildings are just gov people.

Their evidence is always compressed video clips, oddly edited pieces, different camera angles and sometimes without a source of information. This is deeply suspicious. They post video clips that have very obvious answers and when told of those answers they keep on arguing, and they do it in the face of some very obvious answers. Like in another thread where the NOSE is said to be exiting out of the Towers and is shown from different viewing angles.

The obvious question becomes how could 2 different CGI effects make the same exact mistake at the same time!

I believe there is media manipulation and spin, but I don't believe it involves the amount of people they would have us believe, and I don't discount so many eyewitnesses who saw the planes that day.

But the *NAIL* in the coffin to this theory is this.

**IF** there were no planes being flown that day into the towers. The City of NEW YORK would proclaim it to high heaven. Too many eyes were looking. It is absurd to think the military would take that type of risk.




[edit on 7-6-2007 by talisman]

[edit on 7-6-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by talisman
Along comes people to say the media faked the planes. Why stop there? In reality their logic leads to the rejection of the entire 9/11 event.

I don't think there is a single person who seriously believes the entire 9/11 event never happened. It sounds like you are simply trying to ridicule the no-planes theory here. There does seem to have been some video fakery going on that day, and I have no doubt that the News corps. were unwittingly complicit in the coverup and in deflecting the responsibility for the attacks toward "Al Qaeda" After all, they ARE owned by the military industrial complex and chaired by rich, zionist Jews.

You have various home made videos of the plane crashing, besides the news media. Hell you even have conspiracy theorists using peoples words who are talking that military planes were used instead of passenger planes. That pretty much kills the no plane theory.

There is no need to ridicule the no planes theory.

It is ridiculous enough to begin with. It is theories like this one that destroy the credability of the entire conspiracy theory community.

freakyty


I am saying the logical conclusion of the NO PLANE THEORY and how it is being presented is that 9/11 itself could be doubted. If they don't doubt 9/11 happening then they are admitting they are relying on the NEWS MEDIA COUPLED WITH THE EYEWITNESSES OF NEW YORK.

The very same thing people rely on to tell them planes hit the buildings!

Ask yourself. How did most of us here, hear about 9/11? Now their logic has a defeater. The defeater is the premise itself and where it leads. Their premise is that the MEDIA on a very large scale, set out to deceive us all. Every single camera man, every single news chopper. The whole thing was set up.

So using that logic, one could say then 9/11 didn't happen!

How?

Easy, if we can't rely on the NEWS in a live event coupled with corraborating eyewitness testimony what can we really rely on?

Again, this is not to suppose media spin or manipulation, since this involves far less people and far less eyewitnesses.

*IF* we can't rely on people to tell us planes were flying then what can we rely on?

You see NEW YORK is a major city, many people were watching that day. People in the buildings saw the planes.

People on the Streets saw the planes.

IF it wasn't a plane, then that is taking a trememdous risk. Because the running question the next day would be....Where the hell was the plane?? But of course we don't see this. So the logic of the NO PLANES is the same LOGIC that someone could use to say "NO 9/11".





[edit on 7-6-2007 by talisman]

I'm wondering why these hoax types always have bad attitudes? I notice this in really every hoax / related absurdity thread / issue I've looked at.

Anyone who actually believes there was no Plane is either Backward, deluded or Crazy. It IS completel Misinformation at worst, and terrible deliberate disinformation at best. The theory is preposterous and the previous poster is absolutely right, whack crap like this give CTs a lame name. Too many eyewitness accounts, Impossible to pull off in a City like New York.
No Planer = No Brainer.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by Fowl Play]

While I am open to possibility that there were no planes that hit the WTC, I think people should stop calling people no planers...

There is no such thing as a no planer, there is only a theory and a person who's either open to the possibility of it being possible or not.

Just because I think it would be possible to fake planes does not mean I am a no planer, I am a person who's open minded to multiple theories.

We need to stick together and stop insulting others...

I think a good possibility was that there were specialized mocked planes that were designed in a way to coexist with the way the building was possibly rigged to make sure that the planes would reside inside the infrastructure away from view sight to make sure that all evidence is destroyed when the buildings are exploded.

Perhaps timed demolition charges inside the building paced where the planes entered, designed in a way that would ensure that the planes enter the building clean and leaves no mess.

I don't know, it's all speculations at this point.

But please, enough with the no planers name callings... enough is enough.

I've tried a similar arguement but people don't want to hear it...

I see tons of theories about how images were faked, video was faked, etc... And yet, people analyze images and videos to find inconsistencies with the official story.

The flight 93 "lost footage" for example...Yeah, no debris is there, but I thought most of the news footage was faked to begin with? So how can you suddenly trust it?

Fowl play... Can i use that in my profile?

Originally posted by Fowl Play
Anyone who actually believes there was no Plane is either Backward, deluded or Crazy. It IS complete Misinformation at worst, and terrible deliberate disinformation at best.

It's designed to make the use of ANY video evidence completely worthless. I view it as an all out assault on the 911 Truth Movement.

EDIT: If there is any validity behind any of the no planes "evidence", which I've yet to see, it would make for a great addition to the "insanely incredible diversionary issues" case I built. Someone let me know if any actual evidence shows up that actually demonstrates such.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by PartChimp
Fowl play... Can i use that in my profile?

Be my guest PartChimp..
Selfless- This is NOT name calling, it is Denying Ignorance, for it is very Ignorant to be a " No Planer ".
Being a No Planer, with the facts and sources available goes against everything that ATS stands for.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by Fowl Play
Anyone who actually believes there was no Plane is either Backward, deluded or Crazy. It IS complete Misinformation at worst, and terrible deliberate disinformation at best.

It's designed to make the use of ANY video evidence completely worthless. I view it as an all out assault on the 911 Truth Movement.

IIB, i would not disagree with you.. The big boys have all the tricks. Divide & Conquer yet again, splinter organizations from the inside. Few people in same camp shouting No Planes, you all get tied with Lunatic Fringe.
With respect Selfless, people like you are the reason the Truther could never get anywhere. Either purposefully or Foolishly, it doesnt matter which...
They love people like you....

Originally posted by Fowl Play
Selfless- This is NOT name calling, it is Denying Ignorance, for it is very Ignorant to be a " No Planer ".
Being a No Planer, with the facts and sources available goes against everything that ATS stands for.

Again you don't even understand what I was saying at all.

There is no such thing as a no planer, a person who is open to the idea that it's possible there were no planes is not a person who is only gonna consider that theory as a possibility.

To call a person a no planer just because he's open minded is IGNORANT.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by Fowl Play
With respect Selfless, people like you are the reason the Truther could never get anywhere. Either purposefully or Foolishly, it doesnt matter which...
They love people like you....

Respect my (___)

You did not mean any respect at all, you flat out insulted me.

I am not a truther, I am a person who's open minded to multiple theories and won't deny a possible theory just because it wouldn't win a popular contest. I go with the evidences and there is evidence that says it's possible there were no planes and there is evidence that says it's possible there were planes.

For me to claim that I am right about something over everyone else would be complete and total ignorance to say the least.

I can't confirm speculations and neither can anyone else.

I can have opinions but that won't make me right above everyone else...

By the way, truther is not even a word.... grow up.

Originally posted by selfless
There is no such thing as a no planer,

O yes there is. There's a staunch difference between saying with an open mind "perhaps, if the evidence holds up", and then "NO PLANES HIT THE TOWERS AND THATS A FACT!". The people propagating theories like these are clearly biased towards the belief that no planes were used. According to social science, if you get a group of people who share an ideological viewpoint you now have a social group. They are a social group who are attempting to propagate their viewpoint.

a person who is open to the idea that it's possible there were no planes is not a person who is only gonna consider that theory as a possibility.

Like fast food, there's a shelf life to being open to things. It's about being open when they idea is presented, and then you analyze their related evidence from there. When the evidence falls apart it's time to stop being so open to their claims. When evidence is smacked down like the US initial invasion of Iraq, yet the proponents persist we're no longer dealing with being open to an idea, and it's time to start questioning the reasonng or motives behind the parrots who persist. Ask yourself if you've ever done this, and why you get offended when people debunk wild claims like no planes or nukes melting cars.

To call a person a no planer just because he's open minded is IGNORANT.

To need all of that explained to you, or needing to be enlightened how a false story can be disinfo but so can diversionary tactics, is being ignorant. Before you go getting offended there are different different definitions of ignorance for different contexts.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by selfless
I am a person who's open minded to multiple theories and won't deny a possible theory just because it wouldn't win a popular contest.

What about when the evidence supposidly supporting the theory is totally refuted? Hows that being open minded to still persist in "being open minded" after the evidence eliminiated?

I can't confirm speculations and neither can anyone else.

You're falling back on your "Speculations Argument" that you kept ushering in the nuked cars threads. Following your logic, EVERYTHING about 911 is now speculation, and every posible theory has an equal balance of possibility, therefore there's absolutely no way of knowing anything for sure about 911 whatsoever no matter what. From there, 9/11 even happening to begin with becomes speculation, and we have no way of knowing if it even happened.

I'm glad we finally got this thread back on track after all of that.

Great OP, great observation Talisman!


[edit on 7-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Thanks man. I don't think some people know the damage their doing to the truth movement with theories like CGI effects on 9/11.

Originally posted by talisman
I am leaving out the HOLOGRAM PEOPLE AT THIS POINT

Btw, who are these people?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by selfless
There is no such thing as a no planer,

O yes there is.

No, there is not.

no planers is not even a word, it's something that was invented in this very forum or somewhere else on the internet to label anyone who would even consider the possibility that no planes hit the WTC to be no planers.

I am not a no planer, I am a person.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by selfless]