You are right IIB, there is no way to know exactly what happened on 911 until what truly happened is confirmed.

What you say happened on 911 IIB is not an absolute, only an individual opinion.

You will have opinions on the subject but you will never confirm anything other then your own opinion.

This does indeed mean that it's all speculations at this point.

This is the same for me or anyone else here, it's nothing personal, it's fact.

Originally posted by selfless
no planers is not even a word,

Norma, or Gerald, etc aren't words either. They're names, titles.

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.

Logical error on your part. It's a title for people who believe and persist that planes didn't hit the towers. Like someone who believes in Jesus is a "Christian", but to say that it's possible either way is Agnostic, which is still in contrast to an Athiest who insists there's no way there's "God" etc.

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

Stop getting offended and you wont be misinterpretted as one. When you consistently do get offended by these 'other' social-groups theories / beliefs being debunk and the social group labels they pick up it makes it really hard to believe that you yourself haven't Self-identified with the groups in question. Considering that, it brings everything you say nto question.

Originally posted by selfless
You are right IIB, there is no way to know exactly what happened on 911 until what truly happened is confirmed.

What you say happened on 911 IIB is not an absolute, only an individual opinion.

You will have opinions on the subject but you will never confirm anything other then your own opinion.

This does indeed mean that it's all speculations at this point.

This is the same for me or anyone else here, it's nothing personal, it's fact.

Well, thanks for confirming talismans thesis.




The No Plane Challenge

What piece of evidence would get you to admit that planes did hit the towers?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Stop getting offended and you wont be misinterpretted as one. When you consistently do get offended by these 'other' social-groups theories / beliefs being debunk and the social group labels they pick up it makes it really hard to believe that you yourself haven't Self-identified with the groups in question. Considering that, it brings everything you say nto question.

My friend,

I am not getting offended, I am setting the facts straight.

The mere term of a no planer is a collective insult to open mindedness.

A person can very well be open to the possibility of the theory with out being 100% convinced that the theory is true.

This makes the no planer wording logically flawed.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

What piece of evidence would get you to admit that planes did hit the towers?

There are good points as to why there were planes that hit the WTC.

There are good points as to why it's possible that there were no planes that hit the WTC.

Some of the points of one theory plays out on the other theory and vise versa.

This is why I can't say that no planes hit the WTC and I also can't say that planes hit the WTC.

I think the people on ATS calls this, on the fence?

I am not emotionally tied to a theory, Just open to multiple possibilities.

That's all...

Edit: I don't know how come my text got bold, it was not my intention.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by selfless]

Mod Edit: BB Code.

[edit on 7/6/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Stop derailing this thread. I've seen you in action and I know you'll keep going. If someone is a "no planer" that means that they insist that planes didn't hit the towers. There's nothing "openminded" about it. Don't get offended if people with irrational persistent beliefs pick up 'catchy' labels. Go defend some Holocaust Deniers while you're at it. Start a social movement where your group insists on other groups not ever getting labels. Watch what happens when you too get your ownb label applied to your No Labelers group. Welcome to the world of human social dynamics. This isn't some situation where the no planers are being dehumanized and murdered and raped because of their social group alliance. Way to find ways to make this entire diversionary ordeal even more diversionary. Awhile back I proposed a "Way Above Red Herring" award. Man I wish they would have liked the idea

I challenge anyone to prove that no Planes hit the towers. Even one bit of evidence that actually keeps this " no brane " theory on the stage. If not, i asked it be dropped and referred to as any lunatic claim that has no evidence.
Theorizing in the Selfless school of thought, the Loch Ness Monster may have knocked them down.
Get real, No Planes is an unneeded diversion in a subject that has few certainties. The existence of Planes flying in to the towers is one of those instances.

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

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

What piece of evidence would get you to admit that planes did hit the towers?

There are good points as to why there were planes that hit the WTC.

There are good points as to why it's possible that there were no planes that hit the WTC.

Some of the points of one theory plays out on the other theory and vise versa.

So then, there will never be any prayer of ever reaching any conclusion about 9/11 ever, in your view? It's all completely evenly balanced, every single theory that anyone can come up with, right? So then why even talk about it period? According to you, apparently we wil never ever know anything at all or even get a hint because no matter what there's some evidence that might perhaps create some loose possibility of some new theory no matter how debunkable or absurd)?

And now you're even admitting that there's no piece of evidence that would prove that planes hit the towers?

So what piece of evidence would be required to prove to you that 911 actually happened?

No ibb my friend,

I know people have opinions but individual opinions are not the result of confirmations.

People all have different opinions on what happened.

What really happened on 911 will be exposed eventually but only when things are confirmed and the first step to reaching that goal is through individual opinions being put forth so that people investigate and eventually a truth will hopefully arise.

That time is not here yet.

If everything was confirmed, there would be no need for this forum in the first place, that's the point.

PS: Yes like everyone else, I have my personal opinions on what happened that day but I won't be forcing my views onto others and say I am right.

The only opinion from me that i put forth is that 911 was an inside job, that's the opinion that comes from my heart and I will not deny it.

How the inside job was accomplished is still speculations, so therefor not confirmed and so this means the whole investigation is still open to interpretation and individual opinions.

Remember, at first they thought the planet was flat.






[edit on 7-6-2007 by selfless]

I think a lot of the problems with these theories is that there not followed through. If there were no planes, where are all the people who were supposedly on those planes? Weren't air traffic controllers following the planes? Weren't plane parts found?

If there were goverment planted bombs, why would they need the planes at all? After 1993, why wouldn't we believe terrorists planted bombs?

Then there's the missle/military plane theory. That's a pretty open sky. No one would see or hear a missle coming?

CGI. Should we add ILM to the FBI, CIA, NSA, and all the other three letter goverment acronyms? All those videos are hard to really get a fix on the perspective. Angles and perspective are very tricky. I can't believe entire news agencies would be "in on it". I think someone would have cracked by now.

I think we just need to step back and take a deep breath and see what really makes sense.

It's lie the moon theories. On one end, we never went, on the other, we have bases there. Can't be both?

Just some thoughts...

Actually, I am both greatly amused, and mildly offended by the tone and tenor of this discussion... Talk about surrealism. People lost lives, the morale of a nation took a hiit, terrorism (no matter the reason or cause) had a field day. The bad guys, whomsoever you perceive them to be, bearded Muslims, or clean shaven NWO types, had a victory.

It is a shame that so many can sit behind the safe venue of their keyboards and monitors and reduce a tragedy to 1s and 0s.

I greatly fear for humanity's future if this is what it has come to.

Originally posted by selfless

There are good points as to why there were planes that hit the WTC.

One of them being than a number of eyewitnesses actually saw the planes fly right in to them.

There are good points as to why it's possible that there were no planes that hit the WTC.

No there is not. And there is nothing open minded about thinking that there is.
If I want to suggest that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east that doesn't make me open minded, I'll let you decide what that makes me but open minded isn't one of them.

Just to add something to all of this.

I think we would all agree that a person who has never been to NEW YORK or knows anyone from there can make a LOGICAL inference that 9/11 happened. Now if we can agree to that I must ask to the people who hold to NO PLANES upon what basis do you think such a person can make this LOGICAL inference?

edited

[edit on 6/8/2007 by Classified Info]

I have nothing more to add, I will not waste my time arguing with anymore than I would arguing with someone who believes the sun rises from the west..

Planes were used.

They crashed into the towers.

It was witnessed first hand by thousands of people.

Case closed.

Originally posted by Classified Info
Case closed.

Only in your mind.

Some of us are still not satisfied with absolutes,

we are still in the process of searching and being open to all possibilities as to how it was done.


[edit on 8-6-2007 by selfless]

Selfless...

Are you prepared to state that you believe it is possible that every single image of an aircraft around the WTC on 9/11 (moving or still), every single eyewitness account; and every piece of aircraft debris was either a faked, a lie or was planted?

Originally posted by coughymachine
Selfless...

Are you prepared to state that you believe it is possible that every single image of an aircraft around the WTC on 9/11 (moving or still), every single eyewitness account; and every piece of aircraft debris was either a faked, a lie or was planted?

For me there is 2 aspects of reality to these 2 events that contradicts each others and they are very simple.

-Eye witnesses contradicts the No planes theory.

-The laws of physics contradicts the plane theory.

So at this very moment this leaves me with a possible speculation that if a plane was used, it was not an ordinary plane and the building was rigged in a way that ensured the plane resides inside the infrastructure of the building away from any possible view sight.

The purpose to be to destroy all physical evidence of a inside job along with the buildings exploding.

There is also the hologram aspect that is possible, consider this.
Hologram technologies are very new and just released now so imagine how advanced the technology could actually be?

They say the military possibly have technologies 100 years ahead of what is released to the general public.

They could have a technology right now that would be a hologram capable of a physical mass and capable of producing sound. Of course this is just speculations, but not impossible.

Then there is the aspect of brain wave mind control. What if it was possible for satellites in orbit to transmit brain waves to the whole New-York city to make them believe that there were planes in the sky and that all media released videos are tampered and faked. (Yes I think this is the more unlikely of theories to be true)

The truth is, people are just trying to find possible explanations that coexists with the evidence.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm not tied to any theory and i don't take it personal if a theory is wrong. I take it personal if I am called a no planer just because I'm open minded to the possibility though.

The purpose is to find the truth, nothing more.

Originally posted by selfless
As far as I'm concerned, I'm not tied to any theory...

I accept this and I wasn't trying to tie you to one. I was careful with my choice of words, italicising the 'possible' for emphasis.

So, given that I'm not pressing you to pin your colours to a mast, do you think it's possible that all of the video and photgraphic evidence we have for Flights 11 and 175 are faked; that all corroborated eyewitness acounts (including ATCs, firefighters and EMTs) are either lies, misrepresentations or genuine errors; and that all physical evidence, including the 'plane-shaped' impact holes and the debris that was scattered around the streets was planted?