The Dummies Guide to "No-Planer" theory

Its all part of a greater disinfo campaign in order to discredit proper researchers and their theories on 9/11. The mainstream media likes to dump whole diverse groups of people into generalized stereotypes i.e. Muslims. For anyone who questions/researches 9/11 you become '9/11 truthers'. Therefore you associate with those people who heckled Bill Clinton. You automatically believe in pod theory, no plane theory, hologram theory, insert other ridiculous theory. Then whenever a 9/11 issue has to be dealt with by the mainstream media they just get the people from popular mechanics (hearst yellow journalists) on. The popular mechanics guys go "Well in our comprehensive issue of debunking 9/11 theories we lined up all the 'main ones' such as 'pod theory, no plane theory, hologram theory, etc....' and we debunked each and everyone thoroughly."

Anyways PepeLapew summed it up much better than I, good work, unfortunately i think the disinfo damage is already done.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Exactly because every Tom, Dick and Harry had cameras pointing at the twin towers, there should be loads of footage showing UA175 hitting the WTC-2. But guess what, there aren’t.

So what you're implying is that, in real time, all the major media outlets edited a plane in to their feeds that took the same direction, at the same rate, and hit the building exactly the same as on other media outlets?

How did they do that? Did they film a plane hitting a tower and edit it in to the shot? That'd be pretty hard considering no planes hit any tower that looked like the Twin Towers before that day.

Did they do it with CGI? If so, again, it's amazing how each and every media outlet made this CGI plane look the same, fly the same, hit on the same angle at the same speed, come from the exact same spot, and hit the exact same spot at the exact second that tons of explosives were set off in the South Tower.

Or was it a missile? Surely people would see that. You claim there's no independent video of a plane - well, there's no video whatsoever, independent or mainstream, showing a missile.

There's also no video that hasn't been fabricated that distinctly shows a holographic plane.

So if it looks like a plane, reacts like a plane, and sounds like a plane....then what is it? A bird?

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
There is not a single ‘independent’ image to be found, anywhere.

What's this?

Looks like a plane to me. I don't see a CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, BBC, or FOX logo on there. It's also pretty poor camera work if indeed it were a "professional".

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
All the civilians filming that day, recorded nothing relating to airplanes.

You just said there isn't any video to be found anywhere, now you're saying they didn't record an airplane. How can you confirm this if there supposedly isn't any civilian video on the internet?

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
And since all the TV feeds showed Boeings, they either just scratched their heads and said ‘oh-well’ to themselves, ‘we must have missed the shot.’

I doubt they'd say "oh well" if they were right there and experienced it. They'd be the first "no planer" theorists on the planet. Yet the only "no planer" theorists I've seen are people attempting to disrupt the Truth Movement, and people who have been duped into believing it, as the OP said.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Or their work is being condemned as ‘uninteresting’ and ‘irrelevant’ because it doesn’t show what everyone wants to see, the planes!

Who cares if it's "condemned" or "uninteresting". How many "condemned" and "uninteresting" videos are on the Internet? Alot. What's stopping them from uploading it to YouTube and presenting it to the world? Nothing.

Nobody is saying try and get it put on FOX News. Put the unedited version of the video showing a missile or no plane, and then there'll be a serious discussion.

But since that hasn't even happened, one thinking logically can only come to the conclusion that the no plane theories are complete fabrications, just like the videos used to support them.

Also, what you no plane theorists fail to consider is the point of using anything other than a plane. What's the point? Do you people believe the Towers were demolished? If so, why would it matter what hit the building other than a plane if the Towers were already rigged? What do you accomplish that a plane can't accomplish?

The answer is NOTHING! There's no point, and if you're the ones behind such an attack, you only set yourself up to be exposed.

Simply because it was an inside job doesn't mean it has to be some grand conspiracy theory to be truth. They crashed the planes, blew up the Towers, breezed through the investigation, passed the laws, and went to war. Case closed.

There doesn't have to be aliens, lizard people, mini-nukes, no planes, and directed energy weapons involved for it to be a conspiracy, so stop trying to make it bigger than it is.


On a side note, OP, very nice post. Starred and flagged

reply to post by keywestjess



Thanks for the reply kwj, I appreciate it.

I'm glad you have enjoyed exploring this site, everyone including myself
has an opinion on the events of 9/11/01 but for people such as yourself who were in NYC and indeed in the area at the time of the towers' impact it must be difficult to be read some of the wilder conspiracy theories out therewhich you can probably dismiss having seen things with your own two eyes.
regards,
pm.


[edit on 2-11-2007 by pmexplorer]

There are so many things i can look at and laugh at. But at the same time I do understand how some people can, do and want to make up fantastic stories to make a bit of the green backs.

I personally feel that there is much more that our government ( the USA) knew about the attack. Did they do it? I think no, but come on.. i really do not buy that they didn't know it was going to happen.

reply to post by keywestjess


Hey dude, welcome to the forum anyway. But I have a question for you. On 9/11, a third building collapsed, it didn't get hit by a plane and yet it collapsed at 5:20 PM on that day in a PERFECTLY VERTICAL manner inside 6.5 seconds. I want you to look at a video compilation of the collapse of that building here:
www.youtube.com...
What do you thinks caused that building to virtually drop out of the sky in this manner?

Cheers,
PepeLapiu

Oh i don't know what happened after the attack and the towers fell.. they got me the hell out of that area pretty quick after they went down. When I got home from the hospital I didn't give a fat frogs fanny what happened at 5:20pm when the moon was in the seventh house...I was so happy and greatful to be with my family... the only thing on my mind was finding anyone alive and praying for protection for those that protected me

PS and its dudett lol..

[edit on 2-11-2007 by keywestjess]

The simple answer: The remains of a skyscraper fell on it.

Cheers and well done PepeLapew

I've seen numerous videos from different angles and there's not a single one that showed holes appearing and explosions without planes. Odd isn't it, to assume that the planes alone could be capable of doing all that damage without requiring things that could go wrong like prewired explosives, mini-nukes, directed energy weapons, holograms, mutant remote control steel-eating nanobots (oops made that one up) - of course they could and did just as was seen by so many eyewitnesses (probably the most witnessed event ever).

The Pentagon was intentionally hardened against attack but even it wasn't up to the kinetic energy involved as demonstrated.

The ones who should be most worried about the cover-up being exposed must be laughing themselves sick every day while they watch the conspiracy theorists slug it out over crazy ideas spread so effectively by disinfo agents.

Originally posted by keywestjess
PS and its dudett lol..

No problems dudette!

Oh i don't know what happened after the attack and the towers fell.. they got me the hell out of that area pretty quick after they went down. When I got home from the hospital I didn't give a fat frogs fanny what happened at 5:20pm when the moon was in the seventh house...I was so happy and greatful to be with my family... the only thing on my mind was finding anyone alive and praying for protection for those that protected me

I can certainly not relate to your level of emotions on that day. I was witnessing the whole thing on my radio at work up in Toronto. So yeah, it was scary for me too but not anything close to what you experienced.

However, I hope you have taken some emotional distance since the day and that you can now look at it all with a more scientific approach. I would like to suggest a little movie to you. It was made by a good friend of mine. A very nice lady too. Please watch it and let me know what you think. And if you wish, she would probably be very interested in talking with you - a first hand witness. Here's the movie in question, you will need a good connection for this:
video.google.ca...

Cheers,
PepeLapiu

reply to post by eyewitness86

One point that always gets me is the flash of light: You see it quite clearly on BOTH ' planes ' just at the moment of impact. There is on all films a brief flash of light at the front of each image, or plane, and that has to be explained.

Planes hitting a building create friction. Friction creates heat. Heat creates a spark. A spark creates a flash of light. There was a LOT of friction, so there was a BIG spark.

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi

Looks like a plane to me. I don't see a CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, BBC, or FOX logo on there. It's also pretty poor camera work if indeed it were a "professional".

The Naudet brothers’ work was pretty shabby also, and THEY WERE PROFESSIONALS!
ALL 9-11 camera work of planes is poor quality. Gee, don’t we wonder why! Could it be to hide something? Perhaps to conceal the CGI? Why are all the Big-Foot pictures lousy?

I doubt they'd say "oh well" if they were right there and experienced it. They'd be the first "no planer" theorists on the planet.

No, they’d be the first to get all their teeth knocked out if they said something.

What's stopping them from uploading it to YouTube and presenting it to the world? Nothing.

Exactly. No entity is peventing all the independents from uploading their videos and pictures on the Internet. Having nothing to upload, that’s what's stopping them. This is all perfectly in line with no-planer expectations.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by mattifikation
The simple answer: The remains of a skyscraper fell on it.

OK, I guess you are talking about WTC-7 .... yes?
Well, the remains of the towers would have fallen to the one side facing them. The alleged raging fires would also be concentrated on that side because on the opposite side very little fires can be seen. So how do you explain that a building with debris damage to a single side and fire damage to that same side would fall down COMPLETELY VERTICALLY as if it just dropped out of the sky in 6.5 seconds?

Having been damaged by both falling debris and fires on that one side, should have the building toppled over to that side?

Cheers,
PepeLapiu

reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods


Are you kidding me?? I have seen tons of "amateur" footage. There is actually amateur footage of the first plane hitting the tower from an angle outside the Lincoln Tunnel that a woman, I believe from Belgium, took. I don't know where you have been for the last 6 years, but I would strongly suggest that you start looking for the footage....it's out there, but you have to want to do the research.

reply to post by NGC2736


Lets see, maybe because the Pentagon was steel reinforced solid concrete? Could that be the difference?-

reply to post by PepeLapew


I think your arrogance misled you on my propositions. I do believe the planes hit the towers. I didn't "reply" to you directly and made my claims very general and broad, pertaining only to those who believe that infact, holograms were used. I thought claiming the contrary was enough to make my point of planes being used relevant, but I guess not.

Maybe your next thread should be "Deciphering a general response for dummies?"


Edit: Sticky S key.


Oh, and don't ever call me "dear" again. Thanks, genius.

[edit on 2-11-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
ALL 9-11 camera work of planes is poor quality. Gee, don’t we wonder why! Could it be to hide something? Perhaps to conceal the CGI?

Or maybe because everybody doesn't take classes to learn how to film something, and not everyone has ten thousand dollar cameras.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
No, they’d be the first to get all their teeth knocked out if they said something.

By who? We're talking about after the fact. Have you gotten your teeth knocked out?

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Having nothing to upload, that’s what's stopping them.

So you just ignored all logic, not to mention the video I gave you in my previous post.

Let's ignore everything to fit your distorted theory.

That falls right in line with how you no planers see the events of 9/11. You ignore facts and logic.

I like the OP but I have a complaint...

Where is the video of a plane crashing into the pentagon and why do people keep forgetting that there was more to 9-11 than the twin towers?

The no-plane theory ABSOLUTELY applies to the pentagon. Look at the pentagon's location, the side that was hit and what is across the street from the side that was hit. I'll give you a hint, it's a bunch of dead people that won't give up any secrets. That area would be the perfect location to set up a holographic display especially considering the sensitivity of the area involved. The pentagon was struck to declare an act of war against the US and not just some privately owned buildings. www.washingtonpost.com...

Allah on the Holodeck
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pentagon planners started to discuss digital morphing after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Covert operators kicked around the idea of creating a computer-faked videotape of Saddam Hussein crying or showing other such manly weaknesses, or in some sexually compromising situation. The nascent plan was for the tapes to be flooded into Iraq and the Arab world.
The tape war never proceeded, killed, participants say, by bureaucratic fights over jurisdiction, skepticism over the technology, and concerns raised by Arab coalition partners.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What if the U.S. projected a holographic image of Allah floating over Baghdad?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But the "strategic" PSYOPS scheming didn't die. What if the U.S. projected a holographic image of Allah floating over Baghdad urging the Iraqi people and Army to rise up against Saddam, a senior Air Force officer asked in 1990?

According to a military physicist given the task of looking into the hologram idea, the feasibility had been established of projecting large, three-dimensional objects that appeared to float in the air.

But doing so over the skies of Iraq? To project such a hologram over Baghdad on the order of several hundred feet, they calculated, would take a mirror more than a mile square in space, as well as huge projectors and power sources.

And besides, investigators came back, what does Allah look like?

The Gulf War hologram story might be dismissed were it not the case that washingtonpost.com has learned that a super secret program was established in 1994 to pursue the very technology for PSYOPS application. The "Holographic Projector" is described in a classified Air Force document as a system to "project information power from space ... for special operations deception missions."

I believe GPS/remote guided planes hit the towers and a missile/explosive of some sort damaged the pentagon with the visual aid of a hologram.

The planes that hit the twin towers were real aircraft with real people on board but the plane was not being controlled from within the plane.

The 'terrorists' on board thought they had taken over an aircraft when in actuality they were simply passengers like the other victims. Their only role in 9-11 was to have someone to point to.

Originally posted by Spoodily
I believe GPS/remote guided planes hit the towers and a missile/explosive of some sort damaged the pentagon with the visual aid of a hologram.

The planes that hit the twin towers were real aircraft with real people on board but the plane was not being controlled from within the plane.

The 'terrorists' on board thought they had taken over an aircraft when in actuality they were simply passengers like the other victims. Their only role in 9-11 was to have someone to point to.

I have the same beliefs as you stated here EXCEPT one minor difference..

You say the "terrorists" were just victims, or just passengers. In my opinion, that is true to an extent.

I think they were participating in the hijacked airliner drills. I've seen a few indications where they had ties with the CIA, NSA, or FBI, or all three, I don't remember exactly which.

But I think they may have been participating in the exercises, and "hijacked" real planes with real people on them, and from there, someone took control of the plane via remote/GPS.

No I don't think the people on board were in on it. I just think that the "terrorists" may have been sent on the plane to fake a hijacking for the purposes of the audio on the plane and the phone calls, and then it was taken over by someone else, somewhere else.

This can be compared to the 7/7 bombings where witnesses said that one of the bombers, after hearing of the train explosions, looked nervous or scared, as if the "terrorists" were in on the drills, and they had gone live without their knowledge.

[edit on 11/2/07 by NovusOrdoMundi]

A lot of detail in there. Appreciate the effort.

I have heard that this aircraft might not be able to achieve 550 mph at sea level because the atmosphere at this level would be too thick. Worth looking into, I think....

Also, lets not forget that the plane weighed at most 150 tons, if fully loaded at the time of impact.

The building weighed 500,000 tons.

Knowing this shifts my belief from the idea that the planes brought the buildings down closer to the idea that the planes might not be enough, including fuel to have done it. But I'm not sure either way. Just saying...

reply to post by Spoodily


Why not just a missile? Or a remote controlled plane? Do you grasp the concept of difficulty between the two?