CONS: Exposing The Fraud of the "No Plane Theory" -- Conspiracy Fakery

reply to post by _BoneZ_

---

Well, of course, what you have said is complete and uteer nonsense.

reply to post by weedwhacker

---

Huh?

As I explained...

1. what exploded? Answer, the bomb initiators.

2. The British DID NOT launch and attack nor were involved to any large degree. All it needed was for Tony Blair to hive off the servicing of the missiles to KBR which indeed he did. This was done by Kellogg Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, an all American company.

3. I am, myself, from Westminster in England.

4. I do not deny the possibility of hijacking and of some of the planes existing and certainly believe that the Truth Movement is wrong about the plane in Pennsylvania. They did revolt, they were shpot down, they were heroes.

5.However absurd it all sounds, this wold all mean that 9/11 could have been done without any Grand Conspiracy involving huge wings of the US Government.
Conspiracies only work when they are kept small. With this, it wold be possible to do 9/11 using only half a dozen people who would know what would be happening, a couple of teams of workers who don't realise what they are doing and a bunch of folk in the media who are encouraged to colour the truth through appeals to their patriotism. Infiltration of NATO or NORAD becomes irrelevant.

reply to post by somethingelse

---

Just to clarify, detonatinga nuke is a tough job. As the two halves of the critical mass approach, there is an exponential rise in radiation forcing them apart. Most ordinary explosives cannot force them close enough, so an initiator is used. The explosives in a tiny initiator wold easily bring down most of a city block, but the cost is so astronomically high that it would be pointless to use in convential weapons when one could buy enough explosives to flatten a much larger area for the same price as an initiator... but since they would have been stolen, why should KBR and their backers care.

Care to enlighten us and show some kind of evidence instead of just typing words on your screen? Thanks.

reply to post by somethingelse

---

That makes about no sense to me. Why would the plane need to be shot down if the hijackers were overcome by the passengers?
My thought on this is that it was being held in reserve, in case one of the other planes failed. Once they knew the others were successful in hitting their targets, the plane would have been something impossible to explain. The best way to deal with it was to shoot it up to destroy the evidence.


[edit on 2-5-2009 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by jmdewey60

---

That's a good idea. Not sure why that never crossed my mind. Something to ponder...

The burden of proof is upon you to submit evidence for your claims. So far you have none.

Plane parts were found. Do some research

remains have been found. Again, research.

That is a claim not yet proven.

More claims unproven.



Wrong. bts.gov has the records. The problem is, that website is nothing short than the eternal fires of hell to get around. It is near impossible to find what you are looking for. I once made an inquiry to a plane that my mother took last year. It didn't show up. Does that mean the plane never existed? No.

An absurd claim that can easily be thwarted if you do research. Wasn't a Senator's (or someone in the government, can't remember who exactly) wife on one plane? Where is she now?

Yes, based upon a news report right after 9/11 when things were still sketchy.

No they haven't been proven to be faked.



So? Who else do you think would film the events? And you are wrong, there is at least 1 video from someone not in the media.

What? Are you saying there were different angles of the event or that the airplane hit at different areas?

If it's the latter, then you seriously need to look at the videos again.

reply to post by balon0

---

The interesting thing about no planers like you is that you run and hide whenever someone says "yes I was there and saw it." You guys just hate witnesses because they refute your bogus theory. Tell me, why are you attempting to discredit the many number of witnesses out there when you can't even find ONE person who was there and says it wasn't an airplane?



An intelligent rationally minded person will not become a no planer after watching that garbage.

Source?

Source?

Source?

Source?

Source?



I love this argument. No planers seem to think that anything slamming into something else at a very high speed (faster than you can drive) will just thump against the object without doing much exterior damage. Have you ever seen damage after a hurricane? If you have, you would know it is possible for something like a small tree to go through parts of a car.

Furthermore, you have zero understanding of physics. Because of that, it's easy to prove your bogus theory with your limited knowledge. People who believe in a flat earth can "prove" it using limited science. Problem is, there's much better info out there.

In addition, go look up the plane that crashed into the Empire State Building. It was a smaller one going at a low speed, but most of it still went into the building. One wing even went through.

Or was that "fake" too?



It was turning so it could hit the building!

Source?



Because it's a bunch of garbage that has no foundation to stand upon.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by MrRandomGuy]

[edit on 4-5-2009 by MrRandomGuy]

reply to post by jmdewey60

---

Well, I personally think that the passengers did revolt, might have even suceeded, but were shot down for their troubles. it's unlikely the fighter pursuing the jet would have been aware of any revolt or anything going on, was simply told to hunt, shoot, kill on sight.

(sorry mods for all the posts, trying to keep the server running smoothly while having my say as well)

reply to post by Insolubrious

---

Yes, that's right. Use a smaller plane traveling at a small speed impacting a much weaker building. I'm glad you gave me that orange and called it an apple.

reply to post by infoliberator

---

Refuting that is easy. I'll start with the scripted claim. If there were scripts, then we would see every statement about the event as it happened repeated verbatim by every eyewitness and everyone in the media. But that didn't happen did it?

Want me to continue or do you want to cling to the bogus theory some more?

reply to post by infoliberator

---

This is interesting info, so let me ask YOU the same question. Have you watched September Clues in it's entirety? Have you watched the old version AND the new version INCLUDING the epilogue AND the addendum? I'll be kind to you and will let you answer the question instead of speculating.



No, that is an opinion based upon faulty evidence.



Again wrong. www.youtube.com...

Click at nine minutes into the video. Also look for the Empire State airplane crash.



Opinion based upon no evidence.



Wrong. There are, I do not have time to show you but I'm sure others can spot me out here.

Source?

Source?



Source?



Most of your "facts" are really opinions or are based upon lies.

If that was true, it would mean the government is lying to us. They may be hiding the truth because it may not be something we would like, or because it would be evidence of their criminality.
On the other hand, if it was pre-rigged to blow something up, it could have been remotely blown up, without any fighter-launched rockets. It was known that there was a fighter in the area, so it would be convenient to leak something that would indicate that the fighter did fire on the "hijacked" plane, but never acknowledge it. When you have multiple layers of deception, I tend to think the worse.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by jmdewey60]

I'm convinced! There were no planes. It was a false flag operation to create the War on Terror and deprive freedom loving Americans of their precious rights.

But thankfully a bunch of geniuses sitting at home were able to analyze the Youtube videos and prove the government and MSM set up everybody.

These noble people are the heroic defenders of Truth, Justice and the True American Way.


err .... can we get back to the waterboarding now?


Mike

[edit on 5-5-2009 by mmiichael]

After the first plane hit people came out into the streets to watch (myself included). I can't say how many eye-witnesses there were for the first plane, but there were plenty for the second one.

reply to post by mmiichael

---

What convinced you of no planes?

I think he had his [sarcasm] mode on Mr Random

reply to post by alienanderson

---

Thanks, it's hard to tell sarcasm when you can't hear their voice.

I am coming late to the discussion, and I have been reading all the posts for the different arguments on whether there were planes or not involved in 911. At this point I'm mostly a listener.

I just wanted to add one thing: I discussed the WTC attacks with an architect, who says the World Trade Center was not that well constructed. Unlike most skyscrapers the buildings did not have a concete core, so they collapsed rather easily. In addition, the stairwells had only sheetrock surrounding them and they allowed a great deal of smoke to penetrate as people were trying to exit. He says an airplane could indeed have brought a tower down.

The Empire State Building is unusually solidly built, on the other hand, and that is why it survived a less major airplane impact at an earlier point. He says it probably could withstand even the assualt of a Boeing.

Just my 2 cents.

reply to post by Sestias

---

Sestias.....very interesting comments.

We've seen a lot of words written about the WTC Towers. They were "Steel"....and on and on.

I'd like to see someone comment on just HOW each steel beam was connected to the other????

I would think, given a side-load that was never imagined by the architects who designed the structures.....wouldn't the bolts or rivets be a weak point???? Substantial damage, (from airplane impact at very high speed) coupled with gravity....seems to me, a building might collapse, as seen.

OK....some will likely say....the buildings were designed to withstand a jet's impact. But, really??? They were selling the concept of building a sky-scraper (well, two, actually) near three major airports. Folks, unless you're a suicidal maniac, pilots don't fly airplanes into buildings at speeds as fast as they can physically manage.

SO....even IF the architects/engineers thought that a mass as big as a commercial jet could impact, and the buildings would survive....they likely assumed an airplane at approach speeds....kinetic energy is an amazing force. F=MA. Einstein.....this is not rocket science!!!!

I was in New York on the morning of 911. I was watching the building after the first explosion. I saw no planes and all I saw was an explosion. I watched the building explode and I saw no planes.