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

For all you people out there who was there and saw the "second plane" hit the towers. Are you 100% positive that what you saw was indeed a plane? Or are you being influenced by the media? Lets say you did see something fly into it. It must have been a blur since the thing flew into it so quickly. How are you so sure that that thing was indeed a plane? Ok you go home still confused what had happened and turn on the tv or radio for information. What do you hear and see? BREAKING NEWS PLANE CRASHES INTO TWIN TOWERS. Oh gee well since the media said it was a plane then it must have been a plane that I saw.

I think it is obvious that the "no plane" theory was devised to discredit anyone seeking the truth on what happened that day. Of course there are people who believe anything and will mold and distort the truth until it fits, in their mind, disregarding any evidence that screams at them that they are wrong. Because of tripe like this we are all tarred with the same brush and dismissed as crazy and stupid. It annoys the heck out of me and I think this kind of rubbish should be ignored until this theory withers and dies.

reply to post by balon0


balon0 I'm not sure what to tell you ...

At the time I lived at 95 Horatio St, our apartment overlooked West Street. The sirens going down West Street woke us up to some degree because there were so many, we were going to ignore them but our neighbor who's wife worked at WTC 1 banged on our door. We all ran outside to West Street to look at the fire and as we were looking the second plane hit.

I saw it, my neighbors saw it, friends stuck in traffic driving in from the NJ turnpike on the way to the Holland Tunnel saw it, thousands of people saw it with their own eyes before we ever turned on the TV.

So for the No Plane Theory to even begin to be considered, someone has to convince me and any other person present and witnessing that day, that there is a legitimate way to make fake life look real.

Thanks for the work on this OP.

Your diligence in dissecting this dissemination of dis-info is
due praise .

I believe most NPT'ers are sincere and some are passionate
but some of the POV's expressed only serve to discredit
plausible conspiracy theories.

My take on 9-11 after a substantial review of evidence;

Explosive charges placed in WTC 1, 2, 7, prior to 9/11

Two planes (passenger-sized) strike buildings

Buildings caused to collapse due to engineered implosions

Third plane strikes ground-official story is plausible, evidence
is inconclusive to discredit official story

Fourth object strikes Pentagon-evidence is highly suspect
in relation to official story

Wave of patriotism is utilized by the PTB to;
war-for-profit,
quickly and easily pass wanted legislation,
further other parts of an unknown and
dynamic agenda.










[edit on 27-4-2009 by rival]

[edit on 27-4-2009 by rival]

[edit on 27-4-2009 by rival]

I was on the streets and watched it all happen. Of course I'm sure I wasn't "influenced" by the media, I wasn't exactly watching TV at the time.

If you really think about it, why would the alleged plotters fake using planes to destroy the buildings. They are already demolishing huge buildings and killings thousands of people. Why stop at sparing a couple planes and a few hundred lives? Wouldn't it be far more practical and easier, since they are already committed to murdering thousands of innocent lives, to just use real planes?

The real conspiracy lies in who orchestrated the attacks.

Consider some of the evidence offered - no plane parts for instance. Out of the two towers, they only recovered a few beams of any real size. 90% of those buildings were turned into dust. As far as the passenger names and families, I'm pretty sure they did release those and interview the surviving members. They might be offended to hear you questioning their existence. As to the hijackers themselves, who knows whats going on there - fake names, pseudonyms, aliases, mistaken identities, covering up for the Saudis, etc. etc. etc. That fits more with the "whodunit" conspiracies than it does with a "no plane theory". As to the idea it was a projected hologram? C'mon, really? Rejoin reality man, if those were holograms then the Matrix is real. Gimme my blue pill already.

By the way that is not the Empire State building in the background of that shot. Seriously, its no where near the WTCs

reply to post by infoliberator


info... that 'livevideo' link was a packet of intentional mis-representations and innuendo.

15 questions (if I counted correctly)....will take some time to refute.

In the mean time, why not do some diligent research, look up some alternatives?? Because, I have seen every claim, from both sides. The 'no-planes' just does not hold water.

What has happened is easy to see. In the intervening years since 2001 any little question, no matter WHO asks it, sows a 'seed'....that 'seed' grows, due to the viral nature of the Internet. One or two people's random 'thoughts' thusly turn into a new "TRUTH"...and certain personalities are drawn into anything that they see as a way to 'stick it to the authorities'....

This basic aspect of Human personality is, then, taken advantage of by hucksters seeking to make a quick profit.

Not to stray from topic, but this is an example: The "Moon Landing Hoax" baloney that started up, even before the Internet was prevalent.

Uneducated people, unfamiliar with photographic principles, decided to question an iconic, heroic event in Human history....based on a simple ignorance of science and technology. THEN, the Internet gave them a broader base to spread disinfo to the under-educated. AND, the cycle began to feed upon itself.

The 9/11 'truthers', or the 9/11 'no-planers', or the Holograms, the missiles, the remote-control, the Illuminati, the NWO....ALL of these ridiculous and usually mutually-exclusive "theories" are formed, and depending on how many jump onto which particular bandwagon, each either gains traction, or fights with the others....or they merge....but in the interim the reality is lost somewhere along the line.

AND, amidst all of this 'noise'....the true story is lost. The pain and suffering of the friends and family of the victims is relegated to the dust-heap by these so-called 'truthers'!!!

I will risk a 'warn' by concluding: The Bush Administration was in NO WAY competent enough to have pulled off any sort of 9/11 "FAKE" (or, if you prefer, 'false flag') attacks. They were (still are) incredibly stupid....just watch them self-destruct, even now....back-pedalling damage-control over the 'torture' issue...trying to tie 'torture' to the lack of attacks. Re-writing History, is what they're attempting......

Mainly, the simplest explanation is going to be the correct one. (Occham's Razor).

The no plane theory and others like it were manufactured by certain parties to destroy the truth movement from the inside out.

Who would take any truther seriously when some in their midst think the planes hundreds of people saw were hi-tech holograms?

Many other aspects of the 9/11 conspiracy hold weight and need to be looked at by far more people, but when you bring in some far out theories as the no plane theory it discredits the whole movement and effectively kills it's chances of making waves.

The same technique has worked wonders with the UFO community. For every solid military or pilot witness there is a basement crackpot to balance it out, and sadly the general public only see the crackpots.

It is the same with the 9/11 truth movement. Every time it is brought up in the MSM (which isn't often), jokes are thrown about the no planers and all truthers are tarred with the same brush as fringe lunatics and mentally unstable dangers to society.

It is good to see some of the community speaking out against this clear and deliberate effort to sabotage the movement.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by mister.old.school

 

those of us who were there in person on that day and watched United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower.

No amount of digital trickery will ever erase those images.

So you saw the serial number of that plane???

Lets be tuthfull, you were told that it was "United Airlines Flight 175", by the media.

Now I didnt say a plane didn't hit the building, i'm just saying that you dont know for sure what plane hit the building.
Thats hear-say.

Originally posted by Sherlock2009

Lets be tuthfull, you were told that it was "United Airlines Flight 175", by the media.

That is correct ...

I like everyone else on site saw a passenger plane hit the building, none of us were aware of the Flight No. at the time.

But I fail to see what the flight no. has to do with the No Plane Theory.

Any [INSULT REMOVED] who watches September Clues becomes INSTANTLY, a No Planer.

There is hope for all the Planehuggers, because there is plenty of room in the No Planer community. We welcome all truthseekers and lost children wandering around in the dark. The light awaits you, and the truth is like a lighthouse, one day you be bathed in it. Salvation awaits the earnest truthseeker.

It's like, once you've had black, you can never go back.....

Well, once you've tasted the bittersweet fruit of No Planer theory, and you become a believer, you can NEVER go back. But, the [INSULT REMOVED] is always a potential candidate for a change in perception and awareness. The reason for this is simple. In [INSULT REMOVED] theory, there is no more room for growth, and everything is at it's dead end. In No Planer theory, there is room for expansion still, because there is still truth to be learned.

So, inevitably, the [INSULT REMOVED] will come to our side, and we will continue to recruit them by dispelling the mass brainwashing that has plagued them for so long, removing the veil of Hoodwinkdom, and Cap of Dunceness, and by liberating their minds once and for all......

What happened to the building at 19 Rector street? Oh, CNN forgot to include it, that's what happened. Next time their CGI guys will do a better job.

How did they get that bridge to float downstream, and the cop cars to drive backwards?

How come people who watched the buildings explode, claim they saw "no planes", and argue with the news cam,eramen that day, as it happened, INSISTING THERE WERE NO PLANES?

How come on one video, the guy with his two friends claims he saw a missile enter the building and claim with confidence, "that was no plane!" ???

How come every video that exists shows the plane entering at IMPOSSIBLE ANGLES THAT CONTRADICT EACH OTHER?

How come the pilots questioned by people, claim that it is impossible for a jet to fly at 500 mph above the water at near sea level?

How come Newtons law of Physics suddenly don't apply here? How come an aluminum plane can penetrate a steel building at 500 MPH, and no parts crash outside the building, when a BIRD can penetrate the hull of a plane while it flies in midair, and destroy the plane? In other words, under what conditions can aluminum penetrate steel and bend Newtons laws of Physics? And if this is true, then how come flies don't come crashing through my windshield no matter how fast I drive?

How come you can see the airplane wings, including the one BEHIND the plane, when the plane is flying at an angle, toward the building? And if this IMPOSSIBLE stunt is possible, how long can a plane fly at a tilted angle, while flying across in one direction?

How come all the people who have videos that have turned up on the internet, and the ones that were shown on television, are all people who work in ciomputer animation, and cgi, and special effects?

How come people are trying to stop people from watching September Clues?



NOTICE

Due to member demand, the 9/11 forum is now under close staff scrutiny.



[edit on 27-4-2009 by SkepticOverlord]

reply to post by infoliberator


info....since, despite my time at ATS, I do not know how to 'parse' your post, and respond point by point, I use my memory to zero-in on one aspect.

You have been lied to....and given false info.

EDIT...not sure really, where to begin...I'll start with the airplane. Firstly, and hate to make it a flying lesson...but how does an airplane 'turn'??

It 'banks' its wings. I could go into lift vectors, and all of the physics...but look it up for yourselves....it's readily available.

(edit) because, as stated above....your claim, "infoliberator" about the speeds of the airplanes. Again, more dis-info.

One has to understand not only aerodynamics, but also kinetic energy and potential energy to begin to understand.

A B767, at approx 1000 MSL (remember, the WTC Towers were about 1300+ feet tall) full throttle....will max out in speed....in fact, because of compressibility issues at that altitude, and the increase in both induced drag and parasitic drag components....the maximum steady-state velocity will reach a point....where the drag co-effecients will be enough to overcome the given thrust of the two engines.

BUT, this assumes a level, steady-state flight profile. WHAT is NOT taken into account, by these detractors, is the added use of Gravity.

If one wishes to dismiss this as a concept, then one would have to dismiss every instance of 'dive-bombing' as recorded in WWII history.

ANYONE who has ever flown an airplane knows the effects of diving...and the rapid speed increases that can result...as long as you survived to talk about it afterwards.

AND....the pull-out to nearly level, as you bank to aim on target....I have pulled up to 6 Gs...(specifically in Aerobatic airplnaes, designed for aerobatics. YOU each wear a parachute, per FAA regulations...) you do NOT 'black out' at 6 Gs. Far less G-forces were employed, on 9/11 ... based on the final bank angle of UAL 175, prior to impact....I'd guess somewhere around about 2 Gs.

Just to compare...and, you can look this up, I am not pulling this out of thin air...an airplane in a sustained 60% bank, maintaining altitude and speed, will 'pull' 2 Gs.

UAL175 was showing, at the end, about 35-40 degrees....final seconds.

WELL within the design parameters...EVEN IF there was a pull-up as well...

UNLESS and until everyone who believes false info learns how to fly, and actually understands not only the forces involved, but also the technical information needed to truly understand the complexities....well...

In the meantime....here's an indication of how, even an 'amateur'....not even a licensed pilot, can actually fly a Boeing.....



[edit on 4/27/0909 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 4/27/0909 by weedwhacker]

*EDIT* to add, rather than pollute the thread....I've brought this up before, in other places....it bears repeating.

United Airlines has had a myriad of paint schemes...every time they change CEOs, they change paint schemes. UAL 175 had the 'business suit' design, as I like to call it. (Please reference "airliners.net" for examples). The current CEO ordered that particular scheme...he left, went to USAirways...and, funny, THEIR paint scheme suddenly resembled the old UAL scheme!!! (Again, go to airliners.net for reference).

So....let's at least debunk ONE aspect of the 'no-planer's' argument.

While I'm on about this, I can also debunk another point. The so-called 'pods' theory.

ANYONE who has seen a B767, overhead, with the gear up, will see the same 'bulges', right where the wings meet the fuselage. Those 'bulges' are the landing gear doors, and associated fairings. So, let's put THAT BS to rest, shall we??


AND, don't take my word for it....look it up for yourselves!!!!

(hint)....Airliners.net, again....




[edit on 4/27/0909 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by Sherlock2009

Lets be tuthfull, you were told that it was "United Airlines Flight 175", by the media.

That is correct ...

I like everyone else on site saw a passenger plane hit the building, none of us were aware of the Flight No. at the time.

But I fail to see what the flight no. has to do with the No Plane Theory.

You stated it was ""United Airlines Flight 175", and that you saw it!!!

And, now you say, "you dont know what plane it was and like everyone else on site saw a passenger plane hit the building."

Im not saying it wasnt a plane, im just pointing out the fact that you didnt know what plane it was even with your own eyes untill the media told you.!

EDIT: I wiped my own post due to dicnical teficulties. Look below.

[edit on 27-4-2009 by Grimstad]

I have considered starting a website dedicated to this, but it would only prove a point, I don't know that it would make "the" difference.

Start a site that allows people to upload files themselves. These files would be testimony, handwritten in red or blue ink, then color scanned in. Of course these would be the "testimonies" of people who saw things on Sept 11. These would be done under oath, in front of a Notary. This would be "evidence" now, and could not be included as evidence unless it were done this way. The Oath would be sworn under "Penalty of Purjury", and that person would have to have witness willing to testify to same that they agree that person was where they claimed to be that day.

Everyone remembers where they were on 911, kinda like JFK for the older folks that remember that one. I have a friend who was with me on 911, and they could testify as to where I was, it would not be that difficult.

That would eliminate all the B.S. ers out there, at least. Then we could deal with the real people who really saw things.

Barely anyone could have seen the second airplane as it crashed into the building. The reason why is because of this :

It is presumed that a FIRST airplane crashed into the building and everyone looked up and saw the second one. There was no first one to look up and see, so how could they have been on alert for the second one?

Now, provided people actually saw something at all, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IT WAS A PLANE!!!

It could have been a hologram, and you cannot discount that completely. Holograms can be used now and have been for some time. The entire Opening Ceremony for the Chinese Olympics was done with CGI, and I watched it and thought it was completely real until I learned later it was done that way. The technology the government has is light years beyond what the public knows about, so if they have these kind now, already, what did they have before 911?

Now, say it was not a Hologram, which John Lear believes it was, BTW....
It could have been a missile. You cannot rule that out completely.
If you rule either of these possibilities out, without evidence, you are a mad person, not a conspiracy or truth researcher.

The Difference between a raving lunatic who knows about conspiracies, and a conspiracy theorist who does his homework, is that the conspiracy theorist has a grounded foundation in which to stake his claim. The Raving lunatic finds theories to match their perception of the world, and they study them, and learn the, so they know exactly how that conspiracy works upon them, and the world. The conspiracy theorist who does their homework, steps outside what they might desire to believe, and takes all the evidence into consideration, building upon the most solid foundation that exists.

I have been studying conspiracies for 21 years now, actively, and I've read hundreds of book, and watched hundreds of videos. I have been to over a hundred meetings, and I know dozens of people personally.

If people want to learn the truth, they need to stop finding truth that fits into their belief systems, and instead, find info that is OPPOSED to your belief system, and SINCERELY try to disprove it to yourself, not anyone else.

Then take that info, feel it out, and think about it. Meditate on it. Sleep on it. Wait a few days, even weeks, or maybe months to ponder it. Then, let your intuition guide you and ask yourself, "how do I feel about this information?",
NOT..."what do I think about it?", because you have spent the last month or so THINKING, about it, now it's time to see how you FEEL about it.

Trust your intuition, not the mind, or the people around you.

Then you will be on your way to true wisdom.

The Truthseeker is like the "Hermit". He is also the "Magician", or the alchemist. Truth is only understood, once distilled, and only a good alchemist can distill info and understand truth.





[edit on 27-4-2009 by infoliberator]

And this is exactly the logic(?) used in every one of these theories. Not just the NPT but ALL OF THEM. Unless you were actually on FLT 175 (or whatever flt) you don't actually know a plane crashed into a building. But if you were on the plane you don't even know that it was a building that was hit. It was actually shot down and someone blew up the buildings from the inside. But we don't even know for sure that a building was blown up. It was those "mystery witnesses" that told us the buildings were blown up. Seriously, those alleged disinfo agents got the sweetest job in the world. Sit and surf porn sites all day while a paranoid minority does their job for them.
Sorry for the double post. When I replied the first time, everything I wrote disappeared. Strange, huh. Now THERE is a mystery.

I don't know any more than anyone else what happened, really, on 9/11 but I'll interject my opinion here nonetheless.

I have seen photographs as old as a hundred years old that were retouched. Documentary on Edward Curtis shows this and how he caught flak for that, among other things he photographed. I've seen videos that purport to have "evidence" the Zapruder film was altered, through supposed editing techniques around at the time. I know not if this is true or not but I cannot disprove it. If it is so, then why, forty years after the Zapruder film was supposedly altered, why is it not possible then for the footage on 9/11 to be fudged?

I don't know one way or the other whether it is or not but I find it highly suspect, the footage I have seen. I question the entire OS by now, so why not the video also? I know my logic here is a little unsteady, but who is to say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is completely impossible for the footage to have been tampered with? Can anyone prove to me that it could NOT have been done? If you can prove to me that it can't be fudged, that images cannot be manipulated to suit someones needs, then I will gladly accept that there were planes there. Until then, I file it in the unproven category, just another avenue of exploration.

Just my take on it. Worth, maybe, $.02.

reply to post by mister.old.school


I had to give the OP a star here since even if you don't support his argument because you're stuck in the NPT camp, it is a good reference on how so many people will absolutely ignore every info source around them that does not support their pet theory. We see it every day in government, maybe even at work.

But he used the right word on this one.. religion. That's what some people have taken their belief to the levels of... religion.

dude, awesome thread so far.

How do you explain the enxtended black gash ON BURNED OUT WINDOWS, when all live news footage shows NO BURNED WINDOWS and PERFECTLY INTACT FLOORS.

Debunked. Gg.

Planes, or no planes.. I would think people would be trying to figure out who actually perpetrated the attack and why rather than figure out if it was commercial planes, military planes, holograms, or whatever else. If it was planes or holograms it makes no difference, we were attacked, a lot of people died, and we need to figure out who did it and why.

reply to post by king9072


Video fakery by Simon Shack.

Plain and simple.

He (simon shack) wishes to sell his BS!!!

HE (simon) promotes himself, via utube....I mean, it is FREE advertising!!!!!

There is another thread, on ATS, about possible 'dis-info' agents. I predict that all those who proclaim that 'Simon Shack' or any other purveyor of BS propaganda is valid, IS a dis-info agent!! NOT on the payroll of the Gov't....but on the payroll of those who are shilling their BS junk, the junk for sale....they are clever, since they can't directly steer people to the websites....they do it serendipitously......in sigs, or buried in the text...code words.....