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

I am not a no planer, lets get that out of the way first. That theory is just too hard to prove when there is so much evidence of the fact something like an airplane in there. Anyway, these better images of Amateur Part 2 dont discredit the explosions which also took place, besides the fact that something flew in there. On TV whatever flew in the buildings was made to look like a normal passenger jet. How odd this may sound, live images can be altered.

In conclusion, something did fly in those buildings, but no friggin Boeing. Besides the fact that something flew into the buildings there were also multiple explosive devices in both building (and building 11 or 7, the one which was reported on BBC to have collapsed whilst standing in the background). The whole story stinks. Period. No planes is a stupid thought though.

the no plane theory is put out to discredit the truth movement... its goverment disinfo at its best...

reply to post by thefreepatriot

---

Or maybe the govt is smarter than you think? Maybe they put that thinking out there in the hope people like you would believe it? I mean we all know the govt are dumb fuks but are they really? Are those that work to generate & influence general thinking (who are also no doubt paid huge sums of money to do so) really a bunch of morons?

Maybe. Or maybe its we that are the dumb *Snip* because all we argue about & discuss is that which doesnt matter because the main line of govt generated thinking is widely accepted?

Maybe the jokes on us?

[edit on 27-4-2009 by Nonchalant]

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 4/27/2009 by semperfortis]

I'm unclear how you would assume my points were related to fire/steel. No such assertion has been made or implied here.



The material presented in the opening post was limited to the purposeful deception contained in the videos create by those perpetuating the "no plane" fraud. Simply because I seek to expose the "conspiracy fakery" of that group, one should not infer my opinions of other aspects of the 9/11 attacks.



You appear to be making the fatal mistake of many of the people in the extremist sects of "9/11 Truth" and related activism/extremism. And that mistake lies in assuming someone who refutes one small outlandish subset of suppositions therefore rejects all possibilities of subterfuge. This is not the case.

I believe there are extensive "conspiracies" related to criminal involvement of aspects of business/government and that our energies are best spent on realistic topics.

I also am firmly of the opinion that many "conspiracies" we see online are purposeful obfuscation -- either from pitiful individuals seeking attention (similar to UFO hoaxes), or as clandestine efforts to inject the discussions with pandemonium.

i wit you mike. I didnt see the plane hit but I did see the towers with my own eyes. It was enuff to make me move my family out to the country.

Nice work OP

Just been looking into the No Plane Theory this week

Here's some links I posted in another thread showing an interesting two part discussion between sound engineer Ace Baker (another NPT advocate) and a video expert called Steve Wright regarding some of the other "evidence" of the NPT:

Hardfire DID A PLANE HIT THE SOUTH TOWER? / BAKER / WRIGHT / WIECK - 28:47 - Apr 24, 2008 (Google Video)

Watch from around 19:30 for analysis of the "nose out" clip

And a bit more...

Ace Baker on Hardfire, Part II

See 07:00 for the "fade to black" shot and 18:00 for the "ghost plane" shot

I think that is the whole point here. The OP is making a good case that the no-plane (as regards to the twin towers) theory is probably wrong. And if anything he is doing the 911 Truthers a favor by doing so. He is not refuting any other part of the conspiracy unless it pertains to that theory itself. Bravo and thanks!
But I think we may have to face up to it folks. It has been a long battle from day one to expose the lies and horrific actions of our government or at least their complicity in it. Many many people have been reached and many have turned their flashlight on the inner-circle of elitists and what they are capable of. But "they" will never ever admit it because "they" don't have to. And the two-party system media believing sheep are not budging as you can clearly see.
It's been nearly eight years and those who passed on that day will never be forgotten. But the agenda that was put in place as a result of that day lives on and grows stronger. And I believe TPTB wants us to continue to mire in the mystery that takes us further and further into the past and takes our attention off what they are doing now.

reply to post by mister.old.school

---

Star for you! I'm not a believer of the official version, but I've said before that the no-planers are ruining any chance we have of convincing people that something's not right about 9/11. No plane? No brain more like! If the attack was a set-up, surely the perps wouldn't risk something going wrong with any holographic technology. It would be simpler (and cheaper, no doubt) to just use real planes would it not?

It really is one of the most ludicrous ideas I've ever heard!

I present for your entertainment - Nico Haupt - No Planer Extraordinaire. Nico sets a fine example for all No Planer theorists. His tireless efforts have done for the 911 truth movement, what Jim Jones did for Kool-Aid.

[edit on 27-4-2009 by Smack]
I can't get the video to work here for some reason. Here is the lin k

[edit on 27-4-2009 by Smack]

[edit on 27-4-2009 by Smack]

reply to post by alienanderson

---

That guy is who got me into making 911 videos. He is very annoying to watch and he attacks people for supposedly making fake videos. The stuff he uses for making horrible accusations against people are things that can be easily disproved. Too bad no one has ever sued him.
No planers, if I am allowed to call them that, seem to have rather caustic personalities. They will make full use of their abilities of deleting any negative comments posted on their videos. By negative, I mean making statements of facts that go against their so-called evidence. When people delete them, or ban them, they like to complain about censorship. They do not detect any hypocrisy in their own actions, whenever they have any tiny bit of power. My way of getting back at people like Simon Shack is to make my own videos. I never delete any comments of people ridiculing my videos. I am always happy to discuss actual facts and have been given some good advice from time to time. Now there are others who do not want to hear actual facts.
Let's say someone makes a video that says, "Here is evidence that these videos were really made by a computer making composites. You can see this building that keeps moving. It is doing that because they goofed up or something." Just ridiculous because I happened to be looking at the same video and using Photos to work out different angles and had run across the same phenomenon. It happens because when you use a telephoto lens, and are looking at distant objects, it flattens everything out. So, you have a bunch of buildings piled up on each other and you think they are somehow all close together. If you take the trouble to actually identify the buildings and locate them geographically, you can see why they seem to behave the way they do, on the video. Instead of being next door, one is a mile and a half away. When you move the camera thirty feet one way or another, perpendicular to the the direction the camera is pointing, the closer building changes its position, relative to the further away buildings, a lot more than the ones that are more local to what your target is.
So I write all this stuff out and post it on this crazy video. The owner of the video messages me and says, "I am giving you ten minutes to prove what you are saying or I will delete your comments." I message him back with all the technical stuff and then he deletes it, anyway.
This is rather lengthy and may be a little personal, but this is my experience with one of the main actors in this theory. The guy says, "I have to protect my research". What research? When confronted by real research, they have to hide behind something. In this case, a video with all kinds of comments from sycophants telling him how great he is.


[edit on 27-4-2009 by jmdewey60]

I remember excately where I was and what network I was watching when flight 175 struck. I was at my mother's apartment watching it live on the Today Show on NBC. I feel it absolutely incredible to believe that what I watched live was in fact some form of televison trickey. I worked for almost 20 years for the television cable industry and for a local NBC affiliate as a videographer and I tell you a passenger jet or a perfect facsimilie there of struck. Not a hologram nor a missle. Nor do I believe a pre-created or edited footage of a GGI airliner striking the tower was cued up and rolled live at the time to trick viewers. On the argument that an aircraft body of lightweight aluminum could not pierce heavier, denser material such as steel. We see events like this happening from time to time. How about a tornado's winds velocities so high they can imbed straw into trees and boards?

Minnesota Tornado History and Statistics




Also, a small mass meteroite because of it's interitia has the potential for tremendous destruction.

Now as far as the Pentegon...I'm still on the fence as to what hit there.

---hunger

[edit on 4/27/2009 by hunger4truth]

I have a basic set of aviation torches I use for general metalworking in my garage that say you're wrong. Fire can absolutely melt steel, cut it, soften it, weaken it, and whatnot.

Then again, just weakening it and getting it soft is enough if its non uniform when you have oh what, 10-15 stories of skyscraper sitting on top of those supports as well.

But hey, like most so-called 'truthers' out there. most 9-11 theorists are looking for anything but the truth. What it comes down to is most of them are so shocked at what happened that their mind just won't accept it, so they have to try to confuse the issue and ignore it by coming up with all manner of wild theories, and ignoring basic facts and realities.

I'm sorry, but so far, every single theory has been thoroughly debunked, yet people still want to believe. I guess some people just refuse to believe that there's no people in the world who hate us, or at the least, people different than them so much that they will go to radical extremes such as this.

The cross section of the building at the surface of impact was more than 75% glass. Just because the building has a steel frame does not make it "impenetrable". For something to have come out the other side, something must have penetrated.

-rrr

This was not a normal plane. It was a plane traveling at cruising speeds as opposed to approach for landing speeds. How do you think that the speed of impact affects the results?

-rrr

reply to post by Insolubrious

---

Uh huh so let me get this straight on September the 11th people go to work they get in there cars and drive people walk on the sidewalk then they look up to SEE thats right SEE a Hologram on a SUNNY MORNING do me a favor buy a decent projector and try and project it on a BLACK surface never mind a WHITE surface outside on a sunny day and see what you get the very idea that the planes were holograms is ridiculous i doubt even military projectors can project images of planes on to buildings without light reflecting off dust.

I agree with this poster. This is the most logical explanation.

Go to a cocktail party and start talking about no plane. Nobody would believe anything you said after that came out of your mouth.

It is actually genius disinformation.

[edit on 27-4-2009 by sticky]

exactly. most of the world saw the planes (it is still the question what kind of the planes has crashed the WTC and with who was (if anybody) on the board) on their targets. and the whole idea of "no plane" theories were to divide and as you wrote discredit the whole movement. it is a pretty known strategy used for decades all over the world.

to OP, so sorry but you need to go deeper in the subject. check some more material and try to debunk something the so called "truthers" really belive.

to debunk something we do not belive and use it as an evidence that we are wrong is a sign of "ignorance".

reply to post by mister.old.school

---

wow, why so much effort to debunk something that does not matter anyway. The point is clear, no matter what hit or didn't hit the buildings is irrelevant. The point is why.

Thank you MR Old School.

First, I would like to point out that I never was a NPT type person.
To me it was too much of a technological type of a break through to attempt without some type of trial of run. I see nothing remotely close to anything on this scale attempted prior to 911.

Second, This topic is about as controversial as creation vs evolution. Especially, to the die hard NPTerest's.

Too many people witnessed this event. It would seem that if it were true, then we would have as many varying first hand accounts, as we have number of witnesses. If it were a hologram or what ever, Then depending on your prospective. You would have a conflicting testimony of that of your peer from an opposite perspective (North side vs South).

I have just recently came around to the conclusion that 911 was an inside job. That being said, it would be a tremendous leap of faith, "for me" to accept hologram technology. Perfectly synchronized with the explosions, to fool the entire NY population and cameras that witnessed this event.

I appreciate your dedication to deny ignorance in this matter.

Thank you, and continue your hard work and research.

HooHaa.

Two planes crashed, three buildings collapsed. What about WTC building 7?