FWIW, here are my thoughts on the "no-planes" theory.
First, it's not one theory. There seem to be two possible scenarios. Either there were holographic planes which were realistic enough to fool
eyewitnesses and be picked up on random witness cameras: or, the planes were CGI, which fails to explain witness accounts and all the independent
witness video.
That leaves us with the "holographic planes" theory.
This depends entirely on there being secret holographic technology. Hmm. Well, it's possible. I certainly think that military (or, if you will,
shadow government) tech is way beyond anything we know about. We do know that the military is unveiling applications for this technology. A simple
Google of "holographic battlefield technology" shows quite a variety of applications, though in a short search I couldn't find anything to
substantiate John Lear's claims. That doesn't mean he's wrong, though.
But, you know, we don't need holograms when real planes can be flown by remote control. Global Hawk technology has been around for a long time and
is amply reliable for the job - obviously, far more reliable than the hijackers, two of whom simply did a runner from their Cessna on the runway when
they couldn't take off. These people are not going to be able to do the kind of manoevring that the planes exhibited on the day.
As for the video "proof"... not convincing to these eyes.
Could the planes have flown at the claimed speeds at that altitude? Opinions differ. Is the source of the planes' speeds reliable? Not to me, or
indeed to, say, Pilots for 9/11 truth, who have thoroughly debunked the official story and the supposed flight recorder data.
So if the source of the planes' speed is unreliable, then it seems hardly worthwhile to worry about it too much. If there were planes they don't
have to be going quite that fast. Has anyone tried to calculate the planes' speed from known video footage?
Another claim is that no-one, not even an experienced pilot, could have flown those planes at that speed with that accuracy. John Lear is even
swearing an affidavit to that effect in a court case. He's certainly putting his reputation on the line there. He also claims to have seen
extraordinary holographic imitations, complete with sound effects.
But replacing real planes with holographic equivalents produces its own set of problems, most notable of which is co-ordinating image and
explosion.
We also have to look at the Pentagon and Shanksville separately. The picture that's emerging for me is that there was no way anyone was actually
going to fly a plane into the Pentagon. The potential for cockup is just too great. No, a flyover and a wall-breaching kit will do - and Craig
Ranke's interviews with the two police witnesses in the Citgo garage has convinced me that the planes overflew the Pentagon from a different angle of
approach to the purported impact.
This, for me, actually makes this scenario more plausible. You can fly a hologram any way you choose. Real planes have to obey the rules of
aerodynamics, and considering the 270-degree turn that the Pentagon plane made, it's not surprising they didn't quite get the angle of approach
right. But here's the thing: this fact has only emerged about seven or eight years down the line. For a very long time the flyover and explosion
was good enough to convince most sheeple of the official story.
Shanksville, frankly, is a mess and I don't think anything about what we know about it has any definite bearing on the planes/no planes debate.
Now we have to approach the vexed question of disinfo.
Given that it was an inside job, then of course there'll be disinfo.
BoneZ (whose postings I greatly respect) is, for my taste, perhaps too aggressive in charging people with disinfo tactics. Not everyone espousing the
NPT is a disinfo agent. (If they were, it means that the NPT has convinced no-one at all.)
However, I am leaning towards the NPT being disinfo because of the people who are involved. I noticed recently that Jim Fetzer and Finian Dunne are
buddies. I think Fetzer is probably an honest guy who gets rather too carried away and doesn't think terribly carefully about the issues: and I
think he's been propelled into a rather too-prominent spokesman role for the truth movement by people who want to make the truth movement look
stupid.
Finian Dunne, however, is a little 9/11 industry all on his own. I found his site, which purports to expose CIA fakes, and (I'd like to think)
debunked it fairly effectively in
this thread. Virtually all the people he
"exposes" are people whom, over years' experience of looking at this stuff, I've learned to "trust" - in other words, I don't think they're
deliberately lying. Some I really respect, like the guy who runs Mad Cow Morning News. If you look at the thread, you'll see that Dunne never has
any solid reasons to back his claims that all the people he names are fakes. He even accuses MadCowMorningNews of "peddling the official story".
That is utter nonsense.
Dunne and Fetzer are buds. That immediately makes Fetzer suspect, as far as I'm concerned. And the no-planers tend to hang out with both, from what
I can see.
Again, John Lear is a major proponent of the npt. My personal opinion is that while he knows a lot of interesting people, some of them are using him
as a conduit for disinformation. I do not think he's personally dishonest, although I find him, at times, a little careless with the facts. There
were a couple of things he said in a fairly recent Project Camelot interview which I believe were factually incorrect and had I been giving an
interview to camera about the subject I would certainly have tried to be as accurate as possible. On the other hand, he's not a young man anymore
and he could have been just mistaken.
But perhaps the biggest nail in the coffin of the npt is that Pilots for 9/11 truth don't have anything to do with it. These are the expert
witnesses. They tell us how the flight recorder data is wrong, and it makes sense to me. They don't go with the npt - and if anyone's in a postion
to give an expert opinion on it, those are the guys.
P.S. (edit) - the OP really needs to understand the meaning of the word "proof". As BoneZ said, it's very likely disingenuous to put the p-word
(which should be banned from use in this forum until people know what it means, in the mathematical, logical, and legal senses) in the thread
title.
[edit on 27-5-2009 by rich23]
