The evidence presented is compelling all though I'd be more inclined to go with a theory that the building's superstructure was weakened via the use of precisely timed cutting charges or directed energy weapons that may have been mounted to the planes, or fired from near by building tops rather than no planes. I guess my gut tells me that directed energy weapons and / or explosives are more likely than mass hallucination or some sort of advanced holography that made it look like planes hit the buildings. What bout some sort of bunker buster missle modified to look like a plane? Who knows? All I know is that whatever theory you subscribe to, it's better than the official story as the evidence for the official story does not pass scientific scrutiny. I've seen to many presentations of compelling evidence, and those who would try to refute it or denounce it do not address it scientifically and instead just say, that's crazy.

---

---

Perhaps the OP should state a brief alternative view, or a small summary...

9 parts is a lot to go through if you have no idea what it is about.

Is the no-plane theory that it was a hologram? a hologram plane? what about the twin towers, were they holograms?

I mean I'm sure there exists some crazy technology, but to me it seems it would be cheaper to just remotely fly planes into the towers...Hell, it would have been way easier if they just said 'Terrorists managed to plant explosives in the towers and this morning a series of white vans entered the basement levels...' and fight club style from there

Are you suggesting that they were decorated missiles, just made to look like planes? If so then the way the No Plane theory represents itself is terribly misleading, because I would call a missile with wings a plane...

I'm open to new ideas, because I know the rabbit hole is very, very deep. But from someone that is not familiar with the theory or your previous threads it would be nice to get a heads up before I take ninety minutes out of my day.

Originally posted by videoworldwide
Here are a series of brand new videos.

First off, taking an AUDIO interview and slapping a photo to it on Youtube does not a video make.

Jim Fetzer Interviews John Lear on 'No Planes on 911' Affidavit - July 27, 2009

So he's perjured himself. There is no video footage to support any of his theories. Just voices and a photo.

If detractors are going to say anything about these videos, then they cannot just say "Jim Fetzer and John Lear have already proven to be wrong etc etc etc."

Again, what videos? And I won't say that at all. I'm all for a great conspiracy theory (check out my posts if you don't believe me!) . . . as long as the conspiracy has some evidence to back it up. Posting an audio interview is not enough evidence for me to bother listening to all of them. Why? Because I had a friend die in Tower 2 that day. Her email stated completely contrary to what your post is saying.

The only area you are correct, is that a plane did not crash into the Pentagon. It was a missile. One of my employees (at the time) had a brother working at the Pentagon that day. There was no plane. It was a missile.

What I predict the debunkers will do, as they usually do, as trained disinfo agents, they will post retorts to things, quotes and issues that are not even on the videos, thus convincing people they have done their job, by doing nothing more than stating they have 'debunked' it.

I am a scientist, not a disinfo agent. And your prediction is wrong. The conspiracy you are missing, is the fact that FIVE planes were hijacked. Our U.S. military was ordered to shoot down flight 93 (4th plane) and another that crashed on a Utah farm. This 5th plane was spoke of ONCE by the media because it would not land, and then MSM never addressed that plane again. Nothing about landing or crashing or being shot down. NOTHING. But the farmer and family members of everyone who died on that plane were paid off by the govt to shut up or die. I've been looking for ANY proof of the last part for several years, but burn out before I find anything. If anyone here knows where video can be found, please post it.

We'll see!

And again I state: See what? These are not videos.

[edit on 8/11/2009 by Nivcharah]

Originally posted by scubagravy
btw, ive seen a few of these vids before and in now way do they show ABSOLUTE PROOF, mere speculation. As much as we'd all like an answer to the tragedy that unfolded on 9/11, creating nonsense and veering away from sustainable proof is not a viable solution.

If you are one for the hologram theory, explain the audio on that day, not only from the videos from MSM, or the the two french brothers that were there filming on location or even the thousands of commuters and bystanders in Ny at the time.

Your theory is as solid as a patent for an airconditioner on a motorcycle.

[edit on 11/8/2009 by scubagravy]

Apparently, you never watched the video.

Originally posted by GeechQuestInfo
I can promise you there were real planes involved in 9/11.

Are you serious with your no plane theory or are you just trying to take away from the seriousness of the treasonous acts that occurred that day? The farther out you go and stretch a theory to the brink by bringing in the "crazy", the further away from the truth you actually go my friend.

Someone else who has never looked into it, either.

Originally posted by LazyGuy
ABSOLUTE PROOF?

One mans testimony, no matter how compelling IS NOT absolute proof.


John's got a rep around here for making outlandish claims without providing even the tiniest scrap of tangible evidence.

Good way to get ATS points though. By making a claim like you did in your title and then pointing to John Lear you're guaranteed to get a bunch of replies.

What's the word I'm looking for? Starts with a T. Ends with an L. Rhymes with hole.
Oh yea, you must be a TROLL.

[edit on 11-8-2009 by LazyGuy]

Of course, it's too much trouble to watch the videos, instead hurl insults, and slander.

Chalk up another non-truther.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Pockets

Think you need to take a step back and re-evaluate your position, can't you see how dumb you look saying there were no planes?

This whole line of..... I hesitate to say thought, cuz there's no thought put into no planer claims....... whatever, should be the perfect evidence for the insane TM claims about CIA paid disinfo artists on the WWW.

More evidence people would rather lay claims without information or real data, but that's o.k., the children have to play somewhere.

Another non-truther.

Hey, if you don't look at the evidence,. then you cannot be looking for the truth.

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
I usually stay out of the 9/11 debate here on ATS but this no plane thing is a little much IMO. I saw this the other day on here but I dont have sound so I cant watch the interviews. Could you please sum up for those who cant watch the videos what they are saying. IF there were no planes, which many people saw, then what was everyone looking at??? I am sorry but I just find this silly that people are saying there were no planes. I have seen many videos and well those are planes. Do they think they were holograms or something because the impact of the planes looked VERY real to me and millions of other people. I dont mean to sound rude or poke fun but I am serious, what do people think the planes were in every video out there. I have a friend who lived in NY at the time and saw with his own eyes the second plane hit and if I brought this up to him he would more than likely flip out on me.

The videos you watched were 100% CGI, non real, animations. What your friend saw was likely either a hologram or a missile, but we are not sure, even John Lear is not sure about some things, but what is proven is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a plane to have hit the towers on that day.

THAT'S RIGHT,

IMPOSSIBLE!!!!

Originally posted by belowcommonknowledge
The evidence presented is compelling all though I'd be more inclined to go with a theory that the building's superstructure was weakened via the use of precisely timed cutting charges or directed energy weapons that may have been mounted to the planes, or fired from near by building tops rather than no planes. I guess my gut tells me that directed energy weapons and / or explosives are more likely than mass hallucination or some sort of advanced holography that made it look like planes hit the buildings. What bout some sort of bunker buster missle modified to look like a plane? Who knows? All I know is that whatever theory you subscribe to, it's better than the official story as the evidence for the official story does not pass scientific scrutiny. I've seen to many presentations of compelling evidence, and those who would try to refute it or denounce it do not address it scientifically and instead just say, that's crazy.

At least you seem to have an open mind. That is what is needed here, not closed off arrogance.

I agree that it may have been a missile, and I also believe there may have been directed energy weapons, now with new evidence Fetzer has, but the idea that a plane could have flown into the building is very well refuted by John on these latest videos. He makes it clear that a missile loaded aboard a plane is not posible either, because the plane had too many issues to overcome for it to have been possible to hit the trade center. Well worth the listen, if you have the time.

[edit on 11-8-2009 by videoworldwide]

---

---

Originally posted by videoworldwide

More evidence people would rather lay claims without information or real data, but that's o.k., the children have to play somewhere.

Another non-truther.

Hey, if you don't look at the evidence,. then you cannot be looking for the truth.

Feeling persecuted?

By both sides of the fence?

Do you ever wonder why?

No one wants to watch your "video" as they know already that there were planes slammed into buildings on that day