| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 6:50 pm Post subject: "No planes" theory: can someone explain? |
 |
|
I don't get it.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As far as I can tell, there are two variants.
1. The Pentagon was hit by a missile, and not a plane
2. The Twin Towers + the Pentagon were hit by things other than planes.
Both ideas are disproved by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paul wright
Moderator
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | As far as I can tell, there are two variants.
1. The Pentagon was hit by a missile, and not a plane
2. The Twin Towers + the Pentagon were hit by things other than planes.
Both ideas are disproved by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. |
To be more correct, Johnny, the Pentagon was hit by a missile, a drone, anything other than a Boeing Airliner
The Towers were hit either by nothing, and the images of airplanes were put in the video feed after the event, or they were hit by missiles but the record of the event shows planes that weren't there
For the former there is a lot of evidence
For the latter, it depends on your perception of the visual evidence available
Welcome by the way
Interesting that you should hold such strong conviction on your first post here |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Johnny,
To say that the Pentagon was not hit by a boeing makes sense to me.
But what about the towers? When you say something other than planes, are you saying they were military planes or, literally, no planes at all? If so, how do you explain eye witness accounts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It is people trying to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. By associating with the no-planes theory at WTC it is like believing Elvis is living on Mars. Anyone supposedly associated with 9/11 truth who says it was holograms or rigged video footage is trying to make people think that 9/11 truthers are nuts. Even in the highly unlikely event they actually believe it they should shut up as the effect is the same. The fact they do not reveals them to be shills imho. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ally
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dog
Minor Poster
Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 90
Location: Terra Firma
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's my humble opinion (and yeah, I refuse to abbreviate....lest we all find ourselves communicating via beeps and manic thumb movement)
ONE: The no-plane theory is valid conjecture on an already incredible plot.
or,
TWO: It's a pile of nonsense, breathlessly bandied around by shills.
The bottom line is that neither should be of any real consequence and, either way, have a minimal likely contribution to the establishment of Cheney's culpability.
To whit
A) If you believe it; keep it on the backburner. It's NOT critical; and it can and is being used against decent argument.
B) Shills know this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dog wrote: | ..A) If you believe it; keep it on the backburner. It's NOT critical; and it can and is being used against decent argument.
B) Shills know this. |
Very sensible.
If you want to sound demented to a normal person unaquainted with 9/11 evidence, tell them that the twin towers were not hit by planes at all but something else....oh, and leave the room quickly, the men in white coats are on their way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ally
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kbo234 wrote: |
If you want to sound demented to a normal person unaquainted with 9/11 evidence, tell them that the twin towers were not hit by planes at all but something else....oh, and leave the room quickly, the men in white coats are on their way. |
so much for debating the issue with grown ups |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ally wrote: | | FACT - most if not all footage of alleged F175 hitting the WTC are fake. |
Thats not a FACT. That is your OPINION. Ive seen some 'sort of' convincing footage before but it may be faked itself by those who tout it. If it were fact we wouldnt be debating it.
Navigation Error
Sorry, the page you are looking for does not exist.
Is there another link to this?
'How Many Plane Contradictions Can YOU Spot' there?
Please elaborate and convince us of these FACTS.
Cheers.
_________________
Positive...energy...activates...constant...elevation. (Gravediggaz) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ally wrote: | | kbo234 wrote: |
If you want to sound demented to a normal person unaquainted with 9/11 evidence, tell them that the twin towers were not hit by planes at all but something else....oh, and leave the room quickly, the men in white coats are on their way. |
so much for debating the issue with grown ups |
Have you tried the no plane stuff on "a normal person unaquainted with 9/11 evidence" yet Ally?
What was the reaction?
kbo234 is right IMO, people will laugh in your face 99% of the time and the other 1% may well call in the medics. Its hard enough as it is getting people to consider this.
I get the feeling those who talk the no planes stuff dont take it to the street.
_________________
Positive...energy...activates...constant...elevation. (Gravediggaz) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ally
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| scar wrote: |
Have you tried the no plane stuff on "a normal person unaquainted with 9/11 evidence" yet Ally?
What was the reaction?
kbo234 is right IMO, people will laugh in your face 99% of the time and the other 1% may well call in the medics. Its hard enough as it is getting people to consider this.
I get the feeling those who talk the no planes stuff dont take it to the street. |
As it stands 90 percent of people think you're insane for saying the WTC was demolished by explosives so another 9 percent of the population isn't going to bother me too much. It's funny you ask about presenting the info to other people because I've recently edited up a bunch of tapes I have from the period and gave a couple of mates a presentation on the theory, I was able to demonstrate clearly to them from 9/11 & 9/12 footage that the planes and their flight paths clearly contradict each other, all I want to know is why was this faked. It seems something deeper is def going on IMO, no amount of cheap insults will change that my friend.
(I'll email my friends and ask him to join and give their opinions, they are both open minded guys but prefers martial arts to politics.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | As far as I can tell, there are two variants.
1. The Pentagon was hit by a missile, and not a plane
2. The Twin Towers + the Pentagon were hit by things other than planes.
Both ideas are disproved by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. |
Welcome JP. Good to see you over from JREF.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58618
Seems we're getting a lot of you guys recently.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Someone still hasn't accounted for the eye witnesses. Or did nobody in the vicinity of the towers see planes?
How do people account for the Naudet footage?
Sounds stupid to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ally wrote: |
As it stands 90 percent of people think you're insane for saying the WTC was demolished by explosives so another 9 percent of the population isn't going to bother me too much. It's funny you ask about presenting the info to other people because I've recently edited up a bunch of tapes I have from the period and gave a couple of mates a presentation on the theory, I was able to demonstrate clearly to them from 9/11 & 9/12 footage that the planes and their flight paths clearly contradict each other, all I want to know is why was this faked. |
All i want is some solid proof. Do you have any links?
I would like to know what anomalies you see in that link you posted.
Ive seen some differing angles footage before somewhere but they seemed easily explained by the appearance of being shot from the opposite side of the towers...
A couple of mates who perhaps already respect you is hardly the same as total strangers. That 9% is surely important or is it not?
9% of the world is a fair number to just disregard and it is this attitude that seems to go with the no planes. Who cares if 99% of the world disregard it, then by association disregard all else? I do actually.
| Ally wrote: | | It seems something deeper is def going on IMO, no amount of cheap insults will change that my friend. |
I havent insulted you. Unless disagreeing is insulting somehow.
I just dont agree that its a FACT, but im more than willing to accept i could be totally wrong. I have seen some semi convincing stuff before as i said and im keeping an open mind.
Proof needed. Links etc. Hopefully veronica can come here and provide them as she is in touch with the originators of this.
_________________
Positive...energy...activates...constant...elevation. (Gravediggaz) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ally wrote: |
so much for debating the issue with grown ups |
Sorry Ally, I wasn't criticising the fact that the issue is being discussed here...merely stating the obvious-that it isn't something it is wise to raise with the 'unconverted'.
Actually, the way the plane enters the WTC2 does look quite unnatural. The nose should be seen collapsing and the wings tending to shear and catching it up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kbo234 wrote: |
Sorry Ally, I wasn't criticising the fact that the issue is being discussed here...merely stating the obvious-that it isn't something it is wise to raise with the 'unconverted'. |
Aye same here. Tis stating the obvious though i spose.
| kbo234 wrote: | | Actually, the way the plane enters the WTC2 does look quite unnatural. The nose should be seen collapsing and the wings tending to shear and catching it up. |
Agreed. carbon vs steel but its like a knife thru butter, despite the speed.
That classic from below shot slowed down it seems to be missing a wing, theres numerous footage that looks very wrong, weird angles, one clip where the plane disappears too soon before a building then reappears after it and some very dodgy low-grade shots considering the high tech cameras used to take the 'footage' from that angle, cameras they used for Planet Earth i think, then theres the weird angles and timing of the footage on stations etc etc
Many anomalies aside from what ive mentioned yet hard to say for sure even then.
The Naudet brothers footage is claimed to be a fake like the zapruder film was. Richard Grove said he was driving in a convertible close to the towers and heard no plane before the impact...also noting that in the naudet footage its weird they swing up to the left when the sound would have hit him from the right.
A definitive film needs to be made to draw these and others together, perhaps as a section in a film covering all anomalies.
Last edited by scar on Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:19 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stav
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 103
Location: Brighton
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:19 pm Post subject: webfairy.... |
|
|
all the footage i have seen on the no planes theory is on webfairy. google it.
might help..
_________________
open you eyes and see the truth for yourself!
Why the lies? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:21 pm Post subject: Re: webfairy.... |
|
|
| stav wrote: | all the footage i have seen on the no planes theory is on webfairy. google it.
might help.. |
Thats where ive seen most of the above stuff... Figured there might be more.
Oh well.
_________________
Positive...energy...activates...constant...elevation. (Gravediggaz) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leiff
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 509
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Regarding the Naudet brothers plane footage.
It is possible that upon hearing the aircraft noise, he looked up and saw the plane and quickly brought his camera into position. After all, how much harder would the footage have been to film if there was no plane to alert him to the imminent explosion on the WTC? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ally
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
covertops has best analysis, recently got lots of stuff you can watch immediately like contradictory flight paths etc.
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I hadnt seen that one clip down the page before. Quite odd that.
Cheers for the link.
_________________
Positive...energy...activates...constant...elevation. (Gravediggaz) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mooter
Minor Poster
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 51
Location: Chester
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | As far as I can tell, there are two variants.
1. The Pentagon was hit by a missile, and not a plane
2. The Twin Towers + the Pentagon were hit by things other than planes.
Both ideas are disproved by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. |
Welcome JP. Good to see you over from JREF.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58618
Seems we're getting a lot of you guys recently. |
aye and I counted 2 posters on that JREF link that have reared their brainwashed minds onto the LC forums too. I love their oh so mature comments like "they're still figuring out how to wear 3d glasses at the same time as the tin foil hats" - priceless.... 
_________________
"Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton 1887
"Head to head,
chest to chest.
Which country is the very best?
and in the land of rape and honey,
you prey" Al Jourgensen |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
