Spot poll: "No Planes": Please Join In

[John White]

Seeing the popularity of the No Planes thread over the last two days

( http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=3526 )

I invite fellow members to indulge in a spot Poll on how they currently see the "no planes" hypothesis

[John White]

Thanks to everyone who'se viewed this over the last few hours

I dont run polls very often becuase I feel their over-use dilutes them, but when an issue is generating such a wide ranges of responses as the "No Planes" hypothesis, I find it helpful to my own reasoning to find how popular it is with the community as a whole and hope other members do too...so please express how you see the current balance of probability

[John White]

A little suprising theres not been one vote supporting "No Planes"

[IronSnot]

Veronica Chapman hasn't seen the poll yet obviously. In my view no-planers fall into one of two categories;

1. shills
2. idiots

[Andrew Johnson]

[IronSnot]

Unless contrary evidence comes to the fore you must be;

2. Idiots.

Sorry but another poster said it well on another thread. Even if there was substance to the 'no planes' (and I don't believe there is) you should concentrate on outing the culprits first. Basically in the extremely unlikely event that you're right, you would be guilty of putting the barrow in front of the horse.

But the most likely scenario is that this is a pile of nonsense invented by a nutcase and promoted to cause friction.

[catfish]

[John White]

Well it does seem to be a somewhat emotive question!

for me, thats why I started this poll, on the basis that a simple snap shot of opinion can deflate tensions rather than inflame them with circular argument

At the moment, the poll seems to be showing that most truthers dont consider "No Planes" to be the most credible hypothesis...I'd encourage people to take part rather than be silent ...the debate I'm happy to leave to other threads

[Ally]

john, you really have little understanding of the theory to set up such a divisive poll, why don't you join the debate on the other threds and expose your total ignorance on the matter coz there is no other reason you'd use the 'NO PLANES' idiom.

as for snot's opinion, it ain't work nonsense, he's contributed nothing except attacks on people here, check out his posts, nothing but trolling.

[Ally]

there's 850 members on this forum yet only 15 voted in your strawman poll, hardly representive is it?

[John White]

I already voiced my opinion on the thread...yet to see a need to repeat it Ally

However, I fail to see how a poll in which each member can respond, or not respond, as they see fit once and once only is divisive unless the individual chooses to see it that way

What other term than "No Planes" should be used to describe a hypothesis that there were "no planes", especially when proponent of that theory call it "The No Planes theory"?

Perhaps its beholden on all of us to remember that truth is not a game of who is right and who is wrong, but a clarity gained by seeing what is

[John White]

[Ally]

[John White]

How about an honest reflection of opinion?

[John White]

idealistic as i'm sure that as!

[Andrew Johnson]

[scubadiver]

Can I point out that your question doesn't fit the responses:

How do you stand on the "no-planes" hypothesis? What does "yes" refer to? What does "No" refer to?

[John White]

"Broadly in agreement YES" Would be a choice for someone who may have a few questions about "No Planes" but overall considers it to be the closest to the Truth. I put "broadly in agreement" in front of "YES" to indicate that its a general POV option...If "Yes" or "No" is too black n white for people, theres also "MAYBE"

How else should a poll be structured?

[MiniMauve]

I think there needs to be a clarification of what exactly the "no planes" theory entails. I took it literally to mean no planes were used at all, that the planes were either holograms or the pictures and videos were all fakes, which is, to be frank, idiotic. If the "no planes" theory also encompasses the possibility that non-7x7 planes were flown into the WTC, then I'd say that is worthy of discussion and investigation because that isn't logistically implausible. I still wouldn't lump it in w/ the theory that there were no planes altogether. The one is vastly more of a stretch than the other.

[John White]

Well to clarify that minimauve, at the start of this thread I made clear that this is a spot poll of peoples opinions based on the linked discussion started by TRSY3, which is clearly a "no planes at all" POV, not "the planes were not 747's... which I suppose would be an "Other Planes Hypothesis"

[MiniMauve]

Yes, I realize that. I think there is confusion about it in that thread, too. Some people seem to be taking criticism of the "no planes" theory as criticism of the "no 7x7s" theory, which it isn't at all - at least not by me.

[Mark Gobell]

My conclusions so far.

John White: Excellent idea. Well done. Tick. Tick.

Ironsnot: Abusive. Go to the back of the class.

Andrew Johnson: You are a hologram but you don't know it. Yet.

Scubadiver: Make a decision. Now.

Catfish: Pragmatic and diplomatic. Well done. Tick.

Ally: Calm down. You know I am right.

Bongo: Too much pragmatism. Show more imagination.

Minmauve: Get off the fence. A plane is a plane. Tut.

Mark Gobell: I know the truth. Only I do. But I won't tell you. Ever.

[IronSnot]

I think the idea that planes, other than those officially acknowledged, were used is quite plausible. But the idea that those were not 7*7s is much, much less plausible, and holograms and CGIs are straight out of nutland.

Is that still abusive?

[John White]

I'd like to draw members attention that their are four maybe votes, and this shows that there are certainly people prepared to keep an open mind on "No Planes"...and I'd hope to consider myself one of them, although I presently would define my position as broadly in dis-agreement NO, and this is why:

The proliferation of eyewitnesses and video cameras of all descriptions makes forgery of the image unlikely: which leaves forging that captured by the image, a whole order of technology higher and definately pushing the boundaries of known science, becuase it would require solid hologram technology. At that point we would then continue on into Alien Technology and knowledge streams like that to maintain the hypothesis, unless physical evidance could be shown of the technologies existance...and not just something flashing blue lights in the sky, tech that could simulate a moving image of a jet

However, explosives are involved anyway in the fall of the towers, and Global Hawk Tech is established fact and ensures no problem with a fully functioning hypothesis regards what happened to the 747Jets...so really there seems no need for NO PLANES to go full steam ahead with 911 Theory as established by Fetzer, Tarpley, Jones, Jones and Bowman at the Symposium last month, and as activists, the initiative is ours now: especially this weekend!

[Mark Gobell]

LOLOL ha ha ha

Very funny.

Cheers Brian

[MiniMauve]

bump for JimC's benefit

Edit:er... that would be for JimB's benefit

[JimB]

[marky 54]

please stop the no planes theory, its misleading and i carnt see what the evidence is for it apart from one clip where a wing briefly disapears, if their were no planes it would then need to be explained how the plane shaped holes appeared. i have tried to prove myself there was no planes and carnt, their were no planes at the pentagon and flight 93 and they aint even listening to that let alone the towers.

[tfayaz]

Is there anyway of closing a thread? I really see it pointless arguing about something that is pointless!

If we go out tomorrow and advertise this website, the only thing the media will see is that we believe in a no planes theory. Let's end this discussion once and for all and concentrate on fact.

[John White]

This thread does serve a good purpose: it shows the opinion of this forum of "no Planes" theory: and so far not a single yes. As a minimum, we can shows the % of campaigners who hold the "No Planes" POV. if its a lot, its a lot...I shant complain about truth....but if its not, that fine by me: thats fine by all of us, I hope. One vote per member

In the meanwhile I consider the "Jersey Girls" information to blow the roof off the 911 commision's credibility and could attract support on this forum in reverse of this poll's result: the potential is certainly there, the information is cast iron solid