"No Planes" - moved here to Critics Corner

[jake]

[Johnny Pixels]

[John White]

Re: drone:

How better to ensure the planes hit their target?

Knock out the jets occupants: use computer control technology

It's still the same jets: but no actual hijackers required

just a hypothesis

[kookomula]

Concerning 'no planes', initially I went with my gut, 'common sense' reaction and dismissed it out of hand. But it keeps coming up so have talked to those who believe the 'no plane' theory and have heard this.

(Bearing in mind I do not have words available to me to understand how holograms worked I asked this)

Q So the hologram would have to be projected from somewhere, where was it projected from

A- From the missile itself

Q - You're saying the missile 'emanated' the hologram

A - Yes

Q- A missile shrouded in a hologram

Q - Yes

Q - Why would they go to the effort of doing this

A - Because it is very difficult to hit a target with a passenger jet

I also heard about Newtons 2nd Law of motion and how the wings would break forward on impact and how easily the plane entered the building.

[paul wright]

Personally I've always held the no-plane theory as regards the WTC2 hit as a possibility because
1. On the evening of 911, someone posting somewhere said that the video of the plane looked like a cartoon.It still surely does
2.The video of the hit on WTC2 still appears to defy Newton's third Law of Motion. Given velocity, speed, weight and mass, it still doesn't look right. The only reaction from the tower appears only after the wings have gone in. There is no obvious impact on the plane itself, like wings shearing off or the tail collapsing
3. That video of the guy who doesn't respond to the noise of the jet overhead, the impact, nothing until the explosion.Given the slow speed of sound compared with the visual, this still seems wrong

[IronSnot]

Nah, you're reading too much into it. Background noise, concentration on his job and why did the jet have to be screaming 'look at me' anyway?

This is my last post on the subject as I am 100% certain this is nonsense, and to debate this when there's a conspiracy to prove is a diversion and a waste of time.

[Sinclair]

Re No Planes………..I am still undecided, but I would recommend anyone wishing to research the theory further to read the series of threads by Dr Debug at Democratic Underground. There are 3 very long threads which present the ongoing research here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&a ddress=125x92675
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&a ddress=125x97281
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&a ddress=125x97987

with a summary here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg& forum=125&topic_id=100059&mesg_id=100059

This research was initiated after him watching the Who Killed Jon O’Neill ? film, (which hardly mentions the planes, but discusses the interconnections of Kroll Associates and various other ‘privatised CIA’ operations, and their possible part in the overall global gameplan).

Dr Debug postulates that the planes are ‘optional’, i.e. the explosions (not just the ‘squibs’ but the main collision explosions) were facilitated/pre-planted in the WTC buildings in office locations). He draws connections between the companies involved, their chief staff members & ‘other interests’, where their offices were located, how many fatalities they suffered on the day, whether the shares were involved in ‘insider trading’ and how their business benefited from the events of 9/11.

There is the strong suggestion that some of the ‘19 Hijackers’ were drug runners. (Al Cokeda)

It is worth a read anyway….

(Also, a DU ‘No Plane’ thread is here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg& forum=125&topic_id=92675&mesg_id=96076 )

The No Plane subject certainly polarises 911 Truthseekers, however, as Ally says, such hypothesis should be subject to rational analysis and debate. Read the links posted & then see if your view is widened, or if you think that the research is diversionary baloney.

I would think that the majority of us here know that there was complicity within the US (shadow) government. I don’t know if we will ever get to the Whys & the Wherefores of how exactly it was perpetrated, but if a genuine truthseeker/researcher wishes to study a particular theory, and can draw together coherent reasoning behind such a theory, I’m all for that. I agree that such subjects should not be raised with the ‘unconverted’ but the ideas need to be debated amongst those ‘911 Truth aware’.

Also, when accusations of disinfo are thrown around, it may sometimes pay to pay heed to what the attention is being diverted away from………..

[scubadiver]

The way those planes went into the towers makes sense to me.

What do you think would happen if an object weighing 140 tons flying at 300mph + went into a building weighing 500,000 tons? A plane is less than a third of one percent of the total weight of one of those towers. The plane would disintegrate.

Use of holograms etc goes against common-sense as far as Im concerned.

[Leiff]

Possibly the 'frames per second' rate of the cameras used to film the planes was insufficient to capture the intermediate crumpling phase of the collision.

[jake]

[Sinclair]

Jake,

Thanks for the links. I had a quick look. As I said, I'm undecided with respect to 'no planes' at the WTC, however I am unconvinced that a 1) 757 plane hit the Pentagon, or that the Flight 93 plane crashed at Shanksville.

The final paragraph of the essay (by Eric Salter) at your first link is interesting...

[jake]

yes - I had a look at the DU 9/11 forum - it seems quite lively over there....

[paul wright]

[scar]

Thanks for the links Jake, rational analysis.
I have spent hardly any time on it admittedly but it has been on these forums a lot lately which is why ive been asking for more conclusive links.
I like to keep an open mind on things and have checked out the noplane sites now and then. If i'd spent any time on it i spose i would have found these rational articles before now.
Ive seen so many different clips over time (which i listed earlier) but thats the first set of articles ive seen that tear the majority down properly. Thankful for that. It wasnt ever going to be something to use on the uninitiated anyway...

I agree with that last paragraph in the first link. Have seen some of that lately, divide and conquer - accusations etc. The attacks on S.Jones for one.
Will be interesting to see if no planers can refute those articles in anyway at all, some of which are quite old. Or if they can provide any actual proof for their claims about Prof Jones, so far none have been forthcoming.

[Johnny Pixels]

What would the holograms be projected onto? There must be a light source for the hologram, and to see that image, the light must be reflected off of a surface towards your eyes, in the same way a film projector works. The film is projected onto the screen, and the light is reflected towards the audience. How would a hologram be projected onto thin air?

As for a plane hitting the Pentagon, if you look at the pattern of the lampposts ripped out of the ground, they match the wingspan of a 757. A missile would not be able to knock the lampposts over, as it would need to zig zag sharply, and a smaller plane/drone would also not have sufficient wingspan.

And then there's the debris from a 757, the hijacked 757 that was tracked heading for the Pentagon, the 757 sized hole in the side of the Pentagon, the remains of the luggage and the passengers from the hijacked 757...

Compare that evidence with the evidence for a missile or drone..precisely none.

[scar]

Hey Johnny, This thread is about the wtc no planes theories not the pentagon. Those articles are about wtc no planes.

edit: as far as the Pentagon goes, there is far more convincing evidence of no planes - drone/missile etc.
Cunning of you to equate the two as if they were the same.
Check this link:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewforum.php?f=24

[blackcat]

[jake]

[jake]

[jake]

[paul wright]

Fine. Stick with it, bro's

[MR_SNIPER]

Hello..L & G,

i'm newbiz here....

[Banish]

First Strike BBC - No Plane

First Strike CNN - No Plane

[Johnny Pixels]

[TimmyG]

if theres anyone i suspect to be working for the ptb here.. its the people talking about holographic planes.

i'm sorry but its utterly ridiculous

[paul wright]

[IronSnot]

Holograms are for clowns (and worse). I agree with TimmyG

[blackcat]

[alwun]

blackcat - some interesting analysis of pentagon lamposts here:

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies1.htm

cheers Al

[TimmyG]

just stop talking about holograms please.

take that into the david icke forums or some quantum reality forums or something. talking about it here just makes us look like we have over active imaginations at the very least

i'm interested in all that particle stuff, but you're gonna have a hard time proving that the planes were holographic. the best explanation was that they were real planes