"No Planes" - moved here to Critics Corner

jake · Post by **jake** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:36 pm

scar wrote: but its like a knife thru butter, despite the speed.

not really - have you seen this page?

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/175speed.html

I don't think the webfairy is any more credible than the tooth fairy....

Johnny Pixels · Post by **Johnny Pixels** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:30 pm

dh 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.
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

Hi. I'll think you'll find it quite impossible that the planes were inserted in the videos after the event, because there are so many independent cameras that all recorded the same thing. There are also multiple independant eye witness reports of aircraft.

The question becomes, why would missiles be used? Why go through the pretense of hijacking an airliner and then not using it?

Or are you suggesting the hijacking was fabricated? In which case why bother with the hijack storyline at all? Each time something becomes fabricated, the web becomes more complex, as a new, more absurd layer is added.

The Pentagon was hit by a Boeing aircraft, as shown by the Boeing aircraft wreckage found at the scene. Again, why the hijacking if only to use a drone?

As for my conviction, I am convinced only by evidence, not speculation or fantasy. I have already discussed 9/11 quite throughly on the Loose Change forum, only to have myself banned for providing evidence that people were wrong.

And yes, I have come here from the JREF forum, where we hold evidence in high regard. If you wish to suggest that the footage was doctored, you might come to a stumbling block when you realise that the second impact was broadcast live. Can you suggest how the CGI footage was produced that matched the precise weather conditions for the day, and was then inserted into live feeds of independent news corporations?

John White · Post by **John White** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:36 pm

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 · Post by **kookomula** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 11:20 pm

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 · Post by **paul wright** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:19 am

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 · Post by **IronSnot** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:22 am

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 · Post by **Sinclair** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:56 am

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/di ... =125x92675
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... =125x97281
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... =125x97987

with a summary here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... _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/di ... g_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 · Post by **scubadiver** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:34 pm

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 · Post by **Leiff** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:52 pm

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 · Post by **jake** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:41 pm

Sinclair wrote:The No Plane subject certainly polarises 911 Truthseekers, however, as Ally says, such hypothesis should be subject to rational analysis and debate.

try these:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/review.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salt ... atzit.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salt ... tzit2.html

Sinclair · Post by **Sinclair** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:06 pm

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...

In between the two fronts of this information war there is a lot of grey area, with quite a bit of room for principled disagreement about both evidence and tactics. Of course, principled disagreement is exactly the opposite of the obnoxious behavior of the no-planers, some of which I've documented in my articles. This behavior creates an acrimonious and divisive atmosphere in a movement that prevents productive work, and is usually the M.O. of deep cover agents. But I'm not suggesting no-plane advocates are agents. In fact I believe that most are deluded "useful idiots," as the terminology goes. As such, their offerings are misinformation, not disinformation. But that doesn't mean that the spooks wouldn't flood lists and forums with vociferous multiple-pseudonym supporters of these theories, in a tactic similar to the astroturfing of mainstream politics. If I were in charge of the cover up I would let the authentic fools emerge and then use mind control to encourage egomaniacal and aggressive tendencies. But while general comments on what theories constitute disinfo are reasonable, it's useless to let fly specific accusations of disinfo activity regarding individuals. There is never any evidence. Charges going back and forth is what the cover-up crew wants. Divide and conquer. Given the historical record of COINTELPRO, the ones making the accusations are most likely to actually be the agents.

Salter is correct that a 'Divide and conquer' policy is a way to weaken a truth movement.

None of us will ever know the WHOLE truth about 911. By the very nature of the operation that was carried out, knowledge is 'compartmentalised'.

The whole thing (including the ongoing media circus & limited hangouts) comprise a MASSIVE sleight of hand.

We have to look at what the other hand is doing....

Did you read the DU Thread stuff? Interesting huh?

jake · Post by **jake** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 6:00 pm

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

Sinclair wrote:Salter is correct that a 'Divide and conquer' policy is a way to weaken a truth movement.

I agree - and I think that this is why the "no planes at the wtc" idea is so damaging:

first of all because (quoting from the first essay's conclusion) "The WTC no-plane theories are exactly what they appear to be: amateur misinterpretations of images and unsupported suppositions sustained beyond their shelf life by aggressive bluffing, bald-faced denials of obvious mistakes and personal attacks upon critics of the theories."

secondly, because they are a totally unnecessary and divisive distraction from the real issues of 9/11.

If you read through those essays in full, he comprehensively debunks the claims of "webfairy", holmgren, icke etc and demonstrates how they are repeatedly guilty of amateurish mistakes or deliberate fraud....

paul wright · Post by **paul wright** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:49 pm

jake wrote:

secondly, because they are a totally unnecessary and divisive distraction from the real issues of 9/11.

Only if you let them be. Personally I favour the hologram idea, particularly in regard to WTC2 and it would also explain a thing or two about some eyewitness statements from the Pentagon.
It is interesting to speculate about the existence of such technology,as it presages the Project Bluebeam preparations.
Also, it is worthy to speculate whether those orbs, example here appearing on some of the 9/11 shots, may in fact be hovering projector platforms

Now I'm not prepared to obsess over these things nor am I going to fight with anybody over them
But we all have a right to the information whether we agree with it or not, and therefore it's a fair topic to present

Thanks Ally for all the interesting info and links

scar · Post by **scar** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:51 pm

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 · Post by **Johnny Pixels** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:54 pm

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 · Post by **scar** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:59 pm

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 · Post by **blackcat** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:59 pm

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...

False No 757 debris

False No 757 sized hole

False No luggage

False No bodies from a plane

jake · Post by **jake** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:23 pm

scar wrote: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.

I also think it's possibly significant that the principal proponents of "no planes at the wtc" are not only promoting an idea which can be used to discredit anyone questioning the official conspiracy theory by association - but have also spent a lot of time attacking other, more credible 911 researchers, particuarly those who are coming up with evidence that can cause some real damage to the official conspiracy theory....

jake · Post by **jake** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:47 pm

dh wrote:It is interesting to speculate about the existence of such technology,as it presages the Project Bluebeam preparations.

I repeat - the "no planes at the wtc" idea is damaging:

first of all because (quoting from http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/review.html) "The WTC no-plane theories are exactly what they appear to be: amateur misinterpretations of images and unsupported suppositions sustained beyond their shelf life by aggressive bluffing, bald-faced denials of obvious mistakes and personal attacks upon critics of the theories."

secondly, because they are a totally unnecessary and divisive distraction from the real issues of 9/11.

If you read through salter's essays in full, he comprehensively debunks the claims of "webfairy", holmgren, icke etc and demonstrates how they are repeatedly guilty of amateurish mistakes or deliberate fraud (and thereby hindering not helping the movement for 911 truth)....

and furthermore (also from http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/review.html):

"When I told friends who were open to 9/11 skepticism that I was working on some articles critical of these no-plane theories, they looked at me askance, as if to say "why are you even wasting your time on that?" Overall their reaction was appropriate. Frankly, I've been embarrassed to admit to ordinary folks that I've been working on these articles and have begrudged every moment of time I spend on it. These theories never were and never will be broadly accepted among the 9/11 skeptic community, let alone the broader public, even with the attention of high profile figures like Morgan Reynolds. But that doesn't mean that they are not a threat, especially to a particular minority segment of the 9/11 skeptics community.

The treatment of the pod issue by Popular Mechanics should be a warning.

The pod theory was never supported by any more than a small minority of 9/11 researchers. But as a result of Von Kleist's error-ridden "In Plane Site" dvd and forwarding of pod articles by naive individuals who thought they were encouraging dialogue, enough noise was built up around the issue to give PM the justification to portray the "pod" as a widely held view. And their treatment of it was a master stroke. They gave it marquee position at the beginning of the article-a first impression-tainting all the other stronger evidence to follow. And then their debunking was weak, simply a one-liner from an "expert" claiming it was an illusion, allowing the pod advocates to declare victory and continue to push their theory. Overall, a "lose-lose" scenario for 9/11 truth.

One has to wonder, with the no-plane theories gaining the support of bigshot Morgan Reynolds, if a redux of the pod debacle is in the cards."

jake · Post by **jake** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:53 pm

dh wrote:Also, it is worthy to speculate whether those orbs, example here appearing on some of the 9/11 shots, may in fact be hovering projector platforms

that's a funny site....

speculating about "orbs" is also a bad idea, especially as some of the speculation is so utterly laughable:

from http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salt ... atzit.html

The latest spurious claim to be circulated by Webfairy and other no-plane advocates concerns another "whatzit" or alleged UFO hovering around the north tower after the first hit:

http://thewebfairy.com/911/video/rayswhatzit.mov
http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/91 ... amebox=175

The small dark shape coming in and out of the frame in the movie at the first link is a bit of dirt on the window of the vehicle the film crew was travelling in. This is easily proved: the movement of the "whatzit" is perfectly matched to the frame of the window which enters the picture occasionally. In the second link, frames 156-160 show the dirt illuminated by the sun as the car moves out of a buildings shadow. Hilariously, Fonebone thinks this is the UFO activating it's propulsion system. Any experienced UFO investigator could see through this garbage in a moment.

paul wright · Post by **paul wright** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:58 pm

Fine. Stick with it, bro's

MR_SNIPER · Post by **MR_SNIPER** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:27 am

Hello..L & G,

i'm newbiz here....

Banish · Post by **Banish** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:49 pm

First Strike BBC - No Plane

First Strike CNN - No Plane

Johnny Pixels · Post by **Johnny Pixels** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:54 pm

blackcat wrote:
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...
False No 757 debris

False No 757 sized hole

False No luggage

False No bodies from a plane

Explain how the lamp posts were knocked down by an aircraft smaller than a 757.

TimmyG · Post by **TimmyG** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 12:02 am

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 · Post by **paul wright** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 12:18 am

TimmyG wrote: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

That's a little harsh, Timmy G , since in ourselves we are pretty much computerised hologram images of ourselves. The control grid is trying to imprint a universal conception of history and presence
What better way to try to interfere with the universal perception than with holographic realworld visual manipulation. It's clearly evident in the neutral recordings depending how you view it
My employers? My own warping - that's all

IronSnot · Post by **IronSnot** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 6:25 am

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

blackcat · Post by **blackcat** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 6:45 am

Explain how the lamp posts were knocked down by an aircraft smaller than a 757.

No.

You explain why they aren't smashed to pieces and, after being hit at over 400 mph, they haven't been slung to California.

alwun · Post by **alwun** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 7:43 am

blackcat - some interesting analysis of pentagon lamposts here:

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

cheers Al

TimmyG · Post by **TimmyG** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 7:53 am

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

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom

"No Planes" - moved here to Critics Corner

"No Planes" - moved here to Critics Corner

xdfdf

pentagon photos