Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sorry To Ask, But About No-planers...
05-15-2007, 10:13 PM,
#1
Sorry To Ask, But About No-planers...
I sifted through a couple no-planer videos and while some, mainly the B-2 theory, don't stand up to my standards of "shit to tell someone immediately" I have to admit, the bluescreen argument involving the screwup in the plane video/fire when the helicoptor dropped and the video of the various live reporters denying seeing a plane, do make my eyebrow raise.

I understand that there are thousands of witnesses and just as many plane theories (such as the no-windows) rely on these witness testimonies so the _____-planers contradict eachother.

So what are we to make of this evidence? Planted CIA dis-info? Just a guarantee to make sure the videos looked dramatic in the midst of the real planes crashing into the towers? Just curious
Reply
05-16-2007, 01:40 AM,
#2
Sorry To Ask, But About No-planers...
IMO, the "no plane" route is pointless to start out with, especially in regards to the Twin Towers.
The Pentagon is way easier, cause there is no video of it, but the images of the planes hitting the two towers is burned into peoples psyche.

I consider that sort of attitude to be "graduated speculation", its not really worthwhile to start with that sort of concept, most of the best evidence, IMO, revolves around the FAA and NORAD, in terms of the "obvious inside job" type circumstantial evidence...so i stay away from it myself.

But I'm not knocking it in the same respect, its just not where I would start off....
Wyrd bi∂ ful aræd : Vituð ér enn eða hvat?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Image: madwolfoy0.jpg][Image: sharksmall1kd6.jpg][Image: bearkodiakchugachfe7.jpg]
Reply
05-16-2007, 07:30 PM,
#3
Sorry To Ask, But About No-planers...
Quote:IMO, the "no plane" route is pointless to start out with, especially in regards to the Twin Towers.
The Pentagon is way easier, cause there is no video of it, but the images of the planes hitting the two towers is burned into peoples psyche.

I consider that sort of attitude to be "graduated speculation", its not really worthwhile to start with that sort of concept, most of the best evidence, IMO, revolves around the FAA and NORAD, in terms of the "obvious inside job" type circumstantial evidence...so i stay away from it myself.

But I'm not knocking it in the same respect, its just not where I would start off....

Agree, 100%, but I'm not new to the field and I'm beginning to open up to the wilder notions if for nothing else but fun, but when I investigated the no-planes I have to admit I was suprised. It reminds me of when I first read The Biggest Secret, but than a month later I was over it and realise the obviousness of it all, but I am rethinking many aspects of the event such as no-plane at the Pentagon and the Mossad/Israeli involvement, because with Tarpley's lecture on 9/11 being a coup, I could see it being a mini-Israeli coup, point is things I haven't thought of since I first saw Loose Change over a year ago, refreshing to the mind after all the ancient austronauts, Nazi UFO's, HAARP's and moon bases and such
Reply
05-16-2007, 07:47 PM, (This post was last modified: 05-16-2007, 07:48 PM by stanteau.)
#4
Sorry To Ask, But About No-planers...
double
Reply
05-17-2007, 10:06 PM,
#5
Sorry To Ask, But About No-planers...
I'm beggin ya, unless I see something to debunk this shit fast I may be a no-planer, someone turn up something to discredit these theories
Reply
05-18-2007, 06:22 AM,
#6
Sorry To Ask, But About No-planers...
wasnt the no plane theorie about the first tower getting hit?
[Image: dontbustme6cvcmg7.jpg]
Reply
05-18-2007, 08:12 AM,
#7
Sorry To Ask, But About No-planers...
No-plane = Bullshit

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters...ne_Theories.pdf

and
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters...ationTowers.pdf
The first step to revolution is consciousness,
So I wont stop screaming at you until this all make sense.
Reply
05-18-2007, 07:01 PM,
#8
Sorry To Ask, But About No-planers...
Quote:wasnt the no plane theorie about the first tower getting hit?

Partially. The first Tower hit was only captured by a pair of documentarians, Audet Brothers?, and you can find the clip easily enough, it opens Loose Change Second Edition at the end of the timeline for instance. IMPO I can honestly say that it shows no plane of any sort.

The seond hit.... I don't know. Because so much of the media was relegated to national news feeds (i.e. every cable network just switched to their parent companies feed so 100+ channels were showing 3 or 4 feeds) they would only have to contaminate 5 or 6 feeds, and there were quite a few feeds that actually didn't show a plane (such as the NBC News one) along with on-air reporters claiming not to see a plane period. Then there's frame-by-frame analysis that shows some very interesting things, among what appears to be video-glitches there's an instance when you can't see the plane in a wide angle yet can see it when the camera zooms in on the tower.

I then said well wait, the witnesses, the witnesses! Well, the video I saw (the Octopus series) put foward some pretty convincing evidence that at least some of the eye-witnesses were plants giving obviously fake testimonies, you need to personally see this one to make a judgement. Add to that that the Pentagon openly begin using CNN as a propaganda tool in 2000 (documents provided in the videos, yet to find them online but that doesn't mean they aren't real)

There's also UFO's (not aliens, just simple unidentified flying objects) that appear from multiple angles when the "planes" hit, again that's your call.

As far as the links Nyte just posted, sorry but they don't debunk it at all. There's too many glaring video glitches for my book.

I don't know, I try my damnbest to just learn and not react until it becomes clear, I can say in all honesty that this looks legit
Reply
05-18-2007, 10:10 PM, (This post was last modified: 05-18-2007, 10:10 PM by triplesix.)
#9
Sorry To Ask, But About No-planers...
Personally, I have to admit that while I want to be sceptical of the no-plane-hit-pentagon theory there are some really confusing aspects to the crash. I prefer to ignore it completely because it seems to be elaborately organized to confuse the shit out of anyone attempting to figure it out. There are only a few reasons I give it credence and if anyone can give me some insight I'd appreciate it.

1) Elements of Pilots for 9/11 Truth say that the 330 degree maneuvor (sp?? hehe) into the reinforced section of the pentagon, complete with rapid altitude drop and skimming over the lawn without massive turbine contact would be virtually impossible to accomplish even by pilots with 30 years of airliner experience.

2) The confiscation and obfuscation of all the video evidence.

3) The size of the impact crater and dubious wreckage.

My personal theory is admittedly very crackpot but I think it's feasible. I believe the plane was flown over the twin towers and then diverted to immediately land at the nearby airport (sorry I can't remember the name of it). At roughly the same time the anti-aircraft defenses of the Pentagon were trained on the reinforced area of the Pentagon and a missile was fired. This would create the missile-like explosion and obscure anyone's view of the airplane flying past the Pentagon. Also, any anti-aircraft defenses of the Pentagon surely exist but are kept as classified as classified could be.

Of course this is a tin-foil hat conspiracy theory but, hey, I haven't heard anything that conclusive on the subject. Let me know what you think. I admit I've neglected researching the subject all that much because its more than enough to concentrate on the twin towers and building 7 to prove complicity.

Oh yeah, and if you think I'm a retard, could you just use a nicer way of saying it... I'm a bit sensitive. Haha, peace.
&We grow to recognize form. We grow to label that form. In doing so, do we become more intelligent? Do we become more awakened?& - Siji Tzu 四季子
Reply
05-19-2007, 02:06 AM,
#10
Sorry To Ask, But About No-planers...
Quote:Of course this is a tin-foil hat conspiracy theory but, hey, I haven't heard anything that conclusive on the subject.

No I think it's completely plausible too, I started a week ago laughing at the notion, now I'm wearin a tin hat
Reply
05-19-2007, 02:32 AM,
#11
Sorry To Ask, But About No-planers...
Yeah I think you got what I meant but when I said "flown over the twin towers" I mean Pentagon... just to clarify because I definitely think planes hit the twin towers whether remote controlled or what have you.
&We grow to recognize form. We grow to label that form. In doing so, do we become more intelligent? Do we become more awakened?& - Siji Tzu 四季子
Reply
05-19-2007, 07:38 AM,
#12
Sorry To Ask, But About No-planers...
maybe we all just saw a bunch of holograms projected over a laserbeam or a missile:huh:

:nuts:
[Image: dontbustme6cvcmg7.jpg]
Reply
05-19-2007, 11:46 PM,
#13
Sorry To Ask, But About No-planers...
Quote:maybe we all just saw a bunch of holograms projected over a laserbeam or a missile:huh:

:nuts:

Than I would suggest you watch the Octopus series of films on it, or the entire 90 minute version. The beam weapons I don't know about, the UFO's are always gonna be a maybe, but the planted witnesses and faulty video glitches (when a helicoptor camera moves the plane dissapears and reappears and in the same footage you can't see the plane from a wide angle when you should, just to name a few glaring oddities) are hard as hell to make sense of with any other eplination.
Reply
05-19-2007, 11:55 PM, (This post was last modified: 05-19-2007, 11:59 PM by LeveL.)
#14
Sorry To Ask, But About No-planers...
Heres a question I have never seen anwered:

People say "pilots themselves say a 280 degree turn is impossible
even for them to do and they have 30 years flying experience" OK?

So then WHY should a remote controlled plane be any easier to make
that manouver?


If the answer to this question is that its not easier to remote control a plane
to make a 280 degree turn than it would be to manually fly it and do that turn,
then this would lend credit to the "no planes" theory, but that is ridiculous to
me, I don't believe for one second there were no planes hitting the two towers,
maybe the Pentagon yeah but the towers... sorry but I am not gonna be persuaded
into buying all that hologram baloney.

In fact whilst I am here - why does everyone say the plane made a 280 degree
turn? Is this totally and utterly true beyond all shadow of a doubt? Because folks,
if it isn't necessarily true then the plane obviously made a fricken 80 degree turn
the OTHER way!

What evidence is there that says the plane even made this impossible turn?
&Everybody thinks everybody else thinks on their level& - LeveL
Reply
05-20-2007, 12:01 AM,
#15
Sorry To Ask, But About No-planers...
Quote:Heres a question I have never seen anwered:

People say "pilots themselves say a 280 degree turn is impossible
even for them to do and they have 30 years flying experience" OK?

So then WHY should a remote controlled plane be any easier to make
that manouver?


If the answer to this question is that its not easier to remote control a plane
to make a 280 degree turn than it would be to manually fly it and do that turn,
then this would lend credit to the "no planes" theory, but that is ridiculous to
me, I don't believe for one second there were no planes hitting the two towers,
maybe the Pentagon yeah but the towers... sorry but I am not gonna be persuaded
into buying all that hologram baloney.

In fact whilst I am here - why does everyone say the plane made a 280 degree
turn? Is this totally and utterly true beyond all shodow of a doubt? Because folks,
if it isn't necessarily true then the plane obviously made a fricken 80 degree turn
the OTHER way!

Well I'd suggest the same to you, to examine the evidence with an open mind if for no othe rreaosn than to be able to say you genuinely don't think it works.

And it's not holograms, more like CGI images superimposed over live video, which the Pentagin openly admit they want to do with CNN, possibly following the path of a GPS tracked missile of some sort.... that possibly could've been shot by stealth based UFO's that the government does have, and the witnesses were plants to present the idea of the plane over and over until the people are brainwashed.

I seriously dare you to examine the evidence, I remind you a week ago I thought it was turds.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)