"No planes" theories are a huge embarrassment to the 9/11 truth movement.

[greyl]

Poll question: "No planes" theories are a huge embarrassment to the 9/11 truth movement.

[Grateful for Hope]

1. Other

Hopefully, most of us do not think in dichotomies. I think there is merit is examining what hit the Pentagon, for instance.

[greyl]

16. Then you must have answered "false".

It's quite simple.

[Ghost in the Machine]

20. Not really... I voted "true"...

I've read threads discussing holograms hitting the towers, I can't buy into that at all, but I can question what hit the pentagon, therefore a generic "true or false" or "yes or no" poll or opinion wouldn't be quite accurate, imho. That being said, let's keep seeking the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, however ugly it may be. The lies and cover-ups from this misadministration only fuel the conspiracy theories.

[greyl]

23. Well, truth shouldn't be embarassing to a Truth movement, should it?

You almost made a good point, that how embarassing no planes theories are has nothing to do (in logical terms) with their inherent truthfulness, but alas - they are embarassing exactly because they are intellectually and factually dishonest.

[Ghost in the Machine]

29. I agree that some of it is embarrassing... especially the "no planes

hit the towers, they were holograms" ... but.... Unless some new pictures or video comes out, you'll never convince me in a million years that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

[greyl]

37. "never convince me in a million years"

I love to hear humans saying closed minded shit like that. /sarc

Maybe you havent seen all of the photographic evidence.

[spooked911]

2. why do you even care?

[rman]

3. good question. nt

[hpot]

5. Art Of War

Divide and Conquer

[greyl]

6. Interesting that you don't. nt

[Americus]

10. Trying to prove the point that it's not that hard to get people to believe

just about anything...including that a gravely ill man, living in a batcave somewhere in Afghanistan or Pakistan was responsible for outwitting the entire U.S. military defense on September 11, 2001. True, it does take a lot of people trained in disinformation techniques, shilling for a living etc., to GET the masses to buy into such a fairy tale, but I assume the OCT'ers point is simply that it IS possible to do. I, for one, agree.

[Kingshakabobo]

73. That man was educated......

.......as an engineer. Also, as a military leader, he helped defeat the soviet army. I think it's a little racist to call them cavemen and cave dwellers.

I don't know why it is so hard to believe that 4 planes were hijacked? The rest is unpreparedness and lack of vision on our part.

[hpot]

4. Restricted Airspace

The best evidence we have is the military's failure to protect the Pentagon after a fair amount of warning. It is standard procedure to intercept planes in restricted airspace. Why are there no serious investigations into this "anomaly"?

[greyl]

7. The best evidence of "No planes"? nt

[hpot]

8. Red Herring

The "no plane" theory can be a red herring. Only time and real investigations will lead us to the truth. I really don't care if there was or wasn't a plane. Those responsible for not allowing our military to do their job on 9/11 should be investigated.

When Dems clean house in 06 it will be fun to watch all the cockroaches(enablers) run and scatter.

[greyl]

9. Ah, ok. :) nt

[Bryan Sacks]

18. Not dichotomizing is a good idea

I'd start by not dichotomizing the Democrats and Republicans. Most federal-level Democrats provide cover for the worst Repubs when it's most needed, and many Democrats would unfortunately fit your 'cockroach' description.

Just another of those 'Inconvenient Truths'.

[DoYouEverWonder]

19. The best evidence of 'no planes'?

Like maybe some evidence of an actual plane? Specifically, two Boeing 757's and two Boeing 767's.

[jberryhill]

85. The Pentagon is on the flight path to National Airport

...why do you call that "restricted airspace"?

Have you ever BEEN to Arlington?

[MervinFerd]

11. 3. The 9/11 Truth Movement is an Embarrassment to Humanity. NT

[Americus]

14. The 9/11 OCT movement is an assault on the truth. n/t

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

15. kick in the spirit of fairness. nt

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LSK]

21. no planes in Pentagon and Flight 93?

Or no planes hitting the WTC????

:shrug:

[greyl]

35. All of those are included in "no planes". nt

[DemInDistress]

22. let me re-title that poll.... is the collapse of WT7

a gargantuan embarrassment to the "Official 911 Report?" Yes, No..

59 months after the BFEE attacked America still no official expalnation to how a 47 story building with 2 office fires could collapse into its footprint. wow, how'd they do that?

Can you say,"EXPLOSIVES" I can !!

[vincent_vega_lives]

71. You can say explosives

But that is about the extent of the argument. I love how everyone ignores the picture of the dammage.

[canetoad]

24. I voted false

Because even though I believe in Mi/Lihop, the fact that other people hold different theories does IN NO WAY REFLECT ON ME.

Get that Greyl? Put the broad brush in yr back pocket, pack up the tricky question book, stop playing word games with honest folk.

[greyl]

25. Suit yourself. I'm easy.

"don't try to control where, when or how I post. Mind yer manners." - canetoad

[canetoad]

26. Don't say easy, say flexible.

People may get the wrong idea of your intentions.

[greyl]

27. Gee sorry, I don't want to sound like a gig.

#14 gig
A scandolous female...a slut.
"She fucked who? What a GIG!"
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gig&page=2

Were you using definition #11 in your post #5 here?

[LSK]

28. im going to ask again

Which "no planes" theory are you talking about???

[Woody Box]

30. Exactly!

This is not the first time greyl is unclear in what he means with "no-planes" theories.

An obvious attempt to mix up planeswaps and the lack of evidence for the Pentagon and Shanksville planes with the claim that the WTC attack planes were just visual illusions.

[planeman]

31. What a ridiculouse theory.I saw the plane myself.

Am I now part of a hologram induced society?No wonder the 9-11 truth movement has been stigmatized with this rubbish.I am inclined towards negligence and incompetence as being the key constituents, as opposed to any goverment or shadowy hierarchical conspiracy.But the plane did exist.I saw it.I do not need internet slueths to convince me what I did or did not see.There was a plane that was flown by Arab extremists who tried threaten our freedoms.They underestimated our response.

[LSK]

32. WHICH PLANE??!?!?!

NYC? DC? PA????

WHICH PLANE??????????????????????????????????

[planeman]

33. The second airplane that hit the South Tower.

I saw it from the west side highway although granted,my view was extremly brief because I was initially facing the wrong direction.It was the roar that made me turn round so I got a brief glimpse as it banked and flew behind the North Tower(from my view-point).

[LSK]

34. who the hell is denying that plane hit the tower?

:shrug:

[greyl]

36. Honestly, you haven't heard that yet?

There are a few around who dispute planes impacting the towers in NYC.
Those same few accuse their detractors, who like to focus on evidence, of being paid shills for the Gov't.

[Andre II]

40. According to you

do these theories claim that
nothing hit the tower
something else than a plane hit the tower
someting elese than a Boeing 767 hit the tower?

Do you have any link to these theories?

[Woody Box]

57. Don't expect an answer, Andre

it's these important little subtleties which greyl wants to kill with his question.

greyl is not interested in the poll and the result at all. He is only interested in amplifying the label "noplane" which is easier to misuse than "MIHOP".

No silly questions using the concept "noplane" anymore, please! Thanks!

[greyl]

62. Don't be so sure.

"no planes CRASHED into any buildings on 9/11"

That quote is from today.

[Nozebro]

63. Skeptical about whether any planes crashed on 9/11? This, bud, is 4U.

http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=79

[rman]

38. I'm not comfortable with the either/or option

Either no planes in any of the incidents, or planes in all these cases.

I very much doubt that a passenger plane - or any large plane - did hit the pentagon.
But i'm pretty sure both the towers were hit by a plane.

[greyl]

39. Thanks for putting your reply from over 2 months ago in perspective.nt

[CJCRANE]

41. In some ways - true.

There are far more pressing military, political and financial questions that need answering.

The technical minutiae are a distraction at this point in time.

[greyl]

42. c'mon man.

shit's embarassing.

[CJCRANE]

43. I don't know what happened at the Pentagon -

I don't have enough information to form an opinion.

[greyl]

44. the info is available. nt

[CJCRANE]

45. I've seen video of the WTC hits

but nothing convincing about the Pentagon.

[greyl]

53. Do you think the pieces of the plane and passengers were planted

there, or otherwise faked?

[sakabatou]

46. The theory of "no plane" is an embarassment

when its applied to the WTC. WHen its applied to tthe Pentagon, well, I don't know.

[Lilith Velkor]

65. Because there's no decent footage

And there's no way in Hell DOD would let it get out because it's embarassing to them.

So they take advantage of the tendency of some to disbelieve what didn't happen on television.

Hrm.

[MzNov]

47. any theory which asks questions and searches for truth

is no embarrassment to anyone or anything.

[MervinFerd]

80. What about the Tooth Fairy Theory of Molars?

[Andre II]

48. GREYL,

according to you
do these theories claim that
nothing hit the tower
something else than a plane hit the tower
someting elese than a Boeing 767 hit the tower?

Do you have any link to these theories?

[greenman2]

49. videos fabricated

i think one problem, is that people still get the wrong idea about the
"NO plane" thesis
the name is thrown around to discredit people.
when i was a member of 91truthaliance, i was called a "NO planer"
because i thought it was improbable that something large hit the Pentagon.
that was long ago.
Now, its people who think that some of the videos were fakes, or altered.
I dont know what hit the WTC, if anything, i suspect something did,
but it seems doubtful to me, that it was flights 11 + 175
so....
if a 747 hit WTC 1 , in which we have no decent video,
(the one we do have is shrowded in possible insder knowlege)
no debris, the plane didnt take off according to the BTS etc.. etc...

am i a NO planer ?

please tell me i want to know who i am
i am having an identity crisis here !!!

This is where the problem lies.
something SEEMS to be common sense, so its hard to change peoples minds.
everyone looks at a video, and says HERE is PROOF !
the fact is, most of the videos i have seen, look to be fakes.

check this out, i just made this page (unfinished)
appreciate comments though.

http://911review.org/brad.com/fake_video/FAKE.html


many, came from amateurs (not identified either)

I for one, am VERY interested in hearing what "Mr Planer" has to say.

Mr. Planer...
what exactly DID you see ?

did it look like the videos we have seen ?

Brad
http://911review.org

[mirandapriestly]

54. thank you, that makes a lot of sense

I question everything that happened, since some of it is a lie then why assume that anything is true? I think some of the people involved with the "no planes" movement are suspicious, although I do not think that the idea is totally without merit. These people are setting up a divide and conquer in the 911 debate, I am noticing. Several of the more well known people are trying to discredit almost everyone who writes/researches 9-11. I remember the initial warnings that this was going to happen, it's weird to watch it. For this reason I am suspect of the most visible of those who push the no planes at wtc info. Also, "no planes hit the wtc" is a horrible way to broach the topic of 9-11 with a newbie, nobody will take it seriously right off the bat, or few will. I will consider it simply because there really are not that many credible witnesses (ie stanley Pranmath, lol) and the videos DO look fakey/inconsistent and the initial reports only talked about explosions, then big media started talking about planes, but if you look at a lot of the first report's it was all "the explosions" and most witnesses said nothing about planes.
There's a amateur video where a couple are watching the south tower from the north, I assume from their window, then suddenly there is a fireball. There was no sign of a plane. This could be because they were on the north side and didn't see it, but a few minutes later the radio says "a plane hit..." and the lady goes "WHAT?", although she immediately believes it even though she didn't see it. It's eerie and sort of metaphorical for the whole event.

[mirandapriestly]

55. That video is interesting

there is something going on in the foreground, did you notice at the beginning? a white line moves across. Also, the "plane" starts near the Woolworth bldg, you don't see it before that. Your points, too; it looks heavily edited. There is a company called Avid Technologies owned by EMC, whose owner was Cheney's biggest campaign contributer, they lent their video equipment to the FBI to make the Logan Airport video of Atta & Al Omari "clearer", clearer to whom? They doctored them! so I'm sure they doctored anything they came across.

[greyl]

50. All of the above.

I find it hard to believe that you haven't heard of them by now.

[Andre II]

51. And I find it a hard time

that every time in this thread somebody asks you about specification of the topic you answer:
"you haven't heard about it"?
Sorry, greyl, you've posted this poll and I'm not willing to answer on hear-say.
So, once again my question which no plane theory are you talking about

one that says NO Boeing crashed into the WTC
one that says NO plane but something else crashed into the WTC
one that says NOTHINg crashed into the WTC

So, which one is it?
Which one is this poll about?

[greyl]

52. Your reply is nonsense.

I've answered the question. All you have to do is read the above thread carefully.

These are my directly relevant answers to give you a clue:

greyl post #35. All of those are included in "no planes".

greyl post #50. All of the above.

[greyl]

56. bump nt

[Woody Box]

58. I've never heard...

someone subsuming these three versions under the "noplane" label before you. This would be utter nonsense, by the way, because a small plane hitting the North Tower is no "no-plane".

So in fact, you opened a poll with a misleading concept ("noplane"), greyl. Why do you that?

[greyl]

59. It's simple.

There are many no planes theories, and they span all four Flight crashes.
The poll includes any one of them, or any combination of them.

[Woody Box]

67. That's YOUR "no plane" definition only

The common and generally accepted "noplane" definiton refers precisely to the question if the first and second WTC plane were real or just optical artefacts.

This has nothing to do with the skeptics who don't believe a plane hit the Pentagon or crashed at Shanksville. There's no researcher apart from you who lumps these two matters together.

Why do you use a misleading definition, greyl?

[Nozebro]

68. I'd like to know the answer to that, too. Unfortunately, rather than an

answer, what we'll get (if anything) is a denial that s/he USES misleading definitions. "They" don't care whether or not they have any credibility because you don't have to be credible to be distracting.

[greyl]

69. There is no definition in the OP.

"No planes theories" means any of them. Take your pick, use whatever definition in the world you prefer.

[Woody Box]

72. That's even worse!

So you admit that the central concept of your poll - "no plane" - has no unique meaning. This means that the information value of your "poll" equals zero.

Sorry if I'm gettin on your nerves, greyl, but - what sense makes this poll? What do you want to achieve?

[greyl]

81. No, a central concept is that the vast majority of people here

would be able to comprehend the meaning of the poll.
You don't have to participate.

[Kingshakabobo]

74. You don't need a link. Mosey on up to post 62 & 63 in this thread. nt

[treestar]

60. Guilt by association

Because people make that theory doesn't make the people looking for the truth look bad. Or even people with variant theories. Also that view seems to try to cut off searching and thinking by saying you're in risk of "looking bad." Anybody who worries about "looking bad" is a sheep who shouldn't be anywhere near these subjects and just thinking what they are told to think.

[greyl]

61. I understand your concern.

Because people make that theory doesn't make the people looking for the truth look bad. Or even people with variant theories.

I agree.

Also that view seems to try to cut off searching and thinking by saying you're in risk of "looking bad."

Where does it say that? It doesn't, you're just concerned that no planes theories are counter-productive to the concerted effort to search for truths.

[greyl]

64. This is a kick for irony. nt

[Nozebro]

66. "Caveman Did It" Theories are a huge embarassment for OCT'ers

No one has produced a shred of evidence in the five years since 9/11 when Bush said he'd provide proof that OBL was responsible for 9/11. That's gotta be a HUGE embarassment to the OCT'ers whose mission seems to be one of distracting, in order to cover up their embarassment at having no proof for their fairy tale that a cave-dwelling gentleman with a terrible kidney problem, was behind 9/11 -- less than two months after having met with the local station chief in Bahrain where he had gone for kidney dialysis in July, 2001. (not to be confused with his hospitalization on 9/10 at Rawalpundi, Pakistan)

[greyl]

70. How could they be? Nobody but CTists say "Caveman did it". nt

[Nozebro]

76. Okay, have it your way. How's this: Mr. Osama bin Laden & Friends.

I know it upsets people who claim they're sincere, objective believers in miracles to hear one of their EvilDoer characters called a caveman, and I agree it is perhaps impolite to talk about a gentleman that has been such a helpful person for U.S. foreign policy goals (on behalf of corporate america) for more than 25 years - but so help me, how exactly is that any different than your Dear Leader using all those cute nicknames for senior members of his own Administration - like Mr. Karl Rove, aka by Mr. Bush as "T_rd Blossom"?

A caveman by any other name is still a caveman. Sorry to have to inform you.

[AZCat]

77. He's not a caveman.

How many times do we have to tell you this? Either you're not reading the posts that point this out or your bias against a group of people is so strong that you're not willing to change your beliefs because of a few "facts".

[Nozebro]

78. Is he or has he ever been a CIA asset? Is THAT what you're driving at?

How much do you know about USA-friend, Mr. Osama bin Laden? What do you know about his background?
Just the facts, please. Let this be the NO-OCTspin Zone. Just facts. About Mr. Osama bin Laden.

[AZCat]

79. Nice attempt at deflection.

Except I'm not buying it.

[Kingshakabobo]

75. That "caveman" talk, besides being downright racist, is........

.......just plain silly. That "caveman" is educated as an engineer and helped defeat the soviet army.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_laden#Family_and_childhood

As a college student at King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, bin Laden studied civil engineering and business administration. He earned a degree in civil engineering in 1979 and also one in economics and public administration, in 1981.

[greyl]

83. Fine post. Not many people are aware of that. nt

[greyl]

82. . nt

[greyl]

84. For those who like polls; a reminder. nt

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

86. There is NOTHING that embarrasses the 9/11

Conspiravangelists™ movement, they only protest the no plane theories for the fact that any information that differs from their current programming cuts directly into their profit$ by diluting their audiences. Once they find a way to monetize the no plane theories for their own gain, they will then whole-heartedly endorse them.

Keep in mind that from late 2001 to mid 2004, the controlled demolition theory was largely ridiculed by most of the swamis & gurus of the 9/11 Conspiravangelists™ movement, now there is a plethora of products that are available for purchase that endorse the controlled demolition theory, many of these products are personally endorsed by the same swamis & gurus of the 9/11 Conspiravangelists™ movement that had previously ridiculed the theory.


This post was brought to you by; Loose Change 2,101: The Omega Electro Platinum Centennial Edition. With bonus material about the ultimate conspiracy of the global elite, the P.R.P., the Pangea Reunification Project. This insideous plot to reunite ALL the land masses on the Earth into a paradise for a NEW WORLD FACIST GOVERNMENT was set in motion by the world's most diabolical madmen!! To order your copy in either BrainStim® or SlipChip® format simply activate your NeuroShopNow® module.

[ShaneGR]

87. Of course it's an embarressment

Aside from the fact that a few hundred people died on the planes, you would have to accept that they were put on another plane and "disappeared." It's just such a stupid theory.