A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories

[greyl]

The public has a well-conditioned impression, created by official disinformation machine, that conspiracy theorists are half-mad, technically incompetent fools who see extraordinary conspiracies in ordinary events. The presumptuous sloppiness of Haupt and crew feeds right into this perception, just one of the ways they are helping the fascist perps they claim to be fighting. Inside the movement, their behavior lends moral authority to those pursuing limited hangouts by making more radical interpretations look ridiculous.
www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html

[theboss]

1. I like that we are up to "No Planes Anywhere"

It means that we are only two years away from "It was all a hallucination."

[mirandapriestly]

3. Of course people could have seen the plane

as it flew over the river, etc.. but they would not have thought twice about it until it actually hit or just before because planes fly over NYC all the time. Most places did not have a view of the world trade center or they would all be prime view real estate, know what I mean? I've gone on and on about this, not because I am necessarily a "no planer", but because I think it is fair to question what actually happened. There is the video of that guy standing right under the "impact" and he doesn't react until the fireball. Now is this because there was "no plane" or is it just because people are used to the sound of planes up above? I don't know. there is also a video of a fireball with no plane, so who knows?
But I agree about Haupt making his arguments look silly, I don't know why he does that. They would do better to demonstrate how we are fooled into thinking that millions of people saw the plane, but instead they have silly graphics about cartoons and accuse everyone of being "psyops" - I don't get it. They are the ones who get the attention, too, especially when someone wants to frame "conspiracy theorists" as silly.
I will stand by the idea that there were not that many witnesses, though, if any. I think it might indicate that it wasn't what we were told.
I can't stand the "limited hangout" even more, though.

[Grateful for Hope]

2. Apparently there are some

who disagree with Salter and have provided analyses of his research:

I'm alarmed at the current situation. Many of the most important 911 disinformation sites rely on Salter’s bogus analysis of the WTC aircraft anomalies for support. If he persists in pushing his baseless theories, large portions of the 911 truth movement stand to be tainted through this association. The debunkers would approach it like this: "Within the community of dedicated 911 researchers, broad support is given to a mentally deficient video editor who believes that a Boeing 767 can be flown horizontally at 500mph with the nose tip pitched down at 35 degrees." Guilt by association may not be an honourable debating tactic, but the other side is anything but honourable. It's clear that Salter will never abandon his ideological imperative for, and personal attachment to, finding nothing amiss with the absence of 767’s that we were told hit the WTC towers on 911.

Of course the real question is, “What good reason is there to suspect that the strikes at WTC were 767’s?” What good reason is there to risk looking like fools or getting trapped in an unresolvable, time wasting debate? It is up to the 767 advocates to demonstrate that this aspect of the official story is false, and they haven't. Salter’s analysis of the “blob” seen in the Naudet video is unreliable, his interpretation of the video record is either subjective or erroneous, and the rest of his arguments are a series of personal opinions or speculations that don't contribute any conclusive evidence for the 767’s case.

The question of plane substitution is a valid one, but Salter’s dismissal of the matter, whether deliberate or not is disinformation. It muddies the waters, poisons the atmosphere and wastes the time and energy of dedicated 911 researchers like Holmgren and Webfairy. The current state of the evidence doesn't justify the kind of conclusions Salter reaches, let alone the intolerant attacks on anyone who doesn't question this part of the official story. The WTC 767 plane theories are a danger to the 911 truth movement and should be vigorously rejected.

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/prod/dialspace/town/pipexdsl/q/aqrf00/disinformation/

I am not offering any support or non-support of this article. I am merely presenting it as an alternative viewpoint.

BTW, is Slater saying that he does not believe in the peak oil theory?

the 'peak oil' scam, and many other subjects

Gore, just the other day, endorsed the theory, as does Clinton. I would tend to think that Gore knows what he is talking about.

[spooked911]

4. ever heard of "the big lie" technique?

You have to consider the fact that the planners may not have used real planes simply because of the fact that anyone who proposed this theory would be laughed at as a loony conspiracy theorist. It could have been the perfect mechanism for them to pull off the whole scam and get away with it: the big lie is that they used planes.

the fact is, there is plenty of reason to think real planes were not used in the attacks-- evidence of video fakery, evidence of planted parts, the fact that planes are not indestructible machines that glide past steel walls and concrete floors, a plane that disappeared into the ground in Pennsylvania, etc

finally, on the practical side-- not using planes (bombs and video fakery) is the easiest way to stand own the air force, and there is no need to worry about piloting some unpredictable hijacked plane.

I'm just saying that there is some logic to it.

[sabbat hunter]

5. how many people

would need to be involved to have the no plane theory work?

the people flying the planes to undisclosed locations
the people involved in the holograms
the TV stations


how many people do you think would need to be involved.

to me sounds like an awful lot of people.

thing is about conspiracies, is that the more people involved, the more likely it is that someone will spill the beans.


so how many people would need to be involved for the no plane theory to work?

[mirandapriestly]

15. Not necessarily holograms.

"No planes" could also mean something other than a plane hit; something that looked like a plane. Something that would have been guaranteed to cut through steel. What guarantee did "the hijackers" have that those planes would totally enter the building without just partially entering then falling down the side?

[MervinFerd]

18. What then?

And would fool "a bunch" of witnesses and many videocams?

And, at roughly 500 mph, the plane wasn't going to bounce off the side.

[Ghost in the Machine]

37. I don't know about NO planes, but I can see 'switched' planes..

if I really delve deep into the dark side of this, I can see a scenario where this was planned during the mock exercises over NY, etc. I could see the real planes being flown out over the ocean and being shot down, while neocon supplied planes took aim at the towers, possibly by remote control. It wouldn't take many people, especially ones that are in confidential positions, to carry this out. Is there any way for someone to check the flight paths of planes that went out over the ocean and see how many scheduled flights vs. how many actual flights took that route?

Don't forget, this was all more than likely in the planning stages when Poppy was president, but plans got screwed up when Clinton won in '92. They had 8 years to draw up and perfect their plan, including stealing the 2000 election to seize power, and it didn't take them long to implement it once they got in power. They had their cronies all lined up to take key positions, and with Poppy's deep ties in the CIA and other black ops, I wouldn't put anything past them.


***Takes Off Tin Foil Hat And Steps Back Into Reality***

I'll stick with waiting for a plausible explanation of the many reports of a plane crashing at or in the vicinity of Camp David. Where is the plane, or an explanation as to why it was falsely reported?

Then I want to know about the reporter on TV saying that tower 7 fell 20 something minutes before it actually did.

[greyl]

6. No, it isn't logical.

It's patently absurd.
Why not use real planes?

www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/175speed.html

[sabbat hunter]

7. oh i agree

i agree completely. but i am trying to understand where the no plane people are coming from.

[greyl]

8. I know, good luck :) nt

[MervinFerd]

9. Yeah, good luck with that one. nt

[mirandapriestly]

16. Let's say there were no crazed hijackers willing to die for Islam

available. Who are they going to find who is willing to pilot a plane into the side of a skyscraper? That's a pretty big incentive for "no plane", I'd say.
Of course they could have used a self manned plane, but that has problems too:
*being detected by radar or being intercepted by the Air Force in which case the truth of who/what was on the plane would be known (If there was no stand down)

*no guarantee that planes would do the required damage to convincingly have the buildings collapse

*explaining who/what was found piloting the plane, if indeed the pilots or their DNA could be found in the wreckage

*damaging evidence that might remain post crash (what if cockpit was found with

*If cell phones worked on planes passengers would call home and say "no one is piloting this plane"

In order to see the logic, you have to think through the other aspects of the scenario .

[MervinFerd]

17. You are making a pretty good case for......

the "OCT", as it is called around here.

--IF-- there are no crazed Islamist Hijackers, THEN all kinds of Kooky Conspiracy Theory Stuff (KCTS) becomes necessary to pull off the attacks.

OTOH, if Crazed Islamist Middle Eastern Hijackers just hijacked the planes and flew them into the building, everything is just SO simple.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[MervinFerd]

20. No, that's NOT kooky. Where is the improbability?

Which step?

Islamic suicide hijackers?----there seem to be plenty of suicide volunteers in Iraq, Israel, etc
Box cutters?----Element of surprise, extreme brutality. Wouldn't work again.
Demolishing towers?----a 767 is a hell-of-a-missile.

Write it out, please.

What, exactly, is improbable about a group of thugs hijacking airliners and crashing them?

[Americus]

21. Sounds like the script from a cheap "Action" movie. Might sell to certain

audiences, but is as implausible as an OCT'er spending so much time at DU, shilling for GW's OCT, and all the while claiming to be nothing but objective, truth seeking, and open minded.

You liked the script. Did you enjoy the movie, too?

[MervinFerd]

22. Answer the Question! WHAT part is improbable?

Call me names all you want.

You still haven't provided a rational argument.

[Americus]

23. It ISN'T improbable, in a movie. Millions of sheeple already believe it.

n/t

[MervinFerd]

24. WHAT is improbable, in real life? You are not answering the question.

It's a very simple question.

WHY should I think the standard, universally accepted, story is improbable in real life?

If 'millions of sheeple' believe it, how are they wrong?

WHICH part is improbable?

Could it be that 'millions of sheeple' are a bit smarter than you are? SOME of them can give articulate answers to simple questions.

[Ghost in the Machine]

33. What happened to the crashed plane at Camp David?

Has anyone explained this yet? Thanks...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ1u9_bdnf0

[greyl]

35. The noble Loose Change III producers are using their profits to fund an independent investigation

into that and other topics that they are very concerned about.

[Ghost in the Machine]

36. I think finding the initial sources to this story and the one where the reporter

reported on tower 7 falling 20 someodd minutes before it actually did would help shed a lot of light...

http://www.43legacy.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1&mesg_id=1&page=

[MervinFerd]

13. Fake planes instead of Real Planes, so people who claimed fake planes.....

would look like kooky Conspiracy Theorists?

OK.....

Sound of throats being cleared.

[mirandapriestly]

14. there is definitely some logic to it

It just isn't presented well.

[MervinFerd]

10. It's fascinating that....

this fellow believes other almost equally absurt theories. But is able to write a coherent rebuttal of No Planes.

Fascinating.

[greyl]

11. I agree.

In a way, that makes it an even more valuable argument to use against the "no planes".

[MervinFerd]

12. Yes.

You and I have no credibility.

Though I wonder whether it is useful to even try. The folks who take this seriously aren't ....ahhh.... easy to argue with.

It's also interesting what happens with the overall "Movement". Without the discipline of any central figure, or constraints of logic, does it just drift ever further into the ozone?

And, is this different from past Conspiracy 'Movements'? Nobody ever concluded that JFK was --poisoned-- and his body dumped in the ocean.

[greyl]

25. into the ozone... nt

[MervinFerd]

26. I was wrong on one thing.

It is obvious that the Internet has changed Conspiracy Theories (from the days of John Birch et al). I argued before that the uncontrolled nature of the Internet was responsible for a drift toward ever-more preposterous theories. But this is wrong. It's the -leadership- that is off on the Journey to Ixtlan. The masses just follow, or grow confused.

Perhaps it is the -commercial- nature of 911 CTs that produce the drift. If Loose Change is making money claiming no plane hit the Pentagon, the Scholars must move to No Planes At All to maintain their audience.

I'm still waiting for the Holographic Twin Towers Theory.

[SidDithers]

27. Spontaneous Airframe Combustion...

:evilgrin:

Sid

[Make7]

28. "Smoking Gun Fever"

 

The no-plane ideas are a manifestation of an epidemic of "smoking gun fever," the rush to see promising evidence in any and every perceived anomaly. One could chalk this up to technical incompetence, reckless enthusiasm, or a desperate desire for ammunition to use against a terrifying conspiracy, but the problem is deeper. It is often driven by a partisan imperative to pursue a more radical case. And by radical I don't mean "leftist" but simply more divergent from the official story. If you look at the rhetoric of a no-plane supporter, such as Nico Haupt, you see an attempt to make accepting no-plane claims synonymous with pursuing the "real truth." Likewise, the "Gatekeepers" research of Bob Feldman (for which I helped build the flowchart graphic) has been hijacked and transformed from a complex analysis of elite control of lefty media into a simplistic ideological litmus test: "If you don't support my spurious physical evidence claims you're a 'gatekeeper.'"

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html

- Make7

[Make7]

29. kick

 
:hi:
 

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

30. So much time & effort spent 'debunking' no planes, WHY?

The Earth is a sphere, which is true, yet there are still people that believe the Earth is flat, which is not true.

Notice all the websites, books & videos that have been made by the 'spherical-Earther' movement denouncing the 'flat-Earthers' for spreading their disinformation?

Oh wait, there isn't a spherical-Earthers movement, because debunking the flat-Earthers is an unnecessary waste of time & energy and nearly no one will even bother to respond to the notion that the Earth is flat.

Ergo, if no planes on 9/11 is also so 'ridiculous', why is so much TIME & EFFORT invested in trying to discredit, decry & debunk it, as those people that believe that no planes were used on 9/11 is probably a lesser number than those people that still believe the Earth is flat.

Isn't it amazing how a group of less than 100 people need to be so aggressively attacked & marginalized to 'protect the credibility' of the "9/11 Truth" movement?

For the record, I am not a part of the "9/11 Truth" movement, so can the shit that I'm hurting your movement as I'm not a participant in your movement. I'm an independent researcher with no formal ties to any "9/11 Truth" group, furthermore, policies are in place at the agency where I am currently employed that forbid me from having any active and/or passive role in 'domestic infiltration operations*'.

*PM me for details**

** You must have at least an ANGEL OMEGA 33° security clearance to receive these details

Thou doth protest too much.

[seatnineb]

31. Brother Perpetually...you speak the words of wisdom! n/t

[Ezlivin]

32. Yes. And they say things like "I'm losing my patience" or "I grow weary"

As if it was a job they were hired to reluctantly do.

There are a lot of crackpot theories out there. But most of us do not jump into a forum to quickly tell people that they are "idiots" or that their theories "are batshit crazy." I'm an atheist and I don't spend my time in the religious areas of DU telling people that they are believing in fairy tales. I don't spend one minute of my day trying to dissuade those who are "believers."

But the ones who quickly jump on nearly every thread crying "You are a loon" act as if it's their life calling to stop all of the "CT nonsense" that is "spouted."

And many of the ones who are so quick to defend every single aspect of the official theory seldom post outside of this forum.

[greyl]

34. Do you wait until 101 of the billions of mosquitos on the planet

accumulate in your living room before you feel it's worthwhile to start swatting them or apply pest repellent?

Do you think Tancredo's statement that we should bomb Muslim holy sites first is too ridiculous to bother countering if you came across somebody who agreed with him and posted it in a discussion forum that you're a member of?

Do you think it's a waste of time to try to figure out the answers to a crossword puzzle because they're just going to give you the answers the following week, so why challenge your brain? Solving crossword puzzles won't save the world, right?

For what it's worth, I think there's only about 15 no planers anyway.

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

38. Questions instead of answers, typical.

Using your 'mosquito' analogy as a basis, your response would be to pour gasoline on your house and set it on fire to get rid of them, comparatively speaking of the amount of energy that is committed to the applying the huge amounts of scorn that is heaped upon those that support the no planes/t.v. fakery aspects of 9/11. An 'Operation: OVERKILL', so to speak.

A Scorched Earth Policy Is In Effect.

Why is so much time & effort being invested to denounce those 15 no planers of which you speak?

Seriously, what, in your opinion, is the reason for this 'phenomenon'?

[greyl]

39. Thinking about the questions should provide you an answer.

You're way off on your reading of my mosquito analogy. Right there in my post, you can see me talking about swatting and applying pest repellent; quite different from your bullshit about pouring gasoline on a house and setting it on fire.