For your enlightenment

111 Reasons Why I Am a No-Planer

1) The dearth of plane debris at all of the four crash sites
2) No matching of debris found with actual official planes via serial numbers
3) Not one tail section found or observed from the four crashes though tails survive all crashes
4) No wing tips breaking off in 2nd hit videos
5) No broken off wing tip sections photographed or reported being recovered
6) Not one of hundreds of metal seat frames from the planes photographed or reported being recovered
7) None of four black boxes recovered from ground zero, officially
8) Initial eyewitnesses to the south tower hit described a missile
9) The lack of deceleration as “UA175” goes into the south tower
10) The lack of significant deflected debris as “UA175” goes into the south tower
11) The lack of anything clearly breaking off the plane as “UA175” goes into the south tower
12) Discontinuous dust cloud pattern from “UA175” as it goes in the tower in the Hezarkhani video
13) The lack of any alteration in the course of “UA175” as it goes in the tower
14) The impossible behavior of “UA175” acting indestructible as it goes in the tower then shattering to bits once inside the tower
15) The lack of any explosion as the fuel-filled wings of “UA175” make impact with the thick steel columns of WTC2
16) The lack of any significant fire from the port wing of “UA175”
17) The explosions on tower façade away from impact site as “UA175” goes into the south tower
18) The abnormally large explosions produced by wingtips as “UA175” goes into the south tower
19) The way the wings of “UA175” initially slice into the tower in videos, cleanly with no deflected debris, with an unnatural straight edge along the spot of entry
20) The strange tube-like explosion that appears under the fuselage of “UA175” in the Hezarkhani video
21) Parts of the south tower hole become larger after plane has already passed through
22) The south tower hole is completely blocked by debris and broken columns, which contrasts the way the plane slips into tower without slowing or breaking up on video
23) The discrepancy in engine puffs (above wing versus below wing) between Fairbanks and Hezarkhani videos
24) Plane path discrepancies in different 2nd hit videos
25) Odd coloring/tinting in several 2nd hit videos
26) The readily available technology to insert digital objects, such as planes, into video (for instance see Ace Baker’s work)
27) The ability of the blue sky on 9/11 to act as natural blue screen
28) Live shot of 2nd hit is same camera feed for CNN, ABC, Fox—they all showed helicopter shot at same key moment
29) In live shot of 2nd hit, camera man “taken by surprise” by plane—plane suddenly enters frame—cameraman apparently not able to see plane approaching
30) Initial 2nd hit videos, particularly live shot, only show indirect view of tower hit; don’t see videos with plane going directly into tower until much later
31) Fox5 side-view shot of plane replayed on CNN, talking heads refer to plane going through the building, but view of plane is cut off by large banner at bottom of screen
32) Both the ABC/CNN/Fox live shot and the Fox5 shots of the 2nd hit have blackouts right after the explosion starts
33) Michael Hezarkhani not allowed to talk about his video by CNN
34) Michael Hezarkhani’s amazing ability to pan at the speed of a plane coming over his head from behind
35) The inconsistent story of where Michael Hezarkhani filmed his video
36) The bad acting/over acting of the voices in the “black plane” video
37) Frames of the black plane video appearing as Robert Clark photos
38) The Manos video where the woman rants about suicide bombers as the 2nd hit occurs and where the videographer also has a video of him and friends “sneaking” into Area 51
39) The Park Foreman video initially appearing as photo frames on CNN
40) Suspicious history of CameraPlanet, where many amateur videos appeared
41) The CBS video from the north where the plane comes in at a blatantly wrong angle to hit the tower, disappears behind the tower, then the explosion
42) The odd similarity of the Naka Nathtaniel and Park Foreman videos—in particular the same panning motion in both
43) Clear discrepancy in the Anthony Cotsifas photo with the position of the 2nd plane with 2nd hit videos
44) The inconsistent story of Evan Fairbanks and his video
45) Evan Fairbanks’ alluding to his video being unreal
46) The cartoon-like quality of the plane image in several second hit videos
47) The airframe anomalies in the plane in most 2nd hit videos
48) The fact that high resolution videos of the second hit have not been released
49) The fact that no one has taken up Ace Baker’s challenge for $100,000 for an original amateur 2nd hit video
50) David Handschuh (and others, e.g. Victor Cruzate) not seeing the plane despite being in position to see it
51) Many putative 2nd plane witnesses, when analyzed carefully, only saw the explosion or saw the whole thing only on TV
52) Several extremely improbable photos of “UA175” right before impact
53) The laughable Moshe Bursuker photo of the plane half in the south tower
54) Kathy Cacicedo, who saw the WTC from the southwest, saying the plane banked around the side of the tower—indicating a fly-by
55) Plane is smaller than should be in some 2nd hit videos, indicating a fly-by or flawed video fakery
56) The “white elephant” plane that Diane Sawyer referred to as circling by the WTC before the 2nd hit
57) The lack of official explanation for the “white elephant” plane
58) The fact that Reynolds Dixon, who wrote a paper for a 9/11 journal on the “white elephant” plane, complained of harassment and suddenly left the movement.
59) The endless replaying of the 2nd hit videos on the networks, a form of brainwashing
60) The plane-shaped holes—at all four crash sites—that defy physics
61) The ridiculous absence of debris at the Shanksville crater
62) The conflicting accounts of how much of flight 93 went into the ground
63) The conflicting accounts of how much of the flight 93 plane was recovered
64) The lies about the phone calls on flight 93
65) The wing marks in the Shanksville crater that contradict an inverted Boeing 757 crash
66) The ridiculously idea that amateur pilots flying 767s and 757s for the first time could pilot the planes with such precision at high speed
67) The fact that UA175 was exceeding maximum velocity for low altitude
68) The confusion of air defense systems and easy explanation by no planes
69) The 9/11 hijack drills had fake radar targets
70) Fake plane crashes mentioned as part of Operation Northwoods
71) The inconsistent story of Carmen Taylor; the picture of the burning WTC taken from NJ shown in her camera
72) Fake plane crashes add to the psy-op effect and test ability of system to fool the public
73) The incredible series of zoom-ins for the Fox5/WNYW video, with the cameraman seemingly oblivious to the plane but zooming in tight just in time to capture the 2nd hit
74) The miraculous zoom-ins/zoom-outs right before the plane strike in several 2nd hit videos
75) The blatant nose-out frames of the Fox5/WNYW video contradicting that the plane officially didn’t exit the tower
76) The blatant nose-out frames of the Fox5/WNYW video contradicting the lack of a major exit hole for the South tower
77) The two different edited versions of the Fox5/WNYW video that appeared
78) The fact that a few people who took videos of the second plane were professional video animators (Devin Clark, Luc Courchesne, Scott Myers, Naka Nathaniel)
79) WABC news chopper pilot, Paul Smith, who helped get WTC footage on 9/11 killed in freak accident
80) Inconsistent stories of WABC Cameraman John DelGiorno
81) Fox5 helicopter reporter Kai Simonsen, a green-screen expert
82) Devin Clark’s slip-up referring to “those fake videos” in his interview with Jeff (Pumpitout) Hill
83) The very very strange behavior of all other 9/11 plane witnesses and experts called by Jeff (Pumpitout) Hill
84) The pathetically unrealistic Purdue simulation of AA11 going into the north tower
85) The “curtain-chewer” hyperactive 2nd plane witness
86) The NYC 1st plane witnesses interviewed on TV who weren’t in a good position to see the plane or who were network executives or both
87) The very obscure history of many-- if not all—2nd hit videos
88) Peter Hanson’s fake-sounding phone call from flight 175
89) Inconsistent stories about engines landing around the WTC
90) The too obviously planted “plane debris” north of the WTC that no one can explain
91) The large engine fragment at Church and Murray, that ended up under a construction canopy on its end, without leaving a major impact crater.
92) The unlikelihood of the Naudets filming the 1st hit
93) The lack of similarity of the object in their 1st hit video to a Boeing 767
94) The curiously cut version of the Naudet’s 2nd hit video
95) The multiple pieces of plane debris that are clearly planted
96) The inconsistent story of Barbara Olson’s phone calls from flight 77
97) The fact that the official Pentagon-AA77 story violates aerodynamics as a 757 can’t fly a few feet off the ground at 500+ mph
98) The plane path contradictions in the Pentagon-AA77 story
99) The easy ability of “flight 77” to overfly the Pentagon and land at Reagan National
100) The delay in releasing the 2nd Pentagon security camera video
101) The strange lack of attention to the blurry object in the 2nd Pentagon security camera video
102) The conflicting accounts of how much of the flight 77 plane was recovered
103) The high preponderance of painted fuselage debris found on the Pentagon lawn
104) The curious Pentagon entry hole, with intact windows above
105) The round Pentagon “exit” hole
106) The aircraft nosecone being reported as being outside of the Pentagon “exit” hole
107) April Gallop’s Pentagon story
108) The discrepancy in aircraft debris blown backwards out of the entry hole at the Pentagon versus not at the WTC
109) The (initial) absence of AA11 and AA77 in the BTS database.
110) The lack of transmissions from any of the four flights indicating a hijacking.
111) The hysteria that greeted and still greets no-planers from so many in the controlled 9/11 truth movement

In case you haven't been a regular reader of my blog for the past four years, all this stuff has been covered there in gory detail.

except it's not hysteria, it's hysterical laughter.

to his actual reason.

He is listing opposition to his position as a REASON for taking that position.

I think that speaks volumes about Spooks psychological motivations for being religiously a number of completely ridiculous ideas that defy all logic, evidence, and in some cases the laws of physics.

Actually, the first ten or so pretty much seal the deal.

you don't have any hard evidence of any of it.

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

you call this "hard evidence"?




What, precisely, is that hard evidence of, Spooked?

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

seals the deal that you have no critical thinking skills.

that disagree with you.

I have asked more then once and still have not seen a reply.

See also:

55) Plane is smaller than should be in some 2nd hit videos, indicating a fly-by or flawed video fakery
56) The “white elephant” plane that Diane Sawyer referred to as circling by the WTC before the 2nd hit
57) The lack of official explanation for the “white elephant” plane
58) The fact that Reynolds Dixon, who wrote a paper for a 9/11 journal on the “white elephant” plane, complained of harassment and suddenly left the movement.
59) The endless replaying of the 2nd hit videos on the networks, a form of brainwashing

From every angle? I don't buy that for a second and I don't think anyone that has been there would buy it either. Maybe... maybe, a small percentage or people from certain angles where the plane would have been hidden but not a chance in the world it would have fooled even close to all of them. I would love to hear how it fooled the people watching from the Jersey side of the river. The plane would have been in clear view for a very long time.

I don't see much about Dixon, some pages that all say what you did but the page they say has his article does not seem to have it. I am also unsure of what your implication is about this plane... That people mistook it for a low flying passenger plane? In that area? Again, not a chance. Do you know how many airports are in that area? How often people see planes in the sky? Taking off, landing, circling, big planes, little planes? Nope, not a chance.

Brainwashed? Because something was on TV? That was not what they saw in real life? The people that live and work in the City? You really need to go there sometime and get to know these people.

why aren't there any videos or eyewitness accounts of it?

it was equipped with a Romulan Cloaking Device. Simple, no? Case closed.

http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/d/d3/Romulan_bird-of-prey,_ENT-aft,_cloaking.jpg

103) The high preponderance of painted fuselage debris found on the Pentagon lawn

You're a no-planer because lots of painted fuselage parts were found on the lawn?

Huh? What does paint on the parts have to do with anything?

It's hard to fathom how someone could come up with even 5 lame reasons to believe in no-planes let alone 111. Very creative.

How do you account for the fact that very few people find your position persuasive?

Good job spooked. If the CIA hadn't destroyed our press as well as our Constitution, this would have been public knowledge a long time ago, but since investigative reporting has gone the way of the manual typewriter it's pretty much up to us figure out what the government is actually doing. But a lot of people still haven't realized that.

So you agree with me that not many people have come around to the no plane point of view.

I understand you blame the media.

In your personal life, your daily interaction with friends, family, and co-workers, how much headway have you made?

If you're fishing for personally identifying information, you won't get it, but if you're asking have I made headway explaining 911 to people IRL, the answer is yes, lots. As for "blaming the media," I'm not blaming the papers, I'm blaming the corporate predators bent of destroying them. Sam Zell, current owner of the fast-declining LA Times, is a perfect example. As for cable and broadcast, they've been basically reduced to corporate PR. They used to supplement the papers a little but the papers are the real loss.

Ah, yes, because I am a paid agent hired to identify those who know the truth, track them down, and silence them.

No, I'm sincerely curious. I've never met a no planer in real life. I would imagine that since, as spooked911 repeatedly points out, the evidence for no planes and mini nukes is so obvious and overwhelming, that nearly everyone who does know a no planer must surely come to the same obvious and apparent conclusion.

So I would imagine that most of your family, friends, co-workers, and others with whom you have relationships have been brought around to your point of view as a result of having their eyes opened.

During volunteer work in the election last year, I ran into quite a few actual people who believed things like "Obama was sworn into the Senate using the Quran", "Mrs. Obama said 'whitey'" in a speech, or "Obama was born in Kenya". These beliefs were quite prevalent in some circles, and were widely spread by word of mouth or email chains among social networks. Supported by no evidence whatsoever, these beliefs were nonetheless quite widely held.

So, I find it odd that while false and unsupported beliefs can gain such widespread currency largely through propagation by chains of social acquaintances, the belief that no planes crashed into buildings on 9/11 does not seem to obtain the same sort of headway - despite being supported by what spooked and others assert is overwhelming evidence, and having had several years advantage relative to the kinds of information which spread and was believed during the election.

But since you have convinced most of those around you, I take it they are also engaged in spreading the word about this startling information, yes?

The people who believe RW rumors about Obama are basically supported in their beliefs by the same propaganda network propping up the official 911 fairy tale, i.e. the CIA, the commercial media, the pulpits, and who knows what else. I imagine a lot of that RW chain-mail originates somewhere in Virginia.

And yes, no planes and nukes ARE pretty obvious once you take a few minutes to actually study the evidence. But most people don't. For example, spooked just posted 111 perfectly sound reasons why planes couldn't have been involved in 911 in the way we've been told, and yet you'd rather cling to the nonsense spouted by talking heads on CNN and the rest of the propaganda network. And you wonder why people assume some OCTers are intel agents? That too seems obvious.

That does not matter. The facts remain that there are a number of very good reasons that no planes is imposable. The witnesses that saw the second impact cannot be explained away. The complete lack of witnesses that claim there were no planes cannot be explained away. That there is absolutely no photo/video evidence of no planes cannot be explained away. 111 good reasons or not, when there are still facts that prove it false, it is time to come up with a new theory.

but the physical and photographic evidence would still trump them, and the evidence I've seen, particularly the photography, does not support the claim that planes actually struck the Twin Towers. In any case, witness testimony is widely known to be unreliable, and if as it appears 911 was a major USG intel operation, carried out in collusion the major US media, it is not hard to conclude that most or all of these witnesses are NOT telling the truth.

Interesting. Have you even the slightest idea how many people are in lower Manhattan every day? Have you any idea just how far away the towers could be seen? And all of those people... just.... decided to lie about there being planes?

oh, this should be great. I'll bite, why did all these people decide to lie about the planes?

While your at how about explaining how the government prevented any photo/video proving no planes?

1) The towers were very tall, and in fact, the alleged crash points were NOT widely visible, except from a very few vantage points, most outside the city;

2) We'd really have to specify which witnesses we're talking about, and then examine their credibility individually, but I don't want to go there unless you do. From what I've seen, there weren't that many, and their credibility is suspect;

3) No witnesses to my knowledge have actually been deposed;

4) The only group whose recollections I examined at any length were the first responders whose interviews were published online by the NYT, and while a few of them spoke about the planes, none that I recall actually claimed to have watched a passenger jet fly into one of the towers;

5) Finally, the photography I've seen is totally unconvincing, and the propagation of faked stills and video pretty much kills it.

# 1 doesn't even make sense. If (as they were) "the towers were very tall), that would INCREASE the number of people who could see it. This is just more of your bullshit.

1) The towers were very tall, and in fact, the alleged crash points were NOT widely visible, except from a very few vantage points, most outside the city;

Having lived on the Jersey side of the Hudson for my first 28 years, I know this to be completely untrue.

2) We'd really have to specify which witnesses we're talking about, and then examine their credibility individually, but I don't want to go there unless you do. From what I've seen, there weren't that many, and their credibility is suspect;

3) No witnesses to my knowledge have actually been deposed;

4) The only group whose recollections I examined at any length were the first responders whose interviews were published online by the NYT, and while a few of them spoke about the planes, none that I recall actually claimed to have watched a passenger jet fly into one of the towers;

I see where your coming from now. When you refer to the witnesses that saw it live, are you referring to ONLY those that you have read published accounts or videos? You do realize that there are crap loads of witnesses that were never interviewed by anyone?

If yes, personally I am coming from a different angle completely. I was born and raised right there, I know lots of people in the area. I have family and friends that witnessed the second hit live. Of course, that proves nothing to you and I can even understand that, no problem at all. There are things you can do though to get the truth if you want it. The ideal thing to do would be to take a trip to NYC and talk to some people, you will not have a hard time finding people that saw the second impact. I have no idea where you are, so that may be a very difficult thing to do. You can also take out an ad on Craigslist and ask for people that witnessed the second impact live to send you their story.

5) Finally, the photography I've seen is totally unconvincing, and the propagation of faked stills and video pretty much kills it.

Thats nice. Now... how about telling me why there is no video/photo evidence that proves no planes. By that, I do not mean that you think photos/videos showing the impact don't look real to you. I mean, how did the government insure that no photo/video evidence of the event with no planes exists?

so your friends and relatives in New Jersey may well be telling the truth, but that doesn't mean what they're remembering actually occurred. They could be confusing what they saw on TV with what they think they saw, they could have seen a fly-by, or they could have invented the memory out of whole cloth, as sometimes happens after a trauma, and 911 was traumatic.

Photography: the video and still photos of the NYC plane impacts I've seen cannot possibly be real, and I've seen no photos that could be real, which leads me to conclude there were no plane crashes in NYC. None of the debris one would expect from two large airliner crashes appeared anywhere, either, and credible witnesses who were on the scene, i.e. the first responders who were interviewed, did not report having seen planes crashing into the towers.

Based on that evidence, the only conclusion I can draw is that there were no plane crashes at the WTC.

erupting into flames with no plane hitting it? Again, this is just more of your bullshit.

As I said:

"I have family and friends that witnessed the second hit live. Of course, that proves nothing to you and I can even understand that, no problem at all."

I do not expect you to take what I know to be true based only on my word, that is not a wise thing to do with anyone. Instead, I gave you two options to find out the truth for yourself, and I'm sure there are even more ways.

Again, you go back to the existing photos/videos that show planes. I don't think I've personally seen all of the photos/videos out there so I won't make any claim that they are all real. It does not matter, it has nothing to do with what I'm asking you. I can't think of any way to make it clearer, why are there no photos/videos of the towers exploding and showing the flyby... or no plane at all.

Honestly, have you considered this at all? There you are, 9/11/2001, in Manhattan, sitting at home and reports start coming in that something has hit one of the towers. "Holy crap" thats right outside, so you grab your cam corder and out you go... or maybe to the roof... you'll go to a good vantage point because the tower is seriously smoking and you want to catch it on tape. Your filming away and "Holy crap again" the second tower just exploded for no apparent reason... maybe a plane flew by but "no way, it did not hit the tower" or maybe there was nothing there at all, it just exploded for no reason you can see. You re-wind your tape and watch it again real quick... yup, sure as shit, it exploded for no visible reason. Later you go inside and turn on the TV to see if they know what happened and.... WTF? A plane? "No way!". You check the film again... yup, no plane. It would not take a genius to figure out that something mighty strange is going on and certainly, the media is in on it and if the media is in on something this big, it is a safe assumption the government is as well. I think your going to do whatever you can to get this video out and there are plenty of options to do so.

Now, lets jump to the government side. You are trying to fake flying jets into the tallest buildings in Manhattan, not at the same time, a good bit apart so there will be plenty of witnesses for the second strike. Cameras and cam corders are not uncommon. How do you prevent videos showing your deception from going out?

And I believe your friends. I just don't think what they say they saw actually occurred, or could have. For one thing, it would have been impossible to see the second crash if they were anywhere north of the Trade Center--including nearly all of Manhattan, Brooklyn north of Bushwick, and New Jersey north of Lincoln State park, including Newark and Jersey City--as the second plane allegedly hit the south face of the south tower:



So anyone with a camcorder in Manhattan, even if they'd had an unblocked view of the towers, would have been unable to capture the second crash on film, had there been one. As for people south of WTC, say in Bayonne or State Island, what if they did pull out a cam and start clicking, what could they have caught? Either nothing, a fly-by, or an explosion. If nothing, they'd assume they missed the plane; if a fly-by, they'd think they'd caught the plane; if an explosion, they'd think they'd caught the crash, and no one would be the wiser.

I also remember hearing that immediately after 911, a request was issued by the FBI for any amateur with home-made photography to turn over the originals and any copies for "analysis," which I imagine kept the doubters at bay for awhile.

Your trying to say that it was impossible for there to be photo/video evidence that no planes hit the towers? I simply cannot agree with that at all. Not only that, but do you think it likely that the people that supposedly plotted this big scam just assumed not one single person (Are you aware how many people your talking about even in your scope of area?) would catch it on film? Is this:

"I also remember hearing that immediately after 911, a request was issued by the FBI for any amateur with home-made photography to turn over the originals and any copies for "analysis," which I imagine kept the doubters at bay for awhile."

supposed to explain why there is no video proving no planes? I've never heard of this before. Is there a source?

You know, I'm sorry but I'm really not seeing how you convince yourself there were no planes. You admit "The only group whose recollections I examined at any length were the first responders whose interviews were published online by the NYT" yet... There is soooo much more available, I get 3 hundred+ k hits for "9/11 witness accounts" on the web

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=9+11+witness+accounts&aq=1&oq=9%2F11+wit&aqi=g2

and 23k+ hits on google news search:

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=9%2F11+witness+accounts&cf=all

At the same time you admit the above, you also seem surprised (and I feel you are offering as evidence) that those you did read were first responders and that you don't recall any of them actually seeing the impact. Well... What do you expect? I mean really? Its the NYT, of course their going to run interviews mainly with first responders... its a news paper, they are going to run interviews with the people that experienced it first hand, the first responders, people that were in the towers... the ones that were not bystanders standing there looking up... the ones with the most gripping stories. Its just not giving me any... unusual vibes

And there are craploads more that were never interviewed by anyone. Have you considered my craigslist suggestion?

I've already explained why it's clear to me that no passenger airliners collided with the Trade Center on 911. I'm sure there are people out there who swear they saw it happen with their own peepers, but so what? People swear to having conversations with angels too.

Seriously, what would be the point of launching such a totally pointless search? :shrug:

undermines your own claim to truthfulness.

You are dismissed with the same logical ease as you dismiss others. How can you claim to be searching for truth or facts or objective reality with that kind of an argument?

You really don't seem much interested in it.

Witnesses? Nah, all liars and fools. No need to look at more then a smattering on online accounts, no need to actually try and communicate with any of them, all liars and fools. Need a clue how many people I'm talking about, nope, not important.

Complete lack of video/photo evidence proving no planes? Nah, in a stroke of genius, the masterminds behind the plot made it easy for me by causing a huge explosion near the top of one of the twin towers, the tallest buildings in the area, in a massively populated city. Then brilliantly did nothing else for a while giving the people of the city plenty of time to turn their attention to the now burning and wickedly smoking building before blowing up the other one thats right freakin next to it with complete confidence that the only photo/video evidence of it is under their control, ready for doctoring and the all those people watching will be dismissed as liars and fools.

And... your good with that? I'm understanding your position correctly? If I have any of this wrong, please do correct me (I was drinking heavily last night and its continued most of today along with some yummy sausages off the grill).

Have you ever convinced anyone without filling in these gaping holes with something better?

Have you thought about how they get all the firemen, police, paramedics and other first responders to lie about what happened after killing a bunch of their friends and co-workers?

I'm sorry but... 111 reasons... 439 reasons... go ahead and make up as many as you want. Until the obvious, gaping holes are filled... it is just not possible.

To be blunt I'm 100% certain no passenger airliners crashed into the Twin Towers on 911, so I couldn't care less what somebody on Craiglist might have to say about it. But why would you think I would? I'm not understanding why you're so heavily invested in this particular whopper, which after all is just one of hundreds foisted on us by the last administration.

:shrug:

I think I've been perfectly clear why this is important to me.

100% sure? No doubts? Yet, no evidence either. Pics/vids showing planes are all fake... not that any real experts have declared them so but hey, its on the web so it must be true. No pics/vids showing no planes... but hey, its not on the web so it must be true. All the witnesses from the NYT are liars, no need to check any more, fools and liars. No evidence of this, just your feeling, fools and liars all of them. Can't fill in any of the holes that prove you wrong, no problem, just throw out an insinuation that I am a repug.

Fascinating.

it's about mind control, and how much you can fool the people.

the truth starts in the fake videos and impossible physics.

that 9/11 conspiracy folk in general, and no-planers in particular, take their stance not out of any honest desire for truth, but because it makes them feel important. They've been able to convince themselves that they know something that's so "obvious" and "apparent". That there are others out there who can't or won't see "the truth" therefore makes the no-planers better and smarter.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

Sid

:hi:

Mind control... all of lower NYC... not a single one escaped... Did they use the chem trails to do it?

Even if you could prove "the truth starts in the fake videos and impossible physics."... which, you can't... You are still not escaping that facts that make no planes impossible. I've listed them several times in this thread, please take a stab at it and try to come up with something just a little closer to reality then mind control of millions of people.

Wow.

You're saying that all of the photos showing planes are faked, and all of the witnesses who say they saw planes are mistaken. Then you're saying that "none of the debris that one would expect from two large airliner crashes appeared anywhere" (that you have looked), and that "credible witnesses... did not report having seen planes crashing into the towers" (except presumably the ones who are mistaken). And from that:

> "Based on that evidence, the only conclusion I can draw is that there were no plane crashes at the WTC."

I mean...

Wow.

Next?

Simply claiming that all the video and photo evidence is fake is not evidence. Simply claiming that all the witnesses are mistaken is not evidence. Argumentum ad ignorantiam is not evidence. Your conclusion cannot possibly be "based on that evidence" because you have cited exactly zero evidence. What is it based on, then?

... are really just Spooky's opinions about how things ought to look, and it was a waste of time reading through it. Unfortunately, Spooky doesn't know what he's talking about, and the list shows the unmistakable signs of his searching backwards trying to find some evidence to support a preconceived conclusion, but finding nothing but his own willful ignorance. Sorry, uninformed opinions are not evidence, either. The rest of the list is just the same type of denial of the actual evidence and argumentum ad ignorantiam that you used in your "conclusion."

But you don't need to take my word for it: If you think there's some actual evidence in Spooky's list, cite two or three that you think can stand up to a little scrutiny and we'll take a look at them. I have no intention of wasting time digging throuhg all 111 of them, but if you're claiming that's where your evidence is, surely you can come up with two or three good ones?

I've supplied evidence, spooked has supplied evidence, the post you originally responded to supplied evidence, and you haven't refuted any of it. So to ask for yet more evidence is absurd.

:hi:

Your post clearly contained nothing that could possibly be called evidence, which is why I suggested you look up the meaning of the word. If you think Spooky's did, I'm asking you to point to just two or three things that you think qualify as evidence and let's "consider" them. Maybe I just read it too fast, huh.

I didn't find anything in the OP that I would consider to be what is commonly known as "evidence." I'm certainly not going to waste the time it would take to go through all 111 of them to explain why. Apparently, you either think I missed something important or you're trying to dodge. Surely you can point to just two or three of them that you think justify your remarkable "conclusion" that there weren't any planes? Then we'll do that "considering" you're asking for.

...then I would be correct in assuming you have persuaded all of your family and acquaintances, yes?

as I mentioned, but those who have expressed an interest in the truth have been receptive to it. Generally I've found the younger ones are more likely to have an open mind about 911, whatever their political views, while the older, more religious and more conservative ones are less so.

much less something as intense as 9/11 being an inside job, or even more intense, no planes
but yeah, younger people are easier to talk to about this-- but even they don't even care that much.

I was talking to a medical student recently-- a bright guy-- who thought they had already captured Osama bin Laden! That shows how carefully most people pay attention to 9/11.

Surely you have gotten that across to people.

how can I even approach this with them?

I'm not going to go up to someone with no preface and start talking about "no planes".

''mini-nukes''? i'm certain that would start something! give it a try and let me know how it works out for you...

...you've been pretty much successful, yes?

But, sure, if I agreed with you about "no planes" it would be the single most amazing thing I new, and I don't see how I could avoid the topic.

You've been answered repeatedly by two different people. To ignore the answers you've patiently been given is rude.

"people I talk to on a day to day basis" is not how I would describe "family and friends".

I'm not talking about random people on a streetcorner.

no? :)

I just haven't gotten to talk about it with family and friends. I'd be happy to talk about it, but you can't just bring it up out of the blue-- it needs some intro. And it's hard to find the right opening.

My wife agrees that 9/11 was an inside job and that the WTC was blown up by demolition but thinks it is a waste of time to try to do anything about it (and she may well be right). But I have to try to do something anyway-- which is why I do my blog and post here. My wife just doesn't care about whether the planes were a hoax or not-- she's too pre-occupied with her job and the children.

My parents are both hardcore liberals/Dems so that is their top priority and they are into local politics in CA. They more-or-less think 9/11 was an inside job but it just isn't a top priority for them or they think they can't anything about it. My mom, somewhat surprisingly, just doesn't seem to care about torture as an issue. It's harder to gauge my dad, but again I think as an issue it's just not such a big priority for him. My parents have seen my blog, but just don't want to talk about it. Besides, we never really get around to talking about it as there are so many other things going on, like their various health issues.

My friends and co-workers, as I said, don't even want to talk politics really, except for mainstream inanities and superficial stuff. I said Bush was a war criminal for torture, and they just shrug it off. With some other people I brought up that 9/11 was an inside job and they just have nothing to say either way. With my old advisor I brought up 9/11 a while back, before I knew about no planes, and he didn't think I should be wasting my time on it though he allowed there might have been a conspiracy. One of my best friends is conservative, and we had huge fights over Clinton's impeachment and then Bush v Gore, and so we just haven't really talked politics at all since 2000.

I mentioned that the flight 93 crash was a hoax with some college students I knew, and they just didn't seem to care.

I've talked to a few other 9/11 skeptics on the phone, and lots more via email and blogs and chat sites, and a great many of them obviously agree with me about the plane hoax.

SO... obviously, I don't go around talking about this stuff randomly to everyone I know or people I meet. That would be crazy and counter-productive. But while I am happy to talk about it, no one really WANTS to talk about it that I've met-- except the people who I've met online and obviously are very interested in 9/11.



For 9/11 itself being an inside job -- most people just don't want to go there, or are apathetic, or are totally incurious. No planes is simply way too out there for them to deal with.

You seem to have a healthy attitude about it.

I'd probably be frustrated as all get out, but I suppose I'd adapt.

As a teenager I was something of a religious nut, and I'm trying to remember the feeling of knowing that I was absolutely right about something, while most folks I knew disagreed or didn't care.

But doesn't engagement with any other political issue seem pointless, when a scheme of such scope an magnitude could be successfully carried out?

but I actually still care about "progressive politics", and would be happy to see an end to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, universal health care, better labor rights and an overhaul of the financial system. Doesn't seem too likely at this point. I voted for Obama, even canvassed for him, but I have been pretty disappointed so far. And as was described in another post I put up, it does look like the game is rigged and Obama in many ways is a continuation of Bush.

doubt that there are professional shills employed to promote and defend what the government says about 9/11?

Whether you choose to frame 9/11 events as politics, terrorism, or a crime, since so few members of the general public
are interested in talking about it, why would the government need shills to try and sway public opinion about 9/11?

1) keep us bottled up, spending time arguing with them instead of reaching out to honest people (and already we are bottled up here at DU-- we are locked away in this dungeon)

2) they serve to make the inside job thesis seem much more controversial than it really is

27) The ability of the blue sky on 9/11 to act as natural blue screen


Because the sky is blue, it makes me cry
Because the sky is blue.......aaaaaaaahhhh

Because the world is round it turns me on
Because the world is round...aaaaaahhhhhh

Love is all, love is new
Love is all, love is you

Because the wind is high it blows my mind
Because the wind is high......aaaaaaaahhhh

Didn't know about Paul Smith --

Police find no evidence to support cab driver's accident claim

BY ALISON GENDAR and JONATHAN LEMIRE
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Wednesday, October 10th 2007, 4:00 AM

Cops have found no evidence to support a cabbie's claim a mysterious black sedan forced him to jump a midtown curb, killing a TV helicopter pilot and injuring two others, a police source said Tuesday.

Mohammed Chowdury, 23, had told the Daily News the sedan clipped his cab on Third Ave. Sunday night, sending it careening into Paul Smith, 60, a chopper pilot for WABC-TV Channel 7.

"It was an accident. I think it was the black car's fault," Chowdury said on Monday. He then claimed the black car sped off while he stayed at the scene of the fatal accident.

Cops have found no damage on Chowdury's cab consistent with it being hit by another car, the police source said. Surveillance video taken from nearby cameras also does not contain any images of another car, the source added. The Manhattan district attorney's office is still deciding whether to charge Chowdury.

Smith's wife, Donna, who was injured in the crash, remained hospitalized with a broken pelvis and ribs and a bruised liver.

Colleagues remembered her husband, who flew helicopters during the Vietnam War, as a great pilot and an even better friend. "He was a really great person," said WABC weatherman Bill Evans. "It's so ironic that his life should end this way. Here's a guy who flew a chopper nearly every day, two tours in Vietnam, and not one scratch."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/10/10/2007-10-10_police_find_no_evidence_to_support_cab_d-1.html

Didn't know there was discussion on TV at thetime about the plane going THRU the building --
"nosing" out the other side!

Plane is smaller than should be in some 2nd hit videos, indicating a fly-by or flawed video fakery

Heard about a white plane . . . but not a "white elephant" plane . . .

Plane is smaller than should be in some 2nd hit videos, indicating a fly-by or flawed video fakery
-- hadn' heard about that one

Inconsistent stories of WABC Cameraman John DelGiorno -- not familiar with that one either

It would be interesting to know if the airlines collected anything from insurance
agencies on the planes -- or perhaps we'll hear they weren't insured for crashes
due to hijackings -- terraism?