DISINFO CORNER: NO PLANES / VIDEO FAKERY / SPACE LASERS

[Atomgrad]

Yes, they were designed to withstand multiple plane strikes.

[jimd3100]

Why is it so impossible for you to believe it was a missile?

Because I can watch FDNY Chief Joe Pfieffer and his crew watch a large plane fly into the WTC, and see him call in the strike. I cordially invite all you no planers to go f**k yourself. They are not going to be shooting missiles in broad daylight in front of lots of people when the planes themselves were being used as missiles. That's f**king stupid. That includes the pentagon as well.

Why my disdain for no planers? Because they hurt the "truth movement" more than debunkers. On 9/11 planes flew into buildings-get used to it.

[9/11 in movies]

Are you saying planes took down the twin towers alone?And if you say explosives were used then if they are crazy enough to blow up the towers in broad daylight with thousands of people still inside then YES they ARE crazy enough to shoot a missille in broad daylight.Some people that were there also said it looked like a missile with wings.

[iks83]

you are right... planes do look like a big missile with wings. how do you know that it wasnt a plane disguised as missile? so many questions...

[jimd3100]

Are you saying planes took down the twin towers alone?And if you say explosives were used then if they are crazy enough to blow up the towers in broad daylight with thousands of people still inside then YES they ARE crazy enough to shoot a missille in broad daylight.Some people that were there also said it looked like a missile with wings.

No one is debating how crazy certain people are. But they are not that stupid. It's incredibly stupid to be shooting missiles in broad daylight and hoping people will think they are planes.

Your missile witness actually isn't a witness. He didn't see anything. He heard what sounded like a missile. Guess what else he said it could have been? It's at the 58 second mark..."perhaps a jet or could have been a missile as well."

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1182077/wtc_witness_saw_a_missile/

He didn't see what hit. Here is an example of a witness. A witness is someone who witnessed what happened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PD372CnAgk

Lots of people witnessed planes fly into the buildings. Not because they can't tell the difference between a plane and a missile. But rather because on 9/11 planes flew into buildings. It might be beneficial to you to accept this fact.

[kushfiend]

No one is debating how crazy certain people are. But they are not that stupid. It's incredibly stupid to be shooting missiles in broad daylight and hoping people will think they are planes.

What about the Pentagon and the crash at shanksville?  Clearly the Pentagon false flag op was done by a missile, as it is physically impossible to fly a jumbo jet 10ft above the lawn for a half mile and then drill holes through 3 reinforced sections.

And the shanksville crash had no identifiable aircraft parts or any trace of human bodies.  Another obvious indication that no plane was used.

Do you have any idea of how incredibly difficult crashing a jumbo jet, while your in full descent, into an area as wide as the WTC buildings would be?  I'd say that would be literally impossible, especially for the quality of pilots the supposed "hijackers" were.

[jimd3100]

What about the Pentagon and the crash at shanksville?  Clearly the Pentagon false flag op was done by a missile, as it is physically impossible to fly a jumbo jet 10ft above the lawn for a half mile

So much for that idea...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYfhC9ft_hk
And clearly it wasn't done by a missile because not a single person said they saw a missile, and lots of people saw what happened. They said it was a plane. And they got a good look at it.

and then drill holes through 3 reinforced sections.

So much for that idea. You need to be better informed on the contruction of the pentagon. That didn't happen.

The gaps between the first three rings in the Pentagon only reach down to the second floor - therefore, the debris did not go six walls.
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html

And the shanksville crash had no identifiable aircraft parts or any trace of human bodies.  Another obvious indication that no plane was used.

The coroner Wally Miller disagrees with you. He was there....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2456935081384261617&hl=en

Do you have any idea of how incredibly difficult crashing a jumbo jet, while your in full descent, into an area as wide as the WTC buildings would be?  I'd say that would be literally impossible, especially for the quality of pilots the supposed "hijackers" were.

Yes I do, and it would be even more difficult at the pentagon where a confirmed horrible pilot evidently could have gotten work as an air show pilot. Makes one wonder if perhaps these planes were not under the control of jihadi nutjobs doesn't it? Telling people about the invisible missiles takes us away from this doesn't it? I wonder who would want us yelling no planes and missiles?

[kushfiend]

So much for that idea...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYfhC9ft_hk
And clearly it wasn't done by a missile because not a single person said they saw a missile, and lots of people saw what happened. They said it was a plane. And they got a good look at it.

So much for that idea. You need to be better informed on the contruction of the pentagon. That didn't happen.

The gaps between the first three rings in the Pentagon only reach down to the second floor - therefore, the debris did not go six walls.
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html


The coroner Wally Miller disagrees with you. He was there....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2456935081384261617&hl=en

Yes I do, and it would be even more difficult at the pentagon where a confirmed horrible pilot evidently could have gotten work as an air show pilot. Makes one wonder if perhaps these planes were not under the control of jihadi nutjobs doesn't it? Telling people about the invisible missiles takes us away from this doesn't it? I wonder who would want us yelling no planes and missiles?

so, remote controlled planes is your contention? Is that so dissimilar from missiles disguised as aircraft?

[jimd3100]

so, remote controlled planes is your contention? Is that so dissimilar from missiles disguised as aircraft?

What's the obsession with missiles? A missile isn't going to be able to knock over 5 lightpoles and I can see very clearly that it was large planes flying into the wtc.

I also know Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot and yet did manuevers that only experts can do. What could explain that? What's the point of creating a missile fantasy? There is no evidence or witnesses for any missiles.

[mr anderson]

On Twitter if a user by the name of Nico Haupt or Ewing2001 follows you, block them both.

They are both run by the psyop / cointelpro no planer Nico Haupt.

The sick thing is Ewing2001 has 696 followers...

[BernieMadoff]

as far as the planes go, we all know they can fly planes using remote control , im sure you all have seen the video where they tested crashing an airliner and watching it explode into flames

my honest beleif is:

that they were all real planes

people really boarded them at the airport

government then used remote control to carry out their plan, might have never been any pilots on board at all, i have never flown on an airliner, so can someone tell me if at any time is the cockpit open? do flight attendants go into the cockpit at all before take off?

it makes perfect sense really, in fact this theory i think smashes all other theories( dont know if anyone else had mentioned remote control yet)

think over all the aspects and let me know what you think about this theory everyone

[lovealexjones]

the planes had pods underneath them and looked like refuelers.

i'd say remote controled also.

[Ironman]

sadly, I think this 'no plane' bs could be the death of the 'truth movement' if we don't suppress it
it's certainly bringing it down right now by association

load of shit

[Unintelligable Name]

*watches to see if he has a soul*

Where is this Bob you speak of....

Ah, there he is.

Hrm.... started to but they cut away so overall no... I have no soul! Oh god editing ruined it for me!

But in all serious, this is awesome, having it on public acess television. MORE!!! I demand more!!!!!

I demand people running in the streets yelling and screaming "9/11 was an inside job and I f**king know it!!!!"

Well... in time anyway. One foot infront of the other... slow and steady...

[Mike Philbin]

the comment section on that video has brought out the NO PLANERS again - do we call 'no planers' CIA Bloggers now, has that been officially confirmed?

[Unintelligable Name]

the comment section on that video has brought out the NO PLANERS again - do we call 'no planers' CIA Bloggers now, has that been officially confirmed?

I think no-planes is a plausible theory -- and I assure you I do not work for the CIA.

[Mike Philbin]

I think no-planes is a plausible theory -- and I assure you I do not work for the CIA.

woah, a plausible theory? Erm, rather than spattering that on this thread, can you direct me to a thread that has already dealt with this in detail? I must have missed it. Oh, wait, wait, are we talking about all those private videos having the planes added on later? Or are we talking about HOLOGRAPHIC PLANES to instigate a bomb detonation at the respective floors of the respective buildings?

[xereau]

No planes is NOT a plausible theory.

Millions of New York citizens watched the second plane hit with their own eyes that day.

There is no way there was no planes.

What is more plausible:

No planes, hundreds of billions of dollars for dozens of hologram producing satellites, and hundreds of compartmentalized people involved.

Or...

Two planes, worth nothing to those who perpetrated the hijackings, and a dozen of compartmentalized people involved.

[Unintelligable Name]

My point appears to be lost on you two. You ignore the notion that someone can be investigating No-planes without being involved with the CIA, in favor of poopooing the theory itself. So be it. No-planers are CIA... yup, it's settled.

[Scootle]

Alot of people have been duped by the no-plane theories... some celebrities and other once-credible people have aswell ... such as Warren Cuccurullo and David Shayler... not saying they're disinfo agents (altho there's evidence to suggest Shayler may in fact be a victim of mind control programming) so of course not EVERY no planer is a disinfo shill... but the main advocates and the people who made the movies probably are.

[Mike Philbin]

Dear ChemicalRain

I asked for (if you have it to hand) a link to a Prison Planet Forumorum discussion about the validity of this NO PLANE theory. And then I added the bit about "do you mean no planes = added later or no planes = holographic technology projected into the skies of New York on 9/11.

Don't take Xereau's response as a get-out clause, just answer my honest questions. Which sort of no planer are you and is there a link I can read up on that goes into greater detail here on PP than the stuff I've already come across on th'internet (the font of all truth and knowledge)?

[Scootle]

A relatively serious discussion started here in the disinfo corner a while ago

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=945.msg471055;topicseen#msg471055

[grapecrusher1]

Dear ChemicalRain

I asked for (if you have it to hand) a link to a Prison Planet Forumorum discussion about the validity of this NO PLANE theory. And then I added the bit about "do you mean no planes = added later or no planes = holographic technology projected into the skies of New York on 9/11.

Don't take Xereau's response as a get-out clause, just answer my honest questions. Which sort of no planer are you and is there a link I can read up on that goes into greater detail here on PP than the stuff I've already come across on th'internet (the font of all truth and knowledge)?

I'd take a look too because this no-plane fairy story is poisoning the well.

My wife just got back from visiting her family and mentioned her brother who works in the canadian government had a friend who had been presenting him with 911 Truth info.  Apparently my brother-in-law said he had a hard time considering any of it seriously because "Some of these people believe there weren't any planes at all."

The disease that is the "no-plane" theory hopefully is not fatal to it's host the truth.

[Mike Philbin]

Scootle,

thanks for posting that link (what a ridiculous waste of everyone's time that was) but I'm so not concerned with 'what might have hit the WTCs' as I saw that from many different angles over the course of the last few years, unless there were HUNDREDs of video camera crews involved, and NO ONE took a shot with his/her video camera where no plane hit the towers (by this I mean no-one who had a line of sight to the incoming plane, of course - WTC hiding a plane don't count.)

I'm just now concerned with WHAT SORT OF NO-PLANER ChemicalRain is. How he/she can even consider it after all this time and all this video data. I mean, I'm on the edge of my f**king seat. Let's have it, let's have the irrefutable evidence you have that will convince me that the NO PLANER theory has legs.

[KiwiClare]

I'm going to ignore the no-planer bull***    and state thanks for letting us know Scootle.  That's great news about '9/11 Press for Truth' being aired.   Shame it doesn't go as far as 9/11 The Road to Tyranny though.   It was mentioned in the article below about it that due to the huge viewer response to the program, Channel 12 will repeat it on Saturday, June 6 at 2 p.m. and 9 p.m., followed by an encore at midnight.
   Fox in Fresno got a huge positive viewer response too when they aired the clip with Richard Gage in, according to the producer. Hopefully this news will further encourage stations to air the truth in the near future!  

Friday, June 5 2009  
‘9/11 Press for Truth’ on Channel 12 Draws Huge Support from Colorado Public Television Viewers
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090605105600146
KBDI logo

For immediate release
Release Date: 06/04/09
Author: J Nagle

For immediate release

• Photos available at http://www.kbdi.org/about_kbdi/press_room.cfm
• See excerpts from Viewer Buzz program comments below

‘9/11 Press for Truth’ on Channel 12 Draws Huge Support from Colorado Public Television Viewers
Program will repeat at 2:00, 9:00 and midnight on Saturday

DENVER – (June 4, 2009) – KBDI has always been at the forefront of controversial programming and last night was no exception. As the first broadcast station in the United States to air the controversial documentary 9/11 Press for Truth, which claims a 9/11 cover-up, KBDI showed that it is not afraid to touch on sensitive subjects.

Due to viewer response to the program, Channel 12 will repeat the program Saturday, June 6 at 2 p.m. and 9 p.m., followed by an encore at midnight.

During the premiere, Bob McIlvaine, who lost his son Bobby at the World Trade Center, and 9/11 Press for Truth producer Kyle Hence and director Ray Nowosielski were in the studio to give more insight into why they believed 9/11 was a cover-up and why the American public should be screaming for answers.

Supporters of the documentary hope that because of the risk KBDI took by putting 9/11 Press for Truth on the air that more PBS stations across the nation will take a chance and broadcast the controversial documentary.

Press for Truth’s producer Kyle Hence already has heard the cries saying people from all over the country have been forwarding his e-mails on to their local PBS stations.

The program will repeat on Channel 12. A full schedule of air times for all of the programs can be found at www.KBDI.org.

###

Excerpts from Viewer Buzz comments at www.KBDI.org

“Congratulations and many thanks for your showing of this important film! I can't believe you're the first to broadcast this in the US! We need more people in PBS of your vision and courage! Thanks again. I'm becoming a first time member.”

“I was enjoying watching TV this evening when I came across the 911 program. As a very patriotic American, I was apalled (sic) at the frivilous (sic) allegations that were being made. “

“Thank you for taking the risk and having the guts to show this program. Real news and investigative journalism are scarce commodities these days.”

“Congratulations on airing the well, second - program concerning the fallacies that have been promulgated to the American public concerning the history and events of 9/11.”

“It takes the courage of true patriotism to buck the military, industrial, media mafia. THANK YOU!”

**********

About KBDI
KBDI has set itself apart with carriage of an unparalleled amount of local public affairs programming. KBDI "community voice" programming engages viewers in community-based discussions of state, national and global issues. KBDI delivers three digital channels: its flagship KBDI broadcast station with a strong mix of local, national and international programming (DT-12.1); The Documentary Channel, featuring the works of independent filmmakers (DT-12.2); and MHz Worldview, a channel providing diverse cultural perspectives for a globally minded audience (DT-12.3).

Joseph Nagle, University of Northern Colorado Intern
KBDI-Channel 12 (PBS)
Marcia Simmons, Marketing Director
CO 303-991-5020 (direct); 303-489-4012 (cell)

URL for press release online: http://colorado911visibility.org

RELATED:
This episode of Visibility 9-11 welcomes back to the program Kyle Hence, founder of 9-11 Citizens Watch and producer of the excellent documentary 9-11 Press for Truth.  Included is a brief discussion about the film as well as a new film Kyle is working on based on footnote #44 in Chapter 6 of the 9-11 Commission Report.  A press release from the September 11th Advocates reads in part:

    "In July 2004, when the 9/11 Commission released its Final Report, we read with enormous interest, Chapter 6 - "From Threat to Threat", including footnote #44. Footnote #44 details an instance where a CIA desk officer intentionally withheld vital information from the FBI about two of the 9/11 hijackers who were inside the United States. This footnote further states that the CIA desk officer covered-up the decision to withhold said vital information from the FBI. Finally, footnote #44 states that the CIA desk officer could not recall who told her to carry out such acts."

Also included in this discussion are the circumstances surrounding the historic national premiere of '9/11 Press for Truth' on a major market PBS station.  On June 3, 2009 at 7:00pm, 9/11 Press for Truth will be shown on KBDI, Channel 12 in Denver Colorado.  This historic broadcast will feature in-studio interviews during the broadcast of Kyle Hence, Bob McIlvaine, and a representative of Colorado 9/11 Visibility.  As has been the case for the past couple of years, Colorado 9/11 Visibility will also be manning the phone banks during the broadcast, which is also part of the periodic fund drives at KBDI.  A great list of 9/11 books and DVD's will be offered as premium gifts to viewers who pledge during this broadcast.  Please contact KBDI and let them know how much you appreciate this historic broadcast and if you can, give them a donation which best fits your budget.

[Initiated]

Another wonderful recording. What a great idea to volunteer to take donations whilst giving away copies of eye-opening films upon making a contribution to public access or PBS stations. I also think if the local action groups, such as We Are Change, can get enough free-thinking individuals together to landslide calls and requests to local news stations, we might see a David Ray Griffin or someone who might carry themselves well being interviewed.

Thanks once again for sharing. Cheers!

[xereau]

plau-si-ble [plaw-zuh-buhl] –adjective

Defintion:  having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable

Just what part of the no planes story:

1.  Has the appearance of truth?

2.  Has the appearance of reason?

3.  Is worth of approval or acceptance?

4.  Is credible?

5.  Is believable?

[Mike Philbin]

Just what part of the no planes story:
1.  Has the appearance of truth?
2.  Has the appearance of reason?
3.  Is worth of approval or acceptance?
4.  Is credible?
5.  Is believable?

Xereau,

we've always gotta be careful how quickly we DEBUNK, for only a few years back 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB seemed highly implausible. That's the power of the passage of time.

[JonTheSavage]

Great find Scoot. We had Endgame & Bohemian Grove aired on our local BKN 19.

[JonTheSavage]

I think no-planes is a plausible theory -- and I assure you I do not work for the CIA.

I see the evidence pointing towards remote control aircraft. Didn't Bush mention they had that capability? There is a clip of him somewhere saying it. PLUS, you have the difficult manuevers where the plane turned very sharply, and it was almost impossible, even for a well trained pilot to do that.

[Mike Philbin]

Imagine the shock on those 'hijackers' faces when they've subdued the pilots and sat behind the yoke and it starts moving on its own right into New York air space. I wonder if the 'hijackers' were given a story about landing the planes at some airport - maybe it was set up as a simple hijack for them, and not a suicide mission as it became?

[Scootle]

Yeh that's probably how it happened... they were agents who believed they were taking part in a hijacking drill.

There's no way any of the three planes that hit their targets could have been flown by a human... the twin towers were the easy targets and even they would have been difficult to hit at 220 meters (almost 4 times the width of the towers) per second.

[Mike Philbin]

Yeh that's probably how it happened... they were agents who believed they were taking part in a hijacking drill.

There's no way any of the three planes that hit their targets could have been flown by a human... the twin towers were the easy targets and even they would have been difficult to hit at 220 meters (almost 4 times the width of the towers) per second.

Well, yeah, that seems to be how 7/7 was set up - the 'actors' or 'assets' were players in 'some other game'.

You've, of course, heard of these PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH getting into Dutch Roll and being unable to fly their flight simulators into the WTC after trying TEN TIMES at the interception speed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cIco_3cK7c

I think we discussed this on the thread that became the WTC floor-accurate repairs weeks before 911 ~~ homing beacon installed.

[Raffles]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxWMDTuhxdI&fmt=18

Anyone who doesn't get choked up when Bob McIlvaine speaks has no soul.

"$100 million to investigate Clintons Sex scandals and $3 million to investigate the murder of 3,000 people"

He has a point methinks.

[xereau]

As for:

That's the power of the passage of time.

This is just a slogan.  Time allows people like, oh, I don't know, the CIA to come up with a perfect little interjectional distraction like the no-planes theory.  Time allows our memory of events to be overwritten by subliminal messages, overt programming, and direct propaganda.  The events of that day are what matter.  How things were reported, recorded, and remembered that day, from all angles, is what matters.  And what is missing from that day?  This is what is missing:  any record, by millions in person, of there being 'no planes' on 911.  Nothing.

Where are these people from day 1 that say there were no planes?  Anyone?  And while on this subject, what about the timing of the no-planes theory?  It just so happened to heat up right around the time 9/11 Truth was really starting to gain steam.  As far as I know, this bogus hypothesis was being pushed heavily on another patriot radio station.  I have been watching and observing on this split within the patriot movement ever since I got involved three years ago -- petty, divisive squabbles fractured the unity of a would be tidal wave that, to me, smacked of a real revolution.

Note:  Only one alternate theory for '9/11 Truth' gained traction -- The No-Planers.  And was it ever divisive.

Given one option for opposition, people are forced into two camps -- This is the very definition of a dialectic;  divide and conquer;  formulate factions within your enemy, each weakening the other, leaving both vulnerable.  In case anyone has read this far, I hope that you realize that we are being herded around like animals.  This is is THE big secret.  The BIG mystery.  This is the elites' religion.  They have figured out the human species quite literally to a science.  They have kept, developed, searched, and researched this secret knowledge throughout history.  It is the science of ultimate control.

Back to the discussion of this thread:

Again, I want to ask -- Just what part of the no planes story:

1.  Has the appearance of truth?

2.  Has the appearance of reason?

3.  Is worthy of approval or acceptance?

4.  Is credible?

5.  Is believable?

A theory is a hypothesis with experimentally repeatable evidence.  A hypothesis is a presumption based on suspicion before any (re)search begins.

The no plane 'theory' is in reality a hypothesis, disproved by a clear lack of evidence.  Unless you know someone with a trillion dollar hologram array kicking around.

On the other hand it would be possible to build a twin tower replica, fly planes into each, and see:

(1) if it looks the same as the planes approach and when they hit, and (2) if the buildings fall again the same way both others did.  

A rational sounding thinking individual should be able to surmise (without actually building the towers etc, and with using physics, modeling, chemistry, and habeus corpus) that:

(1) Yes, a real plane flown into a twin tower replica would look the same approaching and hitting, as depicted by the video collected (from tens/hundreds of thousands within millions of eyewitnesses) on 9/11, and (2) Given experimentally replicable evidence from hundreds of independent sources on the physics, chemistry of the events that day and the relationships of those in power to the military industrial complex, it is unlikely that the buildings would completely pulverize themselves at free fall speed again, completely defying physics, without the help of high tech military demolition material produced by companies run by and in association to the entire upper governmental power structure.

In short, given verifiable, repeatable evidence, from many different sources, it is MUCH more likely that real planes hit the buildings.

The evidence that a secret high tech hologram satellite array exists is nonexistent, unrepeatable, and from one source.  This does not meet the requirements of a peer reviewed theory.  An unprovable, non repeatable hypothesis from a single source is essentially religious doctrine, as it takes leaps of faith and logic in order to come to the conclusion you desire.  When you have to *insert mythical explanation here* (god, the tooth fairy, a satellite hologram array) as part of a systems analysis in order to come up with the answer you want, you are in treading in the realm of fantasy and wishful thinking.  Procedure, results, evidence, referential precedent, scrutiny, and (peer) review must all be open, replicable, and from independent sources.

The classic false flag demolition theory is indeed a theory -- verifiable data on multiple fronts, from dozens to hundreds of sources on each front.

*********************
No-Plane Hypothesis Deconstructed:

(1) Millions of people from the entire area saw the 2nd plane hit.  They were all looking towards downtown Manhattan.  Are they all lying?  Or did they all get duped by a hologram?

A:  No one claimed to not have seen planes that day.  So they saw something.  Was it a hologram?

(2) What is more plausible:  An unknown, undocumented hologram producing satellite array costing hundreds of billions (or trillions) put in place by hundreds to thousands, or a free (hijacked) plane either remotely or manually flown into the buildings by only a handful of conspirators?

A:  Flying stolen planes into the buildings and bringing them down with preplanted thermate would take many magnitudes less time, money, technology, manpower, and pure luck to pull off.

(3) What is the advantage of holograms as opposed to real planes?  Why the insanely intricate, potentially fallible plot, when you could just fly a real plane into the building?

A:  The only advantage I can see to using holograms, is that it would be so unbelievably improbable and difficult to pull off, that it would trick logical, rational, well versed people such as myself into thinking that because it would indeed be so hellishly expensive and difficult to pull off, that there was no way they did it this way.  In other words, there is no advantage to holograms and the use of for a lack of better words, science fiction technology.

(4)  Why did the no-planes theory come out so long after 9/11, and why was it around the time the Ron Paul revolution, largely pushed into existence by 9/11 Truthers, began to gain momentum?

A:  The 9/11 Truth Movement was scaring the SHIT out of the elites.  Too many people in too many places all started talking about it too quickly for it to be squashed all at once.  Coupled with the rising discontent towards the increasingly corrupt system, the False Flag Demolition Theory was THE issue a revolution could run on.  Rather than give many alternate theories, an unprovable, unrepeatable, single sourced fairy tale emerged as the sole dialectical alternative.  Two birds, one stone.  Discredit the truth with association to contrived lunacy.  Call it what you will.  It stinks.

[Mike Philbin]

Yep,

and I still only care about what sort of a NO PLANER ChemicaRain is.

[grapecrusher1]

Imagine the shock on those 'hijackers' faces when they've subdued the pilots and sat behind the yoke and it starts moving on its own right into New York air space. I wonder if the 'hijackers' were given a story about landing the planes at some airport - maybe it was set up as a simple hijack for them, and not a suicide mission as it became?

I imagine the shock was equally shared with the patsy/hijacker, passengers, and pilots as they smashed into one of the towers.   Really the only requirement was to have some of these so called hijackers on the plane, it is quite likely they thought they were just heading to another whoring coke session.  I picture the remote controlled scenario taking over from the competent pilots -- too many unknown factors depending on these patsy jokers to accomplish anything. 

[Dig]

My point appears to be lost on you two. You ignore the notion that someone can be investigating No-planes without being involved with the CIA, in favor of poopooing the theory itself. So be it. No-planers are CIA... yup, it's settled.

Let me make this as clear as possible.

No planes is not a plausible theory. Especially on this forum. It is an attack on victims families of 9/11 and on the entire truth movement. Repeatedly pushing no planes theory will get you banned from this forum. I hope that clears everything up for everyone.

[Mike Philbin]

I imagine the shock was equally shared with the patsy/hijacker, passengers, and pilots as they smashed into one of the towers.   Really the only requirement was to have some of these so called hijackers on the plane, it is quite likely they thought they were just heading to another whoring coke session.  I picture the remote controlled scenario taking over from the competent pilots -- too many unknown factors depending on these patsy jokers to accomplish anything. 

And any transmission from the panicking pilots can 'PROBABLY' be scenario'd from Ptech's memory of their voices? Or no black box data recorders made it through the destruction of WTC 1 or WTC 2

forgive my wild fantasies.

[grapecrusher1]

forgive my wild fantasies.

Not nearly as imaginative as no-planes -- haha