Pages: (2) [1] 2  ( Go to first unread post )

 What's A "no-planer"?
 
What do you think the definition of no-planes means?
Blue Screen Technology [ 23 ]  [88.46%]
Drones [ 2 ]  [7.69%]
Both [ 1 ]  [3.85%]
Total Votes: 26
Guests cannot vote 
BoneZ
Posted on Aug 17 2006, 10:26 PM


Truth Seeker and Researcher
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 732
Member No.: 991
Joined: 2-April 06



Does it mean no actual planes hit the towers as in blue-screen technology?

Does it mean planes actually did hit the towers, but they were drones?

Does it mean both?

In simple english, you cannot say no-plane means a plane hit the tower, drone or passenger filled. No-plane means "no plane hit the towers", period. No plane doesn't mean, "no planes hit the tower except for a drone plane".

Say it to yourself guys and see if it makes sense:

No planes hit the towers, but drone planes did hit the towers.

Well which is it? EITHER no planes hit the towers, or drone planes hit the towers. The word "no" can't also mean "yes" at the same time. It's simple english. In other words, "no planes hit the towers" cannot mean "yes drone planes hit the towers". A plane is still a plane whether it's a drone or not. I don't know how much more clearer i can make it.

I'd also like to hear your comments about people who try to say that you're a no-planer even though you think drone planes actually did hit the towers. Are these people shills and disinfo agents trying to spread the no-plane theory over to drone planes to make the truth movement look bad? Next these shills will make you a no-planer if a passenger filled jet hit the towers! Crylol.gif

In my opinion, i believe drones may have hit the towers, but i'll be damned if i'm called a no-planer for believing planes hit the towers and i don't care of those planes are drones or not, THEY'RE STILL PLANES! K, done ranting.... cheers.gif
Top
broodlinger
Posted on Aug 18 2006, 04:31 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,071
Member No.: 2,007
Joined: 13-May 06



>No planes hit the towers, but drone planes did hit the towers. Well which is it?

Thank you. I'm tired of being called a no-planer because I believe in drones.

>In my opinion, i believe drones may have hit the towers

Good, because that's what happened! smile.gif


Top
BoneZ
Posted on Aug 18 2006, 04:11 PM


Truth Seeker and Researcher
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 732
Member No.: 991
Joined: 2-April 06



QUOTE (broodlinger @ Aug 18 2006, 12:31 AM)
Thank you. I'm tired of being called a no-planer because I believe in drones.

Whoever made up the idea that no-planes means drone planes hit the towers probably doesn't even have a basic education, let alone a simple understanding of the english language. I think this or those people are government shills and trying to spread the no-planes bs into drones to further hurt the truth movement. Even though drones can be actual planes that actually did hit the towers. cheers.gif
Top
TheQuest
Posted on Aug 18 2006, 06:01 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 3,644
Member No.: 10
Joined: 10-February 06



BoneZ,

"Noplaners" was the original label for those that believed that "no plane of any type hit the 2nd tower". However, there are many like myself that believe a plane of some type hit the 2nd tower but the mainstream media was given fake/doctored videos and photographs to be aired in order to hide the identity of the plane that actually hit the tower. Over time, some truthers that did not want others to question the authenticity and thereby veracity of the 2nd tower strike visual evidence were grouped in together with "noplaners" without fully inderstanding our position. Officially, I would call myself a subcriber to the "a plane of some type hit the 2nd tower but the mainstream media was given fake/doctored videos and photographs to be aired in order to hide the identity of the plane that actually hit the tower" theory.

salute.gif
Top
bingo
Posted on Aug 18 2006, 07:46 PM


Advanced Member
Group Icon

Group: Debate
Posts: 469
Member No.: 1,039
Joined: 5-April 06



The short answer to this is: "A no-planer is somebody who doesn't agree with the pod theory."

NPT is a pejorative label devised by people with a specific agenda. I don't know of anybody who claims that no objects at all hit the towers.

In the early days of the truth movement, some people conjectured that holograms were responsible for the images of airplanes. This was debunked and few if any believe this anymore. By 2004 at the latest, video fakery had become the predominant theory for this group. But still we have 'no-planers' lumped in with holograms, UFOs and the Lizard People.

There are hundreds of objects developed by the military, which are programmable or able to be operated by remote control. Some look like airplanes, some look like missiles, others like helicopters. But, according to a small but very loud minority, it is the height of insanity to think that something like this hit the tower.

I had come out a few months ago with the idea that missiles hit the towers. A missile is not an airplane. Therefore I was a 'no-planer.'

I still think missiles were fired, but now I think a specific type of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) hit the towers. Of course, I am STILL a 'no-planer' because I think the videos are fake.
Top
TheQuest
Posted on Aug 18 2006, 08:05 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 3,644
Member No.: 10
Joined: 10-February 06



QUOTE
The short answer to this is: "A no-planer is somebody who doesn't agree with the pod theory."

NPT is a pejorative label devised by people with a specific agenda. I don't know of anybody who claims that no objects at all hit the towers.

In the early days of the truth movement, some people conjectured that holograms were responsible for the images of airplanes. This was debunked and few if any believe this anymore. By 2004 at the latest, video fakery had become the predominant theory for this group. But still we have 'no-planers' lumped in with holograms, UFOs and the Lizard People.

There are hundreds of objects developed by the military, which are programmable or able to be operated by remote control. Some look like airplanes, some look like missiles, others like helicopters. But, according to a small but very loud minority, it is the height of insanity to think that something like this hit the tower.

I had come out a few months ago with the idea that missiles hit the towers. A missile is not an airplane. Therefore I was a 'no-planer.'

I still think missiles were fired, but now I think a specific type of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) hit the towers. Of course, I am STILL a 'no-planer' because I think the videos are fake.


cheers.gif
Top
BoneZ
Posted on Aug 18 2006, 08:11 PM


Truth Seeker and Researcher
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 732
Member No.: 991
Joined: 2-April 06



The whole point of this poll is that a certain few people are trying to say that you are a no-planer if you believe a drone plane hit the towers. No-planer means no planes hit the towers. A drone plane is still a plane and you can't be a no-planer if you believe a plane hit the towers, drone or passenger laden.

cheers.gif
Top
TheQuest
Posted on Aug 18 2006, 09:04 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 3,644
Member No.: 10
Joined: 10-February 06



I hear you BoneZ,

But as Bingo so deftly pointed out, if you didn't belive in PODs and or POD missles based on MSM 'evidence' you were often categorised as a NPT'r by as a means of intimidating them into silence. It would seem now that the two sides are able to agree to disagree. cheers.gif
Top
Sun Zoo
Posted on Aug 18 2006, 11:38 PM


Unregistered









If it was a drone it was the same plane recorded hitting the building, a Boeing 767, so there's goes that position, that a no-planer is a drone-planer. And that drone was most likely, even most certainly, a Tanker Varient Boeing 767 military drone as evidenced by the planes proportions and extra equipment which is visible in a whole multitude of cameras and angles.
Top
broodlinger
Posted on Aug 19 2006, 12:52 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,071
Member No.: 2,007
Joined: 13-May 06



>a Tanker Varient Boeing 767 military drone as evidenced by the planes proportions and extra equipment which is visible in a whole multitude of cameras and angles.

Yeah, it's a tanker if you believe the videos. But that's all the evidence there is. There's no witnesses, no plane parts. At the very least, the giant nosecone that pierced the south tower should have shot out into the street. But if you watch the videos, the nosecone isn't even pictured in all of them. And the ones where it is pictured, it just disappears in the fireball.

Not to mention all the other video anomalies. Planes appearing in mid-air, different flight paths, changing colors, dropped cameras, well-timed zooms, blacked-out frames.

Read the comments down the right-hand side of Killtown's page.
Top
TheQuest
Posted on Aug 19 2006, 12:54 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 3,644
Member No.: 10
Joined: 10-February 06



Sunzoo,

It's all good. We were just explaining how the term evolved to it's present form.

We can agree to disagree on this. thumbsup.gif
Top
broodlinger
Posted on Aug 19 2006, 12:57 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,071
Member No.: 2,007
Joined: 13-May 06



NPT is a pejorative label devised by people with a specific agenda. I don't know of anybody who claims that no objects at all hit the towers.

Yes, that whole post is wonderfully put. Look at how Alex Jones is screaming about no-planers now.

I still think missiles were fired, but now I think a specific type of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) hit the towers. Of course, I am STILL a 'no-planer' because I think the videos are fake.

Nice to have you on-board, Bingo smile.gif I agree, there's evidence that a missile was fired into the north tower, in the shape of the gash, and in the bright flash that In Plane Sight harps on, which was edited-out in some versions of the Naudet tape that I've seen.

Top
TheQuest
Posted on Aug 19 2006, 04:27 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 3,644
Member No.: 10
Joined: 10-February 06



Broodlinger,

I think Alex Jones is more worried about NPT splitting the movement and he belives it's difficult to prove. Also, we already have a mountain of evidence available already, but I hear you, I do belive a missle hit along with a plane/drone of some type possibly. I woudn't mind researching this more AFTER the perps are caught.

The 2nd tower strike has always left me puzzeled.
Top
Sun Zoo
Posted on Aug 19 2006, 04:49 AM


Unregistered









rolleyes.gif
Top
broodlinger
Posted on Aug 19 2006, 05:02 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,071
Member No.: 2,007
Joined: 13-May 06



Well I haven't yet heard directly what AJ is saying about no planes, but if he thinks it's hard to prove that's damn suspicious. The missing plane at the Pentagon was the most solid evidence in Loose Change. Meanwhile, at the WTC, you have the same scenario: No plane parts, no witnesses.

The problem is that, like the moon landings, the plane images are so stuck in people's heads that it's hard to convince anyone. I think there's a big difference between that and proving it.


Article on why no planes is important. Specifically addresses this debate we're having.

Spook's reconstruction of the plane position using a flight simulator.


>The 2nd tower strike has always left me puzzeled.

Yeah, I've never analyzed the gash on the south tower because it's always partially obscured by smoke. The north tower gash I think is very revealing.
Top
Sun Zoo
Posted on Aug 19 2006, 06:35 AM


Unregistered









In case you didn't notice, the debate about it is over.

wave.gif
Top
broodlinger
Posted on Aug 19 2006, 07:00 AM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,071
Member No.: 2,007
Joined: 13-May 06



>In case you didn't notice, the debate about it is over.

Right, because Quest, Killtown, and Bingo agree with you. *cough* Who's on your side? DJLegacy and Alex Jones? 'Nuff said.

Edit: Actually, strike that. You should get banned, Sun Zoo. You're no different from countless other agitators who have been banned before you. You don't read, you don't argue, all you do is insult people.


This post has been edited by broodlinger on Aug 19 2006, 07:07 AM
Top
TheQuest
Posted on Aug 20 2006, 06:35 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 3,644
Member No.: 10
Joined: 10-February 06



Sunzoo,

Broodlinger is a good member and like yourself, adds a lot to our cause. Why not find a friendly way to move forward together?

Common guys. cheers.gif
Top
JackHorner
Posted on Aug 22 2006, 10:16 PM


Regular Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 243
Member No.: 4,193
Joined: 17-August 06



"Blue Screen Technology" lol do you even know how that works? This is how it works, and its the wrong term to use when talking about the fake plane theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluescreen

The correct term would be "compositing"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compositing

This whole no plane thing is just ridiculous as there would be no need to faking the planes. Why make the job harder for the conspirators? Why fake the planes when you can just let some terrorists attack us? Just letting it happen is alot harder to prove thats why, these people arenít stupid, they've gotten away with it this far. There is no way they could have put the planes into all the live footage, let alone the footage from some random guy with a home movie camera without getting caught. So the only real argument you guys have to fall back on is some mythical holographic projection technology. Itís just a big joke.
Top
Logic
Posted on Aug 23 2006, 01:00 AM


Advanced Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 390
Member No.: 2,862
Joined: 12-June 06



I'm not going to insult as I'm sure the "no plane" guys/gals get that enough, but I have to agree with the above poster that this theory is so over board it's almost shocking that some actually believe it. There is no way the perps of this crime would risk finding or riding on the luck that every single camera around the planet that captured the second plane hit, wouldn't have had a close up or clear view before impact. The WORLD was watching this and to risk inserting another plane in the place of the original or simply puting a plane in while thousands on the ground were watching it happen, my two friends were there and watched it go in, many watched this, many filmed this, many took pictures of this, and on and on. To think that the perps could take all this footage, all this raw footage, home video, news outlets, photographers and then replace the real plane or no plane at all, into the frame is impossible. It's impossiblel folks. It's not dooable, it's risky, it's not smart, it goes against what my two very close friends and thousands watched with their own eyes.

Then, to rely on a computer based software that is a flight simulator and ride your theory on the specs of the simulator, not realizing the % of scaling of the simulator could be off or is almost positively not scaled to real life, isn't very believable to me. And then to add that some video shows the winds fade out or tail sections defined better, not realizing that this plane was going fast and pixles of a camera or video/digital recorder can not pic up details at high speeds, should be obvious. Also some of the footage that is in question has been dubed, recorded again and again ,causing downgraded footage with re-use. Anyway, I know you guys mean well to some extent, because you're searching for the truth as well, but honestly it doesn't help and it will not help get the criminals to trial anytime soon. Nor will it help when presenting the case that 911 should be re-opened to the genral public. We need solid facts to present to the world, shakey evidence and ill-logical theories that are based on overused footage and simulators that are not scaled exactly to landscape is not what I can believe to be as reliable sources. Simulators are very close to real life, they pride themselves to a real life environment for the pilot in training, but until you can dig up the code they use and the programmers notes on how they come up with the scaling, it is not a solid source. Anyway, good luck guys, but just know it doesn't really help anyone by this round about discussion. Just think in terms of what you could present in a court of law and what would hold up with a judge and jourey. No ill will to any of you though, just take a step back and look at the big picture.
Top
scarecrow
Posted on Aug 23 2006, 06:34 AM


Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 49
Member No.: 131
Joined: 14-February 06



QUOTE (Sun Zoo @ Aug 18 2006, 11:38 PM)
If it was a drone it was the same plane recorded hitting the building, a Boeing 767, so there's goes that position, that a no-planer is a drone-planer. And that drone was most likely, even most certainly, a Tanker Varient Boeing 767 military drone as evidenced by the planes proportions and extra equipment which is visible in a whole multitude of cameras and angles.

Could the pod industry be any more blatant in spreading their disinfo?
Top
Sun Zoo
Posted on Aug 23 2006, 12:40 PM


Unregistered









No it's based on actual research, of what was recorded first hand in real time when it happened. The anomalies, including the flash should NOT be there, thus proving the plane was not the original flight 175 and therefore a drone aircraft. It's as simple as that.
Top
scarecrow
Posted on Aug 23 2006, 12:50 PM


Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 49
Member No.: 131
Joined: 14-February 06



QUOTE (Sun Zoo @ Aug 23 2006, 12:40 PM)
No it's based on actual research, of what was recorded first hand in real time when it happened. The anomalies, including the flash should NOT be there, thus proving the plane was not the original flight 175 and therefore a drone aircraft. It's as simple as that.

That footage is faker that Pamela Anderson's boobs. Stop spreading disinfo, you make other 'truthers' look canny stupid with claims a pregnant drone fired a missile upon penetration with the WTC, bwaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Top
Terrorcell
Posted on Aug 23 2006, 05:04 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 819
Member No.: 1,883
Joined: 9-May 06



No planer is no planer.


A drone PLANE is still a PLANE.


No plane = CGI @ wtc, faked video uploads. Missile only at Pentagon. Someone digging a hole and burying garbage in it in PA.
Top
BoneZ
Posted on Aug 23 2006, 09:01 PM


Truth Seeker and Researcher
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 732
Member No.: 991
Joined: 2-April 06



QUOTE (Terrorcell @ Aug 23 2006, 01:04 PM)
No planer is no planer.


A drone PLANE is still a PLANE.


No plane = CGI @ wtc, faked video uploads. Missile only at Pentagon. Someone digging a hole and burying garbage in it in PA.

Thank you Terrorcell. That was the whole point of this poll. To see what truthers and others think no-plane means. Rick Siegel of 9/11 Eyewitness is trying to pass no-planers off as people who also think that drones hit the towers. You can read his words at this thread:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...pic=10387&st=60

In no way, shape or form will a no-planer ever be associated with someone who believes drones hit the towers as drone planes are still planes. We need to make sure that the few people trying to say that drones are no-planes don't spread their disinfo as this will and does hurt the movement. cheers.gif
Top
Terrorcell
Posted on Aug 23 2006, 09:49 PM


Veteran
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 819
Member No.: 1,883
Joined: 9-May 06



QUOTE (BoneZ @ Aug 23 2006, 09:01 PM)
In no way, shape or form will a no-planer ever be associated with someone who believes drones hit the towers as drone planes are still planes. We need to make sure that the few people trying to say that drones are no-planes don't spread their disinfo as this will and does hurt the movement. cheers.gif

cheers.gif
Top
Sun Zoo
Posted on Aug 23 2006, 10:15 PM


Unregistered









QUOTE (BoneZ @ Aug 23 2006, 09:01 PM)
In no way, shape or form will a no-planer ever be associated with someone who believes drones hit the towers as drone planes are still planes. We need to make sure that the few people trying to say that drones are no-planes don't spread their disinfo as this will and does hurt the movement. cheers.gif

And not just that, but the very plane that WAS recorded, hitting the south tower on 9/11. A thing, unto itself.
Top
BoneZ
Posted on Aug 23 2006, 10:22 PM


Truth Seeker and Researcher
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 732
Member No.: 991
Joined: 2-April 06



QUOTE (Sun Zoo @ Aug 23 2006, 06:15 PM)
QUOTE (BoneZ @ Aug 23 2006, 09:01 PM)
In no way, shape or form will a no-planer ever be associated with someone who believes drones hit the towers as drone planes are still planes.  We need to make sure that the few people trying to say that drones are no-planes don't spread their disinfo as this will and does hurt the movement.  cheers.gif

And not just that, but the very plane that WAS recorded, hitting the south tower on 9/11. A thing, unto itself.

A "thing" and not a "no-thing". cheers.gif
Top
Sun Zoo
Posted on Aug 23 2006, 10:32 PM


Unregistered









And a thing is only a thing in and of itself, relative to what it is not, and thus the "no planer" is a no planer, even anti-plane, since it WAS a plane recorded hitting the building. Therefore, if they can PROVE what it, cough, "wasn't", then perhaps the "NPT" might have the power of persuation, even rational analysis! What I find sad is that they just didn't think it all the way through, and now, they see themselves as too far into it, to ever admit, even to themselves, that they were flat wrong about it .This all begins and ends with the physics, of a Boeing (I contend a hardened Boeing, if not 175 and a "drone"), penetrating the perimeter steel framework of the tower, yes all the way to the wing tips slicing or snapping the metal beams, which as I understand it, were, like the core columns, tapered somewhat thinner towards the top. That's what it boils down to for them "The BUTTERPLANE!" ohmy.gif

If it can be shown that they are wrong about that, and are making apriori assumptions about what is and what is not possible, then maybe, just maybe, they might begin to come around to reality itself, since what happened is what happened (plane, flying into building).
Top
BoneZ
Posted on Aug 27 2006, 12:00 PM


Truth Seeker and Researcher
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 732
Member No.: 991
Joined: 2-April 06



cheers.gif
Top
« Next Oldest | Alt. Theories: "How it was done" | Next Newest »

Topic OptionsPages: (2) [1] 2 



Hosted for free by InvisionFree* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.2832 seconds | Archive