Where are the planes?

G

Govert

Guest
Maybe someone else covered this topic already on this forum, I don't know. If the real boeing planes full with passengers did not hit the Pentagon and/or the wtc, where are those planes? It's my wild guess that the Philadelphia Experiment has something to do with it. What do you think?
 
Hi, it is our understanding that flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon but both flight 175 and flight 11 did indeed hit the WTC towers. As for the passengers of Flight 77, I suppose we can assume that they we done away with by the conspirators, however, it is the responsibility of the US government to answer that one, just as soon as they admit that it is impossible that their official claim that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon can be true.

Joe
 
I heard as well that flight 175 and flight 11 did not hit the wtc towers as some people saw that the windows were sealed and colours were different. I don't know of course if that's true. Still remains the question, where is it / are they? Has the Philadelphia Experiment something to do with it? Wild speculation of course.
 
Govert said:
Has the Philadelphia Experiment something to do with it? Wild speculation of course.
Click to expand...
Might be a wild stab in the dark, but how far does your 'knowledge' of the Philadelphia Experiment extend?

Govert said:
Maybe someone else covered this topic already on this forum, I don't know. If the real boeing planes full with passengers did not hit the Pentagon and/or the wtc, where are those planes? It's my wild guess that the Philadelphia Experiment has something to do with it. What do you think?
Click to expand...
 
Govert said:
Maybe someone else covered this topic already on this forum, I don't know. If the real boeing planes full with passengers did not hit the Pentagon and/or the wtc, where are those planes? It's my wild guess that the Philadelphia Experiment has something to do with it. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Digg a hole deep and wide enough and you can fit a plane in it. The fact that it is possible doesn't mean that it likely happened.
I have to concur with the other poster and ask what is your knowledge to come to such a conclusion.
 
Govert wrote:
I heard as well that flight 175 and flight 11 did not hit the wtc towers


Art wrote:
And why you belive what you hear?


* If you read again, you will see the sentence after this statement:

I heard as well that flight 175 and flight 11 did not hit the wtc towers as some people saw that the windows were sealed and colours were different. I don't know of course if that's true.
 
Govert wrote:
Has the Philadelphia Experiment something to do with it? Wild speculation of course.

Paulnotbilly wrote:

Might be a wild stab in the dark, but how far does your 'knowledge' of the Philadelphia Experiment extend?


* 'knowledge' is of course very limited.
 
domivr wrote

The fact that it is possible doesn't mean that it likely happened.
I have to concur with the other poster and ask what is your knowledge to come to such a conclusion.


* not so much, that's why I wrote: 'Wild speculation of course.'
 
Govert, here we stress doing your own research and coming to conclusions based upon evidence. Wild speculation, hearsay, and "limited knowledge" are things we strive to eliminate.

As such, i would reccomend you read more about the philadelphia experiment, if you do a site search there's ample amounts available.

I happen to be a fan of Occum's Razor, in order to hide the plane(s) that were supposedly destroyed all you need to do is strip them down and build them back up again. Change serial numbers/ID #s, and put them back into service. This would be easier then displacing them into another dimension and/or burying them.
 
Govert said:
I heard as well that flight 175 and flight 11 did not hit the wtc towers as some people saw that the windows were sealed and colours were different. I don't know of course if that's true.
Click to expand...
Do you think it is likely to be true?
 
Cyre2067 said:
I happen to be a fan of Occum's Razor, in order to hide the plane(s) that were supposedly destroyed all you need to do is strip them down and build them back up again. Change serial numbers/ID #s, and put them back into service. This would be easier then displacing them into another dimension and/or burying them.
Click to expand...
You could only do this with Flight 77 (assuming that none of the other planes were 'disappeared', disassembled and had something other than themselves flying, or crashing into things).

I do agree that this would be the simplest way to hid a plane (in plain sight). There would be some sort of a trail though. People had to do the disassembling and renumbering. But, it the PTB were really paranoid, they'd completely destroy as much of the evidence as they could, including witnesses.
 
The origin of doubts over whether or not Flight 11 and 175 hit the WTC is found in the report by Fox News correspondent Mark Burnback on the morning of 9/11 where he stated on air that ""It definitely didn't look like a commercial plane" "had no windows" and that it "had a blue logo" etc. You can view the report here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP-oIHeYJrY

We have a sneaky suspicion that Mr Burnback, who has since disappeared from the radar (unless someone can dig him up) is a CIA asset planted at the scene to sow disinfo right from the get-go.

There was also a recent new 911 video released by a couple who lived in an apartment 500m from the WTC complex who filmed much of the event and the aftermath. In that video the woman exclaims that the plane looked like a military plane. (can't find link at the moment, they posted it on some video sharing site)

Other theories about the WTC planes include the theory that the planes were in fact the product of "TV fakery" of some description and are propogated by people like Nico Haupt, Gerald Holmgren and "the web fairy" aka Rosalee Grable. Given the video evidence and many eyewitnesses who all saw two planes hitting the WTC, we can only conclude that these "three amigos" are either conscious agents of the 9/11 disinfo campaign, or they are incredibly stupid.

Joe
 
The WTC no-planers never credibly address the fact that eyewitnesses SAW the plane hit the south tower LIVE, with their eyeballs, in REAL time. Not on a TV screen. They saw what they saw with their EYES as it happened.

When asked about this, a typical no-planer response is, "There were no witnesses. These were paid actors."

No witnesses? How do they qualify this response? Answer: They do NOT. The no-planer proponents do not "believe" ANYBODY actually saw a plane, they sneer at the notion of "eyewitness testimonies", including those of first responders, etc.. so, according to their "logic", anyone who claims to have SEEN the south tower being hit by an airplane is LYING and/or being paid to lie.

I am from NYC. I have NEVER seen a Manhattan street on a weekday morning devoid of PEOPLE.
And by the time the south tower was impacted, there would have been even MORE people on the street, in office buildings, across the river, etc... with their eyeballs intently fixed on the WTC towers.

The purpose of the WTC no-planer garbage is to divert attention AWAY from what is important. It is to distract and muddy the waters, and to confuse people.
In these things, the no-planers have been increasingly successful.
Lots of people are confused, diverted and distracted.
The water is MUDDY.
Thus, they have accomplished the exact same thing the mainstream media does all the time.
They don't have to PROVE a point, they just have to muddy the issue.
This is construed as a success.
It's a mainstream media tactic used quite often in their stupid "controlled debates and discussions".

This is my take on it. I refuse to give legs to a hoax.
All this WTC no-planer crap does is lump us all together as nutjobs.
I got a birdseye view of the kind of public reaction one well-known no-planer's schtick had on a mainstream person while at Ground Zero.
The mainstream person was WOR AM 710 Talk Radio show host, Lionel.
Nico Haupt came up to us at Ground Zero and pointed to his T-shirt, saying that "no planes hit the WTC towers".
He didn't qualify that statement - and Lionel is very open to 9-11 information - Nico just said it and stood there, adding that "the world is not ready for the truth".

That night, Lionel, apparently unimpressed with Nico's "theory", went on his show and mocked this "theory" multiple times. Why? Because it is INSANE.


Lisa
 
Another thing: ask yourselves WHY it is so god-awful important that these no-planers continue to hammer this garbage into the heads of 9-11 truthers? Why is it so vitally important to them that they go on mainstream and alternative media programs to get people to focus on this "theory"?
Look at how they bait others into debating and arguing and questioning it endlessly?
Once they get you on their "hook", they try to keep you there.
Instead of making simple, concise, straightforward points to get others to "get" what they're saying, they offer convoluted crapola instead.
Seems to me that they rather enjoy baiting people to engage them, just to keep everybody on the little hell-go-round ride, spinning and spinning....and as we've seen, they become quite vicious in their arguments and flames, too.
This is how they distract and divert. Just keep everybody confused, distracted and fighting over it.
While we're at it, maybe we should go back to arguing about whether the earth is flat or if it's round....

What purpose, other than what I have laid out above, does it serve?
Is it likely to be comprehended and accepted by a mainstream listening audience?
Is this a CRUX issue of 9-11?
Hardly - and they know all this damn well.

Isn't it more effective to push forth the things we can get people to understand? The things we can show and qualify? The things that make SENSE?
The issues we can ARGUE and debate and qualify and navigate and prove successfully, without abracadabra or conspiracy hooey?
Why do we need more tail-chasing? Aren't we all dizzy enough after 5 years of THAT?

What is in it for THEM? Why is it so ultra-important that they keep us focused on the unconvincing TV fakery theory?

Do they expect the mainstream public to swallow that there were NO witnesses to plane impacts at the WTC towers?

I once asked Webster Tarpley about this little matter of eyewitnesses to the WTC south tower impact, just to see what he would say.
His response was to SNEER at me, and in a nasty tone of voice, ask me a question in response.
His question was, "What eyewitnesses???? What eyewitnesses????"

Okaaaayyy...the implication there being that there were NO people who saw anything remotely resembling a plane hit the WTC towers....

And this is how they typically respond.
Morgan Reynolds has been known to concur that the plane impact "eyewitnesses" are simply "paid actors" and he doesn't "believe" there were real eyewitnesses.

Uh huh. Is this what we're going to go on?
Is pursuit of this line of "theory" going to give us more credibility with the people we're trying to reach or less?

Do you think it serves to make us all look like we're....missing a few brain cells, like we're banana-cuckoo, like we wear tin foil kaiser caps?

And, perhaps most importantly - is this the true purpose of the WTC no-plane theory?
To totally discredit those who sign on board and promote it...

So, I guess one needs to ask themself:
Do we really want to be lumped in with these people and their uhh, "theory"?

Lisa
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom