Warring No planer factions- Shansksville and Pentagon no-planers vs WTC no planers

[Tinfoil Hater]

EVERY SINGLE Truther I have encountered was a 'No planer'. Most of them doubt a plane crashed in Shanksville, and scores of them doubt a plane hit the Pentagon. Some of them (but I suspect a small percentage) think no planes hit the WTC. This is the odd thing- I've heard Truthers denounce WTC no planers as being idiots on a disinformation campaign, yet turn around and claim no plane crashed in Shanksville. How is a Shanksville No Planer any less crazy than a WTC no-planer? Alex Jones has denounced WTC no planers- Yet I think he is a 'No planer' when it comes to the Shanksville crash site. It find it comical that the 'No planers' are arguing amongst themslves-insisting their no plane delusion is sound, but the other no planers must be crazy.

 

[1337m4n]

That is a good point. All sorts of dumb fantasies can "explain" what happened at WTC, but the only way to explain Shanksville and still have it be part of the conspiracy (because according to them every single thing that happened that day must be conspiracy) is to deny that any plane crashed. Even the smartest Truther we have (a phrase as meaningful as "best-smelling feces", but a superlative nonetheless)is a Shanksville no-planer. Why, because if there is a plane wreckage at Shanksville then they have no way to argue that there was a conspiracy. So they must pretend there wasn't. Even though this means implicating hundreds of people who weren't necessarily anything more than cleanup workers as liars.

 

[JackDaniels]

EVERY SINGLE Truther I have encountered was a 'No planer'. Most of them doubt a plane crashed in Shanksville, and scores of them doubt a plane hit the Pentagon. Some of them (but I suspect a small percentage) think no planes hit the WTC. This is the odd thing- I've heard Truthers denounce WTC no planers as being idiots on a disinformation campaign, yet turn around and claim no plane crashed in Shanksville. How is a Shanksville No Planer any less crazy than a WTC no-planer? ...

There is no video of jets crashing near Shanksville and into the Pentagon, while there's tons of it for jets crashing into the wtc's.

 

[Horatius]

"I contend that we are both no-planers. I just believe in two fewer planes than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible planes, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

 

[leftysergeant]

Narcissism.

It's all about me, you know.

I'm the one you need to come to to get the straight scoop. So come massage my ego with perfumed butter while I tell you about it. And ignore that other twit banging on about the passengers' revolt. Just a myth that Cheney and Rummy planted to convince us that we have the courage as a nation to wage and win a war.

Hey! You! Pay attention here. Forget that little twit Ace Bake. He hasn't got a clue.

 

[RedIbis]

There is no video of jets crashing near Shanksville and into the Pentagon, while there's tons of it for jets crashing into the wtc's.

You might have to repeat this a few times, they don't catch on that quickly, seeing as how obvious this should have been for them.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You might have to repeat this a few times, they don't catch on that quickly, seeing as how obvious this should have been for them.

Yes, it's a clear indication of how the people who don't believe planes crashed at the Pentagon or Shanksville have lives that are ruled by TV. If they didn't see it on video, in their world it didn't happen. The fact that they can't advance even a vaguely coherent account in which the planes didn't crash at Shanksville and the Pentagon - for example, their total inability to even suggest what might have happened to UA93 if it didn't crash at Shanksville - is too complicated for them to understand, so when anybody asks them questions about things like this they have to run away.

Dave

 

[WTC Dust]

You might have to repeat this a few times, they don't catch on that quickly, seeing as how obvious this should have been for them.

Yeah, but those videos didn't capture a plane CRASH at 9:03AM. It looked like a plane, but it didn't act like a plane when it "hit" the WTC. It glided really smoothly into the building from nose to tail, and then explosions happened.

Very strange.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Yes, it's a clear indication of how the people who don't believe planes crashed at the Pentagon or Shanksville have lives that are ruled by TV. If they didn't see it on video, in their world it didn't happen. The fact that they can't advance even a vaguely coherent account in which the planes didn't crash at Shanksville and the Pentagon - for example, their total inability to even suggest what might have happened to UA93 if it didn't crash at Shanksville - is too complicated for them to understand, so when anybody asks them questions about things like this they have to run away.

Dave

In such a world crashes like the Everglades flight in '95, the PSA 1771, the Iranian air disaster a couple years back, and the French airliner that crashed in the south atlantic, and the plane crash in Cuba just a few days ago never happened because the crashes were never video taped. It's a seriously twisted way of think about the world..

 

[Andy_Ross]

That's the question they always duck.

If the planes didn't crash what happened to them?

After that what happened to all the passengers and crew that were aboard?

Why stage a fake crash in a field? why not at another landmark?

If you want people to think an aircraft crashed intothe Pentagon and the aircraft that is supposed to have done it is missing along with all the crew and passengers, why not crash it into the Pentagon?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Yeah, but those videos didn't capture a plane CRASH at 9:03AM. It looked like a plane, but it didn't act like a plane when it "hit" the WTC. It glided really smoothly into the building from nose to tail, and then explosions happened.

Very strange.

You need to concentrate on your dust claims in the other thread. You are wasting time you could spend being productive at solidifying your dust claims when you post in threads covering topics that have already been beaten to death.

------

And to anyone else: Why do truthers not understand the concept of convergence of evidence? As has been pointed out before, the proof of the jets fate is established firmly by:

1. Victim testimonies via Airfone
2. Radar data
3. Electronic cockpit data for two of the flights
4. Eyewitness testimony to the crashes
5. First responder and site cleanup crews testimonies
6. Wreckage/debris recovery, which has been covered ad nauseum in other threads (yes, RedIbis has been shown them; no, he simply repeats his incredulity, as if they have any validity. For those unfamiliar with the Shanksville evidence, there is a collection of it including pictoral evidence here: http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page1)
7. Airlines' testimony about the missing jets
8. Air traffic control system recordings from that day between various locations and NEADS as individuals in the ATC system came to grips with the unfolding events of that day
9. Imagry and footage of the impacts shot by various entities, including news organizations, a documentary filmmaker, and various random individuals in the streets.

Because of the convergence of all these lines of evidence, there is zero doubt as to the origin and fate of the jetliners. Any doubt that exists is about details regarding what happened (example: Were pilots/crew executed on various flights, did the UA93 passengers successfully gain entry into the cockpit, etc.), not about the broad strokes of the event. Denial of that is denial of all the lines of evidence, and the only way to make an alternate narrative fly is to have it encompass all those lines of evidence. If alternate narratives do not, they fail due to their failure to reflect the established events of that day. Protestations to the contrary are irrelevant; only data matters. And as you can see in the post I quoted above, data is severely lacking in many of these conspiracy fantasy claims.

 

[Dave Rogers]

That's the question they always duck.

If the planes didn't crash what happened to them?

Yes, it's funny how some of them will even start posting about the same fantasies on a second thread to cover up for the fact that they won't address the question they've repeatedly been asked on the first one.

Dve

 

[WTC Dust]

You need to concentrate on your dust claims in the other thread. You are wasting time you could spend being productive at solidifying your dust claims when you post in threads covering topics that have already been beaten to death.

------

And to anyone else: Why do truthers not understand the concept of convergence of evidence? As has been pointed out before, the proof of the jets fate is established firmly by:

1. Victim testimonies via Airfone
2. Radar data
3. Electronic cockpit data for two of the flights
4. Eyewitness testimony to the crashes
5. First responder and site cleanup crews testimonies
6. Wreckage/debris recovery, which has been covered ad nauseum in other threads (yes, RedIbis has been shown them; no, he simply repeats his incredulity, as if they have any validity. For those unfamiliar with the Shanksville evidence, there is a collection of it including pictoral evidence here: http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page1)
7. Airlines' testimony about the missing jets
8. Air traffic control system recordings from that day between various locations and NEADS as individuals in the ATC system came to grips with the unfolding events of that day
9. Imagry and footage of the impacts shot by various entities, including news organizations, a documentary filmmaker, and various random individuals in the streets.

Because of the convergence of all these lines of evidence, there is zero doubt as to the origin and fate of the jetliners. Any doubt that exists is about details regarding what happened (example: Were pilots/crew executed on various flights, did the UA93 passengers successfully gain entry into the cockpit, etc.), not about the broad strokes of the event. Denial of that is denial of all the lines of evidence, and the only way to make an alternate narrative fly is to have it encompass all those lines of evidence. If alternate narratives do not, they fail due to their failure to reflect the established events of that day. Protestations to the contrary are irrelevant; only data matters. And as you can see in the post I quoted above, data is severely lacking in many of these conspiracy fantasy claims.

I'm guessing it's totally fine for you that they didn't produce any of the 4 planes.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

That you cannot present a single compelling reason to doubt that planes crashed is no body's problem but that of those who peddle it.

I'm not too big on the negativity of the OP but it's frankly true, there's no distinction between people who believe the planes at the WTC, Shanksville, or the Pentagon. Their belief in "no planes" is based solidly on the same crap; ignore the forensics and every single other piece of circumstantial evidence, or change your goal posts. Though some like to evade challenging questions more than anything which makes any form of "debate" impossible

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

EVERY SINGLE Truther I have encountered was a 'No planer'. Most of them doubt a plane crashed in Shanksville, and scores of them doubt a plane hit the Pentagon. Some of them (but I suspect a small percentage) think no planes hit the WTC. This is the odd thing- I've heard Truthers denounce WTC no planers as being idiots on a disinformation campaign, yet turn around and claim no plane crashed in Shanksville. How is a Shanksville No Planer any less crazy than a WTC no-planer? Alex Jones has denounced WTC no planers- Yet I think he is a 'No planer' when it comes to the Shanksville crash site. It find it comical that the 'No planers' are arguing amongst themslves-insisting their no plane delusion is sound, but the other no planers must be crazy.

Of course I heard Flight 93 fly over my house here in Johnstown, PA. Those loons are wrong about it not crashing near Shanksville. They know that they're wrong & won't admit to their own stupidity. Go figure!

 

[Andy_Ross]

I'm guessing it's totally fine for you that they didn't produce any of the 4 planes.

they were destroyed in crashes. wreckage was recovered. What were you expecting?

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Yeah, but those videos didn't capture a plane CRASH at 9:03AM. It looked like a plane, but it didn't act like a plane when it "hit" the WTC. It glided really smoothly into the building from nose to tail, and then explosions happened.

Very strange.

*sigh*..

yet another No-Planer who dismisses eye witness accounts with a wave of his arm...

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

I'm guessing it's totally fine for you that they didn't produce any of the 4 planes.

They recovered wreckage and body parts from all 4 planes. What more did you want?

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Yes, it's funny how some of them will even start posting about the same fantasies on a second thread to cover up for the fact that they won't address the question they've repeatedly been asked on the first one.

Dve

Trutherbots like Jammy like to claim they were holograms

 

[Dave Rogers]

Trutherbots like Jammy like to claim they were holograms

Well, at least they're consistently insane. The really inconsistent ones are the ones who claim that no airliner was found at the Shanksville crash site, but then won't answer the question: where did UA93 end up, if not at the Shanksville crash site?

Dave