Merged The NPT (no planes theory) Discussed / Septemberclues

[angrysoba]

...And why do you forget that the FBI released photographs of the 19 skyjackers they named? Oh, right, by ignoring that fact you get to sound credible when you claim mistake, right? What does OBL do when he praises as one of his selected few, a skyjacker who wasn't a skyjacker and was never on his crew? Since when did OBL rely on the FBI/CIA for his terrorist planning information? Oh well, the CIA has already said that "the translations weren't literal", another way of saying "we lied". They do that a lot, funny most people never seem to notice which stories the CIA and the FBI and the NTSB have retracted, repudiated, denied, fudged, compromised, hedged, hemed, hawed and generally screwed up.

Who did Osama bin Laden name as one of the hijackers who turned out to be alive? Where's your source for this?

 

[Furcifer]

Who did Osama bin Laden name as one of the hijackers who turned out to be alive? Where's your source for this?

mohamed

 

[Furcifer]

In any event, why does any of this matter? The supposed Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists, did not have the skills to fly these aircraft, less, in the manner they were shown to have flown. So either way you're working with a set of impossible circumstances and accepting a very improbable result.

What's even worse is that the NPT predicts that there will be NO authentic film of any planes hitting the towers, because, if that were true, it would preclude the existence of fake videos of same. These fake videos take quite some effort to create, and are even more harrowing to make under a deadline, where they have to be played on network news in just an hour or two.

Why such tight time constraints? Well, consider, WTC 1 has been hit and the smoke is already drifting. To "authenticate" the effort you have to display 18 minutes later, if you are to pass it off as "Live", needs to have up to date background in it. Not only can you not guess or approximate what the background will look like, it takes way too much, needless effort, to try to duplicate it falsely. Thus, you're fake creation needs to incorporate elements that won't be available until after the first tower is struck. From there you have 18 minutes to concoct your "live" video. Hardly a wonder they got so many things wrong.

Dude, you're trolling the wrong forum. Nobody believes you, nobody even believes you believe this. This is the conspiracy equivalent of Shock and Awe. This troll's been done, and done better.
But as I say, please continue.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

In total to date, 9 of the 19 named and pictured skyjackers were alive after the attacks and one had died a year earlier than the attacks.

No they weren't. Slamming into a steel or concrete structure or the ground at 500+ miles per hour is 100% fatal in all cases. All of the hijackers died on impact.

To suggest any of them lived is stupid and insane.

 

[Bell]

 

[Oystein]

...Anyone who knows otherwise is simply sworn to secrecy in the interest of national security and advised of the penalties that append thereto. Few, if any, professionals are going to be inclined to take the gov't to task, knowing how easily their own credentials could be called into question. ...

How silly! How utterly unable you are to understand the way that people work, tick, think and communictate in the real world!

Tens of thousands sworn into secrecy after the fact? How are you even going to find them all?


Example: Catering.

There is a catering company at Boston Logan Airport that delivers carts full of food trays and drinks to all flights of American Airlines.

Catering is basically a logistics operation. You purchase food items, deliver them to airports on time, prepare them for flights (e.g.: caterer gets number of tickets sold per class, plus special orders from passengers with special dietary needs. Maybe the hijackers even ordered in-flight meals that are halal? This info is used to determine how many roasted chickens with paste and how many pork chops with wedges they need to deliver to a specific flight), put them in carts, boxes and trays that are compatible with the plane's kitchen setup. Some passenger, like in first class, get their meals on porcelain plates and eat them with metal knife and fork. After arrival, carts, boxes and trays are collected, cleaned, and reused for another flight. Every single flight leaves a trail of electronic and paper records at the catering company. In particular, they know how many pieces of carts, boxes, trays, porcelain plates and metal cutlery they put on a flight.

Conversely, if they did not deliver anything to a flight, this will be apparent from the lack of such records and the fact that all carts, boxes, trays, porcelain plates and metal cutlery are still accounted for elsewhere.

Now, when news broke that an AA plane crashed, some people at the catering company must have realised immediately that they might have lost some carts, boxes, trays, porcelain plates and metal cutlery that were already scheduled to go on other flights from LAX later that day. So somebody checked the systems to find out how many.

Suppose there was no plane, no flight. Do you think by the time the catering company found out that they had not serviced flight AA11, everybody there was already sworn in? What is the risk that someone there will write an email home, or to all his friends, writing "we are all abuzz here at ACME catering co. about the crash of AA11, but the funny thing is: We did not service that flight! That is sooo strange..."?




Similar scenarios would happen at the hangar where the plane mechanics hang out.
Similar scenarios would happen at several insurance companies.
Similar scenarios would happen at the AA office that schedules flight crews and cabon crews.
Similar scenarios would happen at FAA
Similar scenarios would happen at both the departure and arrival airports.
etc.
etc.



Within 2.5 hours of the first crash, American Airlines announced that it had lost flights 11 and 77:
http://www.historycommons.org/timel...te_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=aa11&startpos=100

(11:18 a.m.) September 11, 2001: American Airlines Publicly Announces Loss of Flights 11 and 77
Edit event

American Airlines issues a statement confirming that it has lost two of its aircraft in “tragic incidents this morning.” The statement identifies the aircraft as “Flight 11, a Boeing 767 en route from Boston to Los Angeles,” and “Flight 77, a Boeing 757 operating from Washington Dulles to Los Angeles.”

We may safely assume that this info was on the air shortly thereafter; that many many employees of every company involved with operation commercial flights were glued to the TV screens; that news of the loss of specific flights was rapidly spread via email, phone and personal chat throughout all of these companies; that everybody in these companies who had any access whatsoever to the operational details of flight service checked these immediately; that rumours would have spread like wildfire and persisted forever if theses searches had come up empty; that no secret government agency could have possibly silenced the thousands of people I am talking about here.

Had there been no planes, then at 12 noon on 9/11/2001 that rumour would have been out and unstoppable, just from the personal interest of thousands of involved professional alone.

 

[Oystein]

...From there you have 18 minutes to concoct your "live" video. Hardly a wonder they got so many things wrong.

Even when you have 9 years to concoct your silly CT, you get so many things wrong.

 

[dtugg]

I saw a plane fly into the WTC.

100% of no planers are mentally ill morons.

 

[Oystein]

That is beyond the scope of this exercise. This is to focus on; planes or no planes and the reasons why either is the more rational choice.

Somehow, when discussing "planes" or "no planes", a question dealing with "planes" would seem squarely within the scope of this exercise...

Many organisations and the people therein know the planes that American Airlines and United Airlines reported as "lost" and exactly. Boeing keeps track of every single of their planes that are still in active commercial service anywhere in the world. If AA/UA announced the loss of a plane that Boeing does not track, that would ring an alarm there. If AA/UA announced the loss of a plane that Boeing does track, then your theory must explain where that plane is. If it is still in service, that would ring a bell at Boeing. If it is not, then it either hidden somewhere, or has been wrecked. Both propositions would involve yet more people who are very much in the know - people who know they participated in mass murder.

Here again is a complete enumeration of all the possibilities:

1. Plane - you're wrong
2. No plane
2.1 Tracked by Boeing
2.1.1 Still in service after 9/11 - raises an alarm
2.1.2 Not in service anymore
2.1.2.1 Plane still exists - must be hidden somewhere. Planes are big and hard to hide without raising suspicion
2.1.2.2 Plane has been wrecke - wrecking a plane takes a lot of work, i.o.w. people who know what they did.
2.2 Not tracked by Boeing - raises an alarm

I hope you realize that every possibility poses a problem for your theory.

 

[TruthersLie]

Okay, here's where you can start your reading:

Go to google and enter "911 skyjackers found alive", then select whatever
news sources you believe to be credible and read.

You may want to use those google fu skills and learn how to read.

http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

Try again. Read for comprehension.

In total to date, 9 of the 19 named and pictured skyjackers were alive after the attacks and one had died a year earlier than the attacks. Leaving only 9 skyjackers to populate 4 planes and manage to somehow gain control of the aircraft, 4 out of 4 times, without the pilots issuing a warning code.

So solly cholly.

You really should read for comprehension. There was a misidentification EARLY in the process. Please find ANY documents after October 1st, 2001 which state any hijackers were still alive.

It should be easy to do.

 

[TruthersLie]

In any event, why does any of this matter? The supposed Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists, did not have the skills to fly these aircraft, less, in the manner they were shown to have flown. So either way you're working with a set of impossible circumstances and accepting a very improbable result.

I love this shift.

Now it is
"hey it doesn't matter that I have no research skills and all 19 hijackers were fully identified, and there was a retraction. It doesn't matter that I"m wrong ABOUT THIS... look at THIS OVER HERE..."

Nice shift.

But since we know the hijackers were fully accounted for, now you shift to the debunked
"they couldn't have flown those maneuvers"

PROVE IT.

 

[McHrozni]

Okay, here's where you can start your reading:

Go to google and enter "911 skyjackers found alive", then select whatever
news sources you believe to be credible and read.

Do you consider BBC credible?
If so you might want to read this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html

If not, please find a source that doesn't use the BBC story as an original source.

McHrozni

 

[LashL]

The NPT (no planes theory)Discussed. Disgust.

Fixed that for you.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Mmmm, okay.....

The most interesting thing about the NPT is that, since you cannot prove a negative, it's proof lay only in it's ability to explain the collection of 9-11 events, better than any other theory.

That's tough, since the so called Official Conspirace Theory is by far the simplest and most plausible explanation in existence.

It's tricky business, made even trickier, because all it would take to disprove it entirely, is hard evidence that planes actually hit the towers.

You mean like numerous eyes withnesses, video footage, aircraft parts, body parts, etc?

I came up with the NPT quite a while back. I began to consider it as a possibility, not because of the videos of the aircraft,

How anyone can come up with a no plane theory because of the videos is beyond me. You must mean in spite of the videos, right?

as much as because of the behavior of the so called skyjackers, their exhibited lack of skills and training,

You mean as in them all being certified pilots? Those doing the piloting, that is, the others had other tasks.

and finally because their ranks had been thinned by the discovery that nine of them were still alive, had nothing to do with 9-11, and one of them has died a year before 9-11-2001.

Uhh, no. That was debunked ages ago.

So, with 4 planes to populate and only 9 skyjackers to do it, something seemed very wrong indeed with the official story.

No, something was wrong with the idea that there were only 9 skyjackers.

Yet, here we have a fatal conflict; either the "calls from the planes" are fake or American flight crews took over and engaged these attacks themselves. Obviously this forces the conclusion that the calls are fakes.

Only on the premise that there were no skyjackers. However, there were. They were identified, their remains were found.

To avoid getting caught, and to successfully blame the intended parties, you must avoid making any gross mistakes that cannot be corrected by a propaganda machine.

Gross mistakes like involving thousands of people, you mean?

Now, let's try to get a handle on the resources of these planners. For that we take a look at the rather chintzy resources made available to the fall guys, Mohammad Atta and friends.

Now you have a decision point: Do you trust the investigations of the money trail? You must if you use their findings as evidence. But the money trail proves that the hijackers were there. So do you reject the money trail and claim it's faked? Then you can't use it as an argument.

They like to drink, they like to gamble and they like stripper bars and clubs. But rather than being the free spending patsies you'd expect them to be, they're going to cheap joints and eating pizza.

So? Maybe they liked pizzas. Also, they needed not to attract attention to themselves. If they went around being big spenders (assuming they wanted to and could get the funds), then the FBI/CIA spotlight would be likely to find them.

Of course, it goes without saying that these guys do not exhibit the devoted mien of the Islamic fundamentalist they're supposed to be.

I think you are trying to point out that they didn't exacly live to the letter of their religion. However, most likely they expected that their martyrdom would earn them forgiveness for all that. I'm not sure about the general interpretation of Islamic scripture, but it appears that the version would be terrorists are going by is that if you die for the cause, you are guaranteed a free pass to paradise. So they might as well have a bit of forbidden fun first.

Okay, so now we're ready to examine the conditions surrounding the nature of the plans. Do we use planes or not? No, it doesn't make sense! We don't have the pilots to fly them, first off, and secondly: what if they miss?

Seems they decided to use planes, and they had pilots. Certified pilots trained in the United States. They were not the most skilled pilots in the world, but as any pilot can tell you, landing is the toughest part, and they planned on skipping that.

Here some will suggest that some sort of remote technology might be employed! Well, there's a few things that mitigate against it.

Yes, such as range, getting away with installing it, and precision.

Not the least of which is the incredible 510 knot speed of flight 11 and the 400 knot speed of flight 175. Both of these speeds are beyond the design capacity of these aircraft,

Not at all, those are cruise speeds. The problem was that the altitude was too low for the speed.

which simply means, neither of these aircraft could function as they should during these times when design specs are exceeded. The wings flutter, the control surfaces lose their "laminar air flow", they stall, and generally there is no control of the aircraft possible.

No, no, not at all. You obviously have very limited knowledge of aircraft and flying. You can get those effects, but this happens at higher speeds. As long as you are subsonic nothing of the kind happens (and the planes were subsonic).

What might happen would be undue stress of the airframe and control surface, leading to potential later failures, but that was not of any concern, in the case.

Yet, the video shows, that while these craft have no operating control surfaces, they engage quite precision maneuvers. Maneuvers that should be impossible at those speeds, even for a robotic device.

Wrong again, not only were the maneuvers quite possible, they were not even very advanced. In fact they were rather clumsy:

First WTC plane came in straight and level. No great feat, except good aiming. A bit higher than planned, probably.

Second WTC plane came in in a curve, so the aim was much poorer, but the altitude was good. A little more to starboard, however, and the fuselage could have missed the building. Not very perfect.

The Pentagon plane almost overflew the target and had to circle back to burn off altitude, then ended so low that it came very near to crashing in front of the building. Not very impressing.

And, obviously, the last plane didn't hit its target. It dind't even hit anything qualified as a secondary target; it crashed in an open area with no damage to ground targets to speak of. Fail.

Another thing is that these real planes would be "seen" by NORAD, CENTCOM and a whole host of other radar tracking stations that litter the northeast. It's hard to predict how any "stand down" order will actually perform with so many stations looking on JFK and NWK for example.

And indeed they were tracked.

To kill the passengers, to ensure success, all you need to do is depressurize the aircraft at or above 30,000 ft. But, if you do that, you must be absolutely certain that the evidence of that is destroyed completely. No only does a crash into the towers not do that, but worse yet is the fact that the greater NY airspace is literally crawling with private aircraft and helicopter etc., any one of which can collide with your wayward jet and leave a rather terrible evidence trail behind.

This makes no sense at all. Why couldn't depressurizing be part of the narrative, if need be. BTW, if you had ever been on a plane, you would have noticed that they have oxygen masks for such an event.

Imagine if neither plane hit either tower! Do you think they could simply take them down and go on with the show? How? If the planes don't hit they've lost their Islamic fundie skyjackers, if the towers come down then, someone else has to be the blame. The old "van full of explosives in the basement garage" just won't do it this time around.

Circular argumentation: You say that if the event was faked, it had to be faked.

However, if there were real hijackers, there was no problem. Even if they missed (as one plane did).

So, if this is true and no planes were used, then all of the videos have to be fake.

And that is a very tall order. A dozen international news networks broadcasting directly and who knows how many private persons filming. Not to mention all the eye withnesses.

Since we already know that the calls from the planes were fake,

False. We don't know that.

we have a very good bet going that all of the videos will be fake as well.

However, the premise was false. Plus, faking all that footage is MUCH harder than faking a few calls.

Like I said, you don't fake things when you have the real McCoy in hand.
Inversely, when you don't have anything real to show, then all you have is fake.

Seems you are in the process of living out the bolded part.

I'll be waiting to see those real videos of the real planes. I can't see them being forth coming because, all the ones they showed the public on 9-11 tv were fakes.

How do you come to that conclusion?

Yes, and I know that there were "eyewitnesses" who say they saw what the cameras couldn't film. Which would you believe?

I can believe both since they are in accordance.

Hans

 

[T.A.M.]

Please tell me the "hijackers are still alive" canard is not being brought out AGAIN?

TAM

 

[triforcharity]

In any event, why does any of this matter? The supposed Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists, did not have the skills to fly these aircraft, less, in the manner they were shown to have flown. So either way you're working with a set of impossible circumstances and accepting a very improbable result.

What's even worse is that the NPT predicts that there will be NO authentic film of any planes hitting the towers, because, if that were true, it would preclude the existence of fake videos of same. These fake videos take quite some effort to create, and are even more harrowing to make under a deadline, where they have to be played on network news in just an hour or two.

Why such tight time constraints? Well, consider, WTC 1 has been hit and the smoke is already drifting. To "authenticate" the effort you have to display 18 minutes later, if you are to pass it off as "Live", needs to have up to date background in it. Not only can you not guess or approximate what the background will look like, it takes way too much, needless effort, to try to duplicate it falsely. Thus, you're fake creation needs to incorporate elements that won't be available until after the first tower is struck. From there you have 18 minutes to concoct your "live" video. Hardly a wonder they got so many things wrong.

The Hijackers were licensed pilots.

Evidence that they were faked?

Lastly, explain the hundreds of amatuer video of the impacts, and the THOUSANDS of eyewitnesses (including MYSELF) who say the airliner hit the Tower.

I'll wait.

 

[triforcharity]

. What does OBL do when he praises as one of his selected few, a skyjacker who wasn't a skyjacker and was never on his crew? Since when did OBL rely on the FBI/CIA for his terrorist planning information? Oh well, the CIA has already said that "the translations weren't literal", another way of saying "we lied". They do that a lot, funny most people never seem to notice which stories the CIA and the FBI and the NTSB have retracted, repudiated, denied, fudged, compromised, hedged, hemed, hawed and generally screwed up.

I don't suppose that you will be providing any....I dunno, EVIDENCE of this bull will you?

 

[Obwon]

An essential part of the NPT are those claims that the planes vaporized on impact. Well, suffice it to say that for the planes to have experienced significant vaporization under ideal conditions, they'd have to have flown at mach 15 +. At 500 mph, the energy of impact is barely sufficient to raise the temperature of the metal 56 degrees f. So, we either need a new reason why there was no recoverable debris, or we must assume -- because 100 ton planes cannot simply vanish into thin air -- no planes actually crashed where no debris is present or seen.

 

[Bell]

 

[triforcharity]

An essential part of the NPT are those claims that the planes vaporized on impact. Well, suffice it to say that for the planes to have experienced significant vaporization under ideal conditions, they'd have to have flown at mach 15 +. At 500 mph, the energy of impact is barely sufficient to raise the temperature of the metal 56 degrees f. So, we either need a new reason why there was no recoverable debris, or we must assume -- because 100 ton planes cannot simply vanish into thin air -- no planes actually crashed where no debris is present or seen.

No recoverable debris where? Where do you GET this bull**** from?