A proposal - no more responses to 'No-Planers'

[Flatulo]

I suggest that anyone who is serious about debating the events of 9/11 and their underlying causes refrain from engaging in debate with any posters who espouse theories that no airplanes struck the WTC towers.

It has become clear to me over the past few days that responding to such posts is not particularly useful in any way, and that reasoned responses are not taken seriously. Much time has been spent by many posters who provide links to supporting data, only to have these responses mocked out of hand.

Flat

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Absolutely.

I'd propose you add nukes at Ground Zero to that list, as well as energy weapons.

It will be hard, though, to not response to the posters themselves, since they respond on a wider variety of issues than just these extremes. Just don't rise to the bait of these issues.

[Flatulo]

2. I meant to suggest ignoring the topics, not the posters themselves. Thanks. nt

[seatnineb]

3. Yeah...much easier to debate Jack Riddler on limited hangout topics instead n/t

[JackRiddler]

7. You're invited to have at it. n/t

[seatnineb]

14. I'll leave Bolo,Seagar,Azcat and co to kick your ass n/t

[JackRiddler]

53. Your allies in obfuscation, apparently. Thanks. nt

[seatnineb]

55. What took you so long to respond? n/t

[JackRiddler]

56. Ask whoever kicked this old thread nnnn/tttt

[AZCat]

8. It isn't much easier, actually.

More productive, but not easier (at least for me).

[AZCat]

4. Unfortunately it's not always obvious...

who is a "no-planer" and who isn't. Many times I've been exchanging posts with someone who I thought was rational but then later discovered they were a "no-planer" and that my posts had no real purpose.

[Flatulo]

9. I suggest we try to look at the post rather than the poster. The content should be obvious.

[AZCat]

10. Should be, but isn't always.

Especially with the frequently-used "Just Asking Questions" gambit.

[Sweet Pea]

5. I'm on board n/t

[greyl]

6. This may be your most intelligent post ever.

(which is saying quite a lot)

[SidDithers]

11. Sounds good to me...

discussions with no-planers aren't good for my blood pressure anyway.

Sid

[piobair]

26. I wonder

what this forum would be like if no one stepped up to challenge all of the insane ramblings of the ct crowd. We would be left with Nebulous' claim that steel beams burn like logs, thermite/thermate is needed to create 2000 degree temps and Neil Bush was in charge of WTC security. Without anyone stepping up to dispute these claims all you would have is the no planer/ space beam/ mini nuke crowd sitting around jerking each other off.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

12. Good proposal, and I am in agreement

[salvorhardin]

13. Sounds good to me

I agree with the others that it isn't always obvious one is engaged with a no-planer, but as soon as that becomes clear I can't see where any fruitful discussion can result.

[RedSock]

15. click the checked box

just click the little checked box at the end of any thread title and it'll go poof for you.

it really cleans up the place.

or put the poster on ignore.

it works wonders.

[freeze]

16. What's the logic of the no-plane theory?

Seems like using real plane via remote control would be much easier.

[AZCat]

17. You'd have to ask them.

The rest of us share your confusion.

[freeze]

18. Has any of them explained the logic behind it?

[AZCat]

19. Sort of...

There are lots of threads here and plenty of web pages out on the rest of the internet where they lay out their case for "no planes". The problem is that their "logic" isn't very logical.

You have questions about September 11th? Fine. Don't trust our government? Fine. But neither of these gives people the right to lie in order to bolster their pet theories.


Here are a few recent threads at DU about "no planes"

Real Plane or Video Fakery?
Poll: Real Planes or Video Fakery?
9-11 Illogical Logic
NOSED OUT - proof of TV Fakery (from Sept Clues)

[freeze]

20. They've been caught in a lie?

Juicy! Show me.


I really didn't see any logic explained in the links you posted although I wasn't about to go through all the posts in each one.

[AZCat]

21. Jeez, are you sure you want to go down this road?

It doesn't matter that they've been caught lying (to them, anyway), they will just ignore it or recycle the claims elsewhere. It's not really worth it to argue with them.

Several of the "no planer" web sites are not allowed to be linked to at DU (because they are hate sites) but here are two:
Ace Baker's page
Spooked's page

It shouldn't take you long to figure out the obvious flaws in their logic. They've both been told about these by many people but soldier on regardless.

[freeze]

22. You make it sound forbidden.

Where is the lie they've been caught in? I'd love to shove it in the faces next time I see on of their proponents start pushing it again.

Hate sites??? What do you mean?

I'm still want to read what their logic is.

[Flatulo]

23. I answered your question right here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=195410&mesg_id=195856

[freeze]

25. You don't understand

I want to know their logic of that theory. Why no-planes when using a real plane + remote control would be easier and cheaper?

[CGowen]

27. Some suggest it's deliberate to confuse things a la "cointelpro",

people from outside can point to those theories and dismiss the whole topic.

[Flatulo]

28. You don't understand.

Please read more carefully.

Most of us here do not understand the logic of the 'no-plane' theory either, so asking us repeatedly will not help you.

Feel free to start a new post asking 'no-planers' to explain their logic.

[Sweet Pea]

31. Ask them n/t

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

41. That is some specious reasoning that you have going on.

"Remote Control Theory" Costs per Airliner

Boeing 767-200ER $130 million
Remote Control System for Commericial Airliner $100 thousand
Training for Operator $20 housand

Total Cost $130+ million * 4 = $520+ million


"Video Fakery Theory" Costs for ALL Doctored Videos

High Performance Workstation $25 thousand
Video Editing Software $5 thousand
Training for Operator $5 thousand

Total Cost $35 thousand


This is just taking a few of the biggest expenses on both sides into consideration, this does not represent all of the costs for each theory.

Do you still want to try to argue that it would have been cheaper to use real planes?

[wildbilln864]

24. It was IMHO! nt

:hi:
Welcome to the dungeon BTW!

[Ghost in the Machine]

32. I can agree with the remote controlled planes theory, but will NEVER buy into

the no planes theory.... with the exception of the pentagon hit. I have my doubts about that one. Why won't they release the security camera tapes from the surrounding businesses?

As for the remote control of the planes, Auto pilots can be hacked and overridden... the hijackers could have been duped and double crossed. I've read somewhere (sorry, no link, don't remember where, but probably here since this is the only place I read about 9-11) that some of the hijackers were CIA assets. They could have been told they were helping test the security at airports and also helping out with the war games that were going on that day. If I remember correctly, one of those scenarios involved planes hitting the towers and the pentagon.

These are just thoughts in my mind, but I don't spend a lot of time dwelling on them.

[Lilith Velkor]

40. They won't release any tapes

because they want people to antagonize and alienate the residents of the DC area whose friends or family saw it. Divide, conquer, and prevent a real investigation, that's what it's all about.

[Echo In Light]

42. Agreed

Although I remember people being interviewed by mainline outlets that day saying the plane that hit the second tower was definitely not a commercial airliner.

[Diane_nyc]

50. Problems with the idea of remote-controlled planes (and faked phone calls)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=195747&mesg_id=195961">Ghost in the Machine wrote here:

32. I can agree with the remote controlled planes theory, but will NEVER buy into

the no planes theory.... with the exception of the pentagon hit. I have my doubts about that one. Why won't they release the security camera tapes from the surrounding businesses?

You might find the pages linked on the following blog post of mine interesting, if you haven't seen them already:

http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2007/10/04/pentagon-no-757-theories-debunkings-from-within-the-911-truth-movement/">Pentagon no-757 theories: debunkings from within the 9/11 Truth movement

As for the remote control of the planes, Auto pilots can be hacked and overridden... the hijackers could have been duped and double crossed. I've read somewhere (sorry, no link, don't remember where, but probably here since this is the only place I read about 9-11) that some of the hijackers were CIA assets. They could have been told they were helping test the security at airports and also helping out with the war games that were going on that day. If I remember correctly, one of those scenarios involved planes hitting the towers and the pentagon.

These are just thoughts in my mind, but I don't spend a lot of time dwelling on them.

There are problems with the idean of remote-controlled planes having been used on 9/11. (See http://911myths.com/html/remote_control.html">this page on 9/11myths.com.) A further problem is that it requires the phone calls to have been faked, and there are big problems with that idea. (See my blog post http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/no-hijacke/">No-hijacker theories (to realitydesign).)

I think the important things for us to be focussing on is the inadequacies of the 9/11 Commission, e.g. the conflicts of interest of its executive director, Philip Zelikow.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

29. "Anyone who is serious about debating the events of 9/11?"

...From the king of inane nuisance/distraction spam himself. This is about on par with Jack the Ripper advising that "anyone serious about their personal security should avoid the back alleyways of London at night."

:rofl:

If the upshot of your proposal is that the dozen or so nuisance/distraction spammers who frequent this forum are no longer going to spam my, or anybody else's "no planes" threads, all I can say is...

...I'll believe it when I see it.

And, in the event such an unlikely blessing were to ever come to fruition, what you'd see after a while is virtually everyone who is serious about debating the events of 9-11 declaring in the very first sentence of their OP, in all bold underlined caps, that it is a "no planes" thread, even though it might not be, just for the benefit of keeping the nuisance/distraction brigade away.

[piobair]

30. see post 26 n/t

[Laurier]

33. An excellent idea.

Count me in.

I'd go so far as to include not responding to idiotic posts espousing disingenuous nonsense in which twoofers profess not to understand what you're talking about, too, but perhaps that's just me. :)

[SidDithers]

34. topical kick...nt

Sid

[William Seger]

35. Agreed

[freeze]

36. Then why respond to 9/11 conspiracy theories at all?

"Much time has been spent by many posters who provide links to supporting data, only to have these responses mocked out of hand."

Don't you skeptics say that about all 9/11 conspiracy theories?

[Flatulo]

39. There are many things we do not know about the 9/11 attacks,

and I think it is valid and wortwhile to investigate what the government could have done differently to prevent them, and if anyone should be held criminally liable.

But 'no-plane' theories are stupid distracting bullshit for people who have too much time on their hands and not enough Paxil in their bloodstream.

If you want to investigate them, have at it. No one here will stop you. But I for one will not spend any more time on this issue. Anyone stupid enough to believe this ridiculous bullshit is not worthy of my time. They can discuss it among themselves, or stare into the sun for all I care.

[Diane_nyc]

48. Glad to hear you say that. Does anyone here disagree? If so, wny?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=195747&mesg_id=197303">Flatulo wrote:

39. There are many things we do not know about the 9/11 attacks,

and I think it is valid and wortwhile to investigate what the government could have done differently to prevent them, and if anyone should be held criminally liable.

Glad to hear you say that. Does anyone here disagree? If so, wny?

But 'no-plane' theories are stupid distracting bullshit

I agree.

[AngryAmish]

37. You can't just dismiss evidence without examining it

All evidence is equal, right?

[AZCat]

38. No. n/t

[BadgerLaw2010]

43. When extraordinary claims are presented, burden is entirely on presenter.

Debating stuff like "the world is flat" or "the sky is green" or "vampires are real" without legitimate, new scientific evidence supporting the extraordinary claim is a pointless canard and/or trolling.

I am aware that there is no form of "extraordinary" evidence that would make the "no plane" theory plausible enough to warrant discussion, but that because it is just flat false.

The burden of proof serves to keep "just flat false" arguments like this out of legitimate discourse.

So yes, if someone just trots out a patently absurd assertion "backed" by obviously flawed junk science (if that), you can indeed dismiss it out of hand.

[SidDithers]

44. topical kick...nt

Sid

[Make7]

45. kick ( n/t )

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

46. Kick. I'll certainly second that...

...I'd be pleased to see the nuisance/distraction brigade staying clear of my "no planes" threads.

But they don't seem to be able to bring themselves to do that. Why do you suppose this is, Make?

[seatnineb]

51. Make7 is one member of that brigade...n/t

[Diane_nyc]

47. I would suggest that some of us just respond very tersely, with links ....

... by just posting some links to counterarguments, and little else.

If we don't respond at all, we may give casual onlookers the impression that the rest of us are fine with no-planes claims.

On the other hand, if we spend time arguing with them, we just feed the trolls.

Probably the best middle ground would be to respond tersely, with links, and only occasionally, not engaging them in argument.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

49. Excellent suggestion.

Here's a few "no planes" threads -- why not strap on your terse response helmet and swoop right in.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x210702


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x208734


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x204337


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x197802


And remember, Diane, above all else, under no circumstances are you to actually analyze/evaluate the content of any of these OPs -- it is of critical importance that your mind remain nailed shut at ALL times.

Now go get'em!!!

[Bassman66]

52. Don't you think that by arguing with them...

..and pointing out the stupidity of their arguments in a simple way will eventually win the battle? It might not convince them, because they don't want to be convinced (for whatever reason), but others who have doubts will eventually realise what the truth is.

[Diane_nyc]

54. Well, if you have time to argue with them, be my guest .... nt

[jberryhill]

57. Ah... but if you do that....

Then you'll be called an "OCTabot" and Bush supporter for conversing with the "obvious disinfo agents".

You might not have realized it yet, but the threads here the DU are of tremendous importance, because the views of the entire world hinge on what people with silly names post on an internet message forum. That's why the shadow government pays people to post here in order to keep a lid on the truth.