No Planes vs Planes Debate

Resolved: People should not be banned from the "All Theories Welcomed" Facebook goup for presenting evidence that there were planes on 9/11.

Norma Rae
"All Theories Welcomed" Facebook group administrator 
Supports No Plane theory
Rick Shaddock
"All Theories Not Welcomed - Except Norma's" Facebook forum
Supports simple Remote Control Take Over theory

Rick Shaddock lets discuss your hypothesis. One-on-One. Civilized discussion.

LikeShow more reactions


Norma Rae Question #1: You said that the plane "bounced". In other words, reverted backwards and that it would be too hard to stage the evidence. How then did this piece of the plane's fuselage go through and land on top of WTC5?
Rick Shaddock You bring up a very good point Norma. smile emoticon I was looking at that, and the position looks correct, with the 2 World Financial Center buildings in the background. I would still say most of Flight 175 would be on the south side of WTC 2. Since it hit at an ...See More
Rick Shaddock Sorry I have to go to bed now and look forward to continuing our enjoyable discussion. Thanks.
Norma Rae I need to go to sleep now too. We'll continue the discussion tomorrow. Thanks Rick and goodnight.
Write a reply...
John Pruitt Sr. Looking down? Would this be right before they were murdered?
Matthew J Loader Hey guys, I think this is meant to be between Norma Raeand Rick Shaddock. You know, one on one.
Norma Rae Rick Shaddock the piece on top of WTC5 would have to have gone through the entire 209 feet of the tower and exited out the other side. How could it do that if the plane reverted backwards?
Rick Shaddock Yes, part of Flight 175 did not go through the wall and dropped down (concealed by faked photos). Part of it went through the hole (created by explosives we see the flash for), through the open office space cubicles, out the other side (with momentum) and on to WTC 5 roof.
Write a reply...
Norma Rae The windows are on the fuselage (center body). That piece on top of WTC5 would have to have gone through the entire depth of the tower and then ejected out the other side and landed on WTC5. It is not possible. That piece was clearly staged. It was likely placed there prior to the attacks. Nobody was going to be checking the roofs.
Robert Vlad Shveytser Come on people, there were no planes on 9/11. If there were, we'd have actual debris from them.
Norma Rae Robert, Rick is proposing a hypothesis that says a small plane crashed into the towers, but they used explosives to create the hole. He believes that CGI was involved to hide the small plane. He feels it was necessary to have a plane which explains the witness testimony, radar, etc. I want to have a civilized discussion to see if his hypothesis stands up to scrutiny. There is too much discord between the Planers and the No Planers. I have high hopes that we can come together is we remain mature in our discussions/debates.
LikeReply2Yesterday at 2:41am

No I did  not say "small plane" but the original flight 175.


Matthew J Loader Sorry for barging in here, but Rick first said aluminium panels were put into the towers to make it easier for the remote controlled planes to penetrate. Then when we ppointed out that impossibility, he switched to his current hypothesis, that planes crashed against the buildings and CGI was used to disguise it. Either way, it makes no sense at all.
Norma Rae We've all changed what we believe. The fact that he is listening to our scrutiny is a good sign. Maybe he might see more flaws in his hypothesis and refine it. Maybe we can all learn from each other.
Write a reply...
Norma Rae Rick Shaddock let's not use the reply button because it makes it hard to read the thread. Let's continue the discussion here, please.
Norma Rae Rick, these are the alleged planes of 9/11. Which one do you consider to be a "small" plane that entered WTC2? Rick Shaddock
Rick Shaddock My view is that the simples technique would be used, RCTO of the original (full sized) planes.
Rick Shaddock In one graphic I showed a small plane crashing against a building, as an example of what planes generally would do. But I do not mean to say that Flight 175 was a small plane. Sorry for the confusion.
Write a reply...
Norma Rae Rick Shaddock answer the question above, please
Norma Rae Rick, Flight 175 was allegedly a 767. That is not a small plane. Please explain what you meant about a small plane. Why would you refer to a 767 as a small plane?
Norma Rae Rick, I'm getting the impression that you don't have a solid grasp of your hypothesis and that's alright. Let me know when you have refined it and I will gladly scrutinize it to see if it stands up to scrutiny.
Norma Rae Why so many contradictions Rick Shaddock?


Rick Shaddock replied1 Reply
Rick Shaddock If would be too hard to plant ALL the plane parts, but easy to plant a few WGDs. We are up against PsyOp experts.
0LikeReply22 hrsEdited


Norma Rae Just to give closure to this thread, I decided to no long endulge in trying to have a discussion with Rick. He kept trying to insinuate that my posts are intended to send people on wild goose chases, all the while he couldn't answer questions and he flipped flopped with his story. He has no grasp on a hypothesis. He will weave up a story around a plane. He must maintain that part of the story. It's as if he and David Chandler have orders to do so. So be it. Good Luck to him and may he wake some people up with his wandering story.
0LikeReply20 hrs
Matthew J Loader I knew it was a waste of time Norma Rae.
Norma Rae You were right about him. But I needed to go through the motions. I don't regret giving him nor Will Small the time to try to see eye to eye. And there was really never a need for me to get ugly with him. He was cordial. So he deserved the same from me.
0LikeReply19 hrs
Norma Rae Believe it or not, there is a little part of me deep down inside that thinks he is trying to do what he thinks is best for this movement. I guess it's hard for me to believe that there are that many shills on these groups.
Matthew J Loader I told him all theories will be scrutinised. To think they somehow replaced panels with aluminium panels is farfetched. Then to change it to a CGI cover for a remote controlled plane means double the work involved. It makes no sense either.
Matthew J Loader Yes, maybe he does mean well, but being evasive makes someone suspicious to me. Why not just be upfront and direct?
Norma Rae I agree, there is a big dark cloud of doubt with him.
Matthew J Loader He just requested to join again too
Norma Rae Is he requesting under the Aneta or the Rick? I don't see a request. I blocked the Rick finally from joining.
Norma Rae Interestingly enough, he never approved me into his group. My request is still pending.
Matthew J Loader I rejected it, but it came from him.
Norma Rae He's proving to be a coocoo case. He changed his comments again to trash us and yet he is stil trying to get in.
Matthew J Loader Yes, An eta messaged me and said he was going to expose me before all of his thousands of followers LOL. I was like, well go for it. See if I care. He thinks your group is mine for some strange reason.
Norma Rae smh....poor guy. I gave him ample time to prove his hypothesis so we can share it but he completely failed. he has only himself to blame.
Norma Rae Buddy had plenty of time to promote his amazing theory on my personal wall. He couldn't even answer simple questions. Flip flopped from small plane to 767 within hours and he wants to blame me. Whatever smile emoticon
LikeReply19 hrs
Matthew J Loader I didn't appreciate him calling you a schizo. That's demeaning to you and people with schizophrenia.
Norma Rae This too shall pass...
Write a reply...