It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No plane theory of the planers

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Personally, I do not believe in any 911 hijackers. Not after watching September clues. That was the last 911 video I watched and I will not watch anymore nor will I respect anyone that ignores the points it brings up. I have such strong feelings about it because the people that did the documentary relied on the only evidence left. Evidence many of us have. Our VHS/DVD recordings. After watching the points they brought up I compared what they pointed out to my own recording and I am left with on conclusion. No planes. All CGI TV massmedia fakery.

This means I get hated by both those that believe the official story and by those that do not believe the official story but refuse to accept the possibility that their were no planes.

Still....In my analytical mind it makes the most sense from the perpetrators point of view. I consider the plan. We have a boat load of incriminating documents, two huge money pits we want gone, and a desire to re-kindle the war economy. We also have total control of this nations media, military, and infrastructure. Now we know we can not trust outsiders because the last time we trusted an outsider in 93 he refused to cooperate and parked the van so far away from the support columns that the damn money pits survived. So this must be a total insider operation. The idea is put forth: have commercially hijacked hit the buildings and then bring down the two buildings and blame the planes. But it was already decided not to use outsiders so how do we accomplish this(lord knows I am not gonna kill myself for this project) Solution: don't use planes. Since we have total media control just CGI the planes in frame and have our producers report the news the way we tell them too.

The plan is voted on and accepted. The operating center is tower 7. Since all evidence must be destroyed all incriminating documents are moved there. A stripmine scar in Shanksville is chosen as the hope center because every doom and gloom story needs a glimmer of heroism and hope. The newly renovated and evacuated wall of the pentagon is chosen as the "black eye" spot because we can test the new re-enforced structure as well as tell the world our military heart was hurt, and how could we hurt our own heart? And then the two buildings will fall after some explosions are shown to the world. We CGI in the planes and blame random terrorists from no exclusive nation so as to avoid pointing blame at any specific nation.

Why not use real brainwashed hijackers or remote controlled planes? Because for starters like the guy in the 93 bombing; people could change their mind. Remote controlled planes could miss. Hijackers could aim for a different targets other than the designated targets which would destroy our plans to pull certain buildings and free up valuable real-estate. NO! To many uncertainties make using real planes under control of real hijackers or remote control unfeasible. The best bet for success this time will be using CGI and the media spin. We throw in a few bones, a false leads, release new video proofs every few years and keep truth seekers divided amongst themselves. In the mean time while the patriot fervor is running high we invade the weakest nation we can find that offers no serious retaliation. Afganistan. And within six months we invade Iraq and secure our oil concerns and re-establish our war economy.

I believe the conversation of the 911 plan went as above. The evidence is in the video footage. The reasoning for the use of such a plan is rational (rational to homicidal megalomaniacs anyways) .

The only real question in my mind is why haven't you rebelled yet?





[edit on 10/18/2007 by titorite]




posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   
I agree with you Titorite,

I never even watched September Clues until recently, but I got started by Webfairy and a couple others on UTube. I watched the evidence and it makes the most sense.

Now Jim Fetzer and Morgan Reynolds are both No Planers. I think it's the truth, and I have been researching conspiracies now SERIOUSLY, for 20 years. I'm not a public figure, so i'm generally an "unknown", which is fine with me, but my website [link removed] gets over 10,000 hits per day.

I made this page for the No Planers with much research and evidence.

[link removed]

Eventually, the truth will come out and the No Planers will be vindicated.





www.abovetopsecret.com...

No advertising of your personal or other websites until you have been a contributing member for at least 6 months. All URLs must be approved by an ATS Administrator or Site Owner prior to display.



[edit on 11-9-2008 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   
I also believe that OVER HALF of the 911 truth movement is a government disinformation program to "gatekeep" the truth from the people, especially the evidence of "No Planes" and CGI fakery through CNN and major media.

This might or might now include Alex Jones but I think there is a small chance Alex knows the truth and hides it intentionally.

I am confident that people who have stated their "public opinion" and are 911 truth researchers would have a difficult time telling the people they now believe there were NO PLANES on 911. This probably keeps people from arriving at the truth, because then they would have to admit they were COMPLETELY DUPED, and therefore their research skills are called into question.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   
You can watch Ace Baker who is a no planner, being confronted by a true video expert,
video.google.com...

Quite frankly Ace's position was very weak at best.

Here is a very good example of deception on purpose by the folks who produced Sept Clues:

www.nineeleven.co.uk...
www.nineeleven.co.uk...
www.nineeleven.co.uk...
www.nineeleven.co.uk...

Now, *IF* are still not convinced, then realize that even *IF* there was TV FAKERY, that does not mean NO PLANE, for the following reason....
If there was truly NO PLANE, then you would have most of New York aware of this, since all eyes were fixed on the Towers.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
You can watch Ace Baker who is a no planner, being confronted by a true video expert,
video.google.com...

Quite frankly Ace's position was very weak at best.

Here is a very good example of deception on purpose by the folks who produced Sept Clues:

www.nineeleven.co.uk...
www.nineeleven.co.uk...
www.nineeleven.co.uk...
www.nineeleven.co.uk...

Now, *IF* are still not convinced, then realize that even *IF* there was TV FAKERY, that does not mean NO PLANE, for the following reason....
If there was truly NO PLANE, then you would have most of New York aware of this, since all eyes were fixed on the Towers.



Actually, I agree with Jon Lear on this one. No Planes, Holograms, and lots of sleight of hand type distraction.
People THOUGHT they saw a plane, and Holograms are "advanced weaponry" nowadays being used in all forms of mind control, even religious programming.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   
The hologram theory of 9/11 has been widely derided in these forums, although it has had it's persistent adherants as well. Until recently I hadn't given it much thought, but as the OP implies, the video evidence purporting to show planes is the strongest evidence that something else was happening.

People interested in the hologram idea should check out this thread where some technical points I had never heard of before are mentioned.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Contrary to what most people believe, there is a technology in the pipeline now that has already projected 360 degree holographic images into thin air by using focused laser light to create plasmas in the air.

The images created are rudimentary but it is possible that government labs are way ahead of the public sector.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
The hologram theory of 9/11 has been widely derided in these forums, although it has had it's persistent adherants as well. Until recently I hadn't given it much thought, but as the OP implies, the video evidence purporting to show planes is the strongest evidence that something else was happening.

People interested in the hologram idea should check out this thread where some technical points I had never heard of before are mentioned.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Contrary to what most people believe, there is a technology in the pipeline now that has already projected 360 degree holographic images into thin air by using focused laser light to create plasmas in the air.

The images created are rudimentary but it is possible that government labs are way ahead of the public sector.



Just to say something here.

Holograms would answer what New York City would have seen, it would have covered up that point, however then why the need for TV FAKERY if they had such convincing Holograms?

Also, if holograms were used and Tv Fakery, then why haven't we seen the same used for the Pentagon?



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by titorite
 


Had never seen these videos, they are excellent!!!!



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
Also, if holograms were used and Tv Fakery, then why haven't we seen the same used for the Pentagon?

The only alleged footage of the Pentacon strike was all confiscated by the authorities. Why hasn't that been released?

Unless you really believe that one video released by the government, which barely shows a handful of indeterminant frames.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
You can watch Ace Baker who is a no planner, being confronted by a true video expert,
video.google.com...

Quite frankly Ace's position was very weak at best.

Here is a very good example of deception on purpose by the folks who produced Sept Clues:

www.nineeleven.co.uk...
www.nineeleven.co.uk...
www.nineeleven.co.uk...
www.nineeleven.co.uk...

Now, *IF* are still not convinced, then realize that even *IF* there was TV FAKERY, that does not mean NO PLANE, for the following reason....
If there was truly NO PLANE, then you would have most of New York aware of this, since all eyes were fixed on the Towers.



I will not respect anyone that ignores the points of September Clues. This includes YOU! Although my love of ATS will bind me to adhere to the T&C I do not respect you talisman. Your links come mostly from one forum and one google video.

I noticed alot of GIMP graphics and Microsoft paint graphics and alot of hearsay ignoring fundamental points. September Clues( here after referred to as SC for brevity sake.) shows multiple flight paths from a varity of network coverage. SC showed misplaced buildings. The superzoom of the impacts clearly do not match the time frame of a speeding plane.

Basically, you are deluding yourself because your mind can not accept the possibility of things like project mockingbird or the office of strategic communication. I just gave you two search terms. Look them up. Thats CIA project mockingbird and what it evolved into, the office of strategic communications.EDIT: That is not the office of strategic communications. The proper search term is "Strategic communications laboratory" Look it up.

When TWA 800 "crashed" the remains were recovered and re-assembled as is standard operating procedure when investigating plane crashes. Yet with the 911 event we do not have even one fourth of a re-assembled plane from four events.

I do not believe in free floating holograms but I do believe I saw what looked like planes on TV. But those planes only existed on tv and in computers. The explosions happened but the planes were timed into them and you can verify this if you have a copy of the days events. My brother in law pushed record on 911. I copied his VHS and had it transferred to DVD. I watched it every point they brought up in super slow mo and you know what!?!?!

THEY WERE RIGHT!

edit for talisman

[edit on 10/18/2007 by titorite]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Another reason they didn't use real planes is because they know planes are not strong enough to rip though a steel building. They also knew if real planes were used they could have not sold the collapses as well as they did, as most of a real 767 would have hit the ground.

The planes we do see in the "amateur" videos and photos are military planes(note the extra piece on the bottom). Hence, it was a military operation.

There are 2 more parts to September Clues(just in case you haven't seen them):

September Clues Part 9

September Clues Epilogue

S&F!



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Niobis
Another reason they didn't use real planes is because they know planes are not strong enough to rip though a steel building. They also knew if real planes were used they could have not sold the collapses as well as they did, as most of a real 767 would have hit the ground.


Yup!!!... You know I was reading over this and I was mentaly kicking myself because I KNEW there was one more point I wanted to include but had forgotten to make. So thank you for bringing that up. For let no one be deceived aluminum vrs steel is not a fair fight.

Heck upon critical examination of the impact hole one can easily compare a 747 to the hole and see that the two do not match up. The hole is just not large enough to accommodate the plane. Same story at the pentagon. Too small of a hole to fit a plane.

Be it missiles or be it planted thermite one thing we can be absolutely positive about is that THERE WERE NO PLANES. Upon critical examination of all the video evidence the fact is irrefutable....So far the best attempt I saw was that weak mathematical outline in the google video link above... I have no idea how "perfect" the guys math was but He claimed derbies came out the opposite side. Nobody called him on his failure to note that the shape of the exit "derbies" and the shape of the nose of the plane before it enters the building are a 100% exact, pixel for pixel, shape match.

Which means either A: the plane defied the laws of physics or B: we got duped and we got duped in a major way.

Thanks again for bringing up the aluminum point! Cheers.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by titorite
...the shape of the exit "derbies" and the shape of the nose of the plane before it enters the building are a 100% exact, pixel for pixel, shape match.


The famous "nose-out" shot from FOX5 has been the discussion of the no plane debate more than any other 9/11 video. I'm a firm believer that all the plane videos were and are in fact fake, however, the shot contains flaws. Personally, I'm sure it is the composite, but some uncertainty still holds, for a few reasons.

1. You say the nose-out is a 100% exact match, as well as the author of September Clues, but that is not entirely true. Notice how much of a point the radome has before it hits the building, when it exits, it's more rounded. Also, the cockpit window angle is not the same when it exits. The pixels are not exact.

2. In a Hardfire debate with Ace Baker and Steve Wright(I think talisman posted the link to the video above), Steve Wright makes a very good point. The nose does not exist at the right time, assuming constant velocity. But as Ace points out, there is no reason they couldn't slow the composite down. Both guys make very good points on both sides.

However, no matter if it was a constant velocity composite or not, the fact that the "plane" enters into the shot exactly one frame after the last zoom, and the fact that they attempted a "black-out" at the precise moment of impact(as did other networks) still remains and cannot be mere coincidence.

I think the "nose-out" was one of many huge mistakes made on 9/11. The author of September Clues presents a very good reason of how the shot went wrong-they didn't account for the helicopter drift.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   
I think I presented the most compelling evidence on my page at [link removed]

Check out the "Flight Trajectories"......

and

"Wing Span Angle Differences" ......

I presented pretty good comparisons.

There are several different flight trajectories occuring throughout the various videos. An airplane cannot present two different flight trajectories at the same time, and the videos contradict each other.

The wing span angles CHANGE ALSO.

Imagine a straight flight path trajectory toward a building. If you were watching this, you would see the wing-span angle with VERY LITTLE WING in the picture. Both wings would be aligned pretty much together, watching a plane fly at a building from the ground......but the WING SPAN ANGLE appears to show the plane taking a TOTAL NOSE DIVE FROM ABOVE.....

In other words, you can see BOTH WINGS SEPERATED, CLEARLY, with the WHOLE WING SPAN SHOWING!!!

THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!

Check out my page of facts and figures. What do people think about this discrepancy. Still, nobody has refuted the evidence on my page.

I believe I can PROVE there were NO PLANES, or at least that the VIDEOS were FAKED 100%.

Instead of comparing details in the videos that show video glitches, let's examine the "perspectives" of things as they should have appeared in reality.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by conxposer]

[edit on 11-9-2008 by conxposer]





www.abovetopsecret.com...

No advertising of your personal or other websites until you have been a contributing member for at least 6 months. All URLs must be approved by an ATS Administrator or Site Owner prior to display.



[edit on 11-9-2008 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by conxposer
Instead of comparing details in the videos that show video glitches, let's examine the "perspectives" of things as they should have appeared in reality.


I agree the perspectives are full of contradictions, but we also must view the "glitches" to determine if they are also in the realms of reality, which they are not.

By the way, since your link was removed, would you mind sending me the link U2U, please. I'm interested in seeing the wing span angle differences.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   
You know that "mathematically" perfect outline from the hard fire show? The one that attempts to make a point about velocity? Run it in reverse. See if it matchs the points where it should be when the wide angle is used. That is the point brought up in SC and by others and it is a point not brought up in that hardfire thingee.....( you know I really do not like that hardfire show. I found it very amateur)



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to titorite

Edit: okay, I completely misread your post. You're talking about the missing plane before the zooms. Agreed, another reason on the list of problems with the FOX5 "live" shot.

What I'm trying to figure out is what slowed the composite down after it went behind the tower...? It couldn't have been the drift as I mentioned before I edited this, because the drift would have to be to the left. I'm assuming someone slowed it down, but it doesn't add up. Without the drift, the nose would have been exactly on the edge, that's a give-away, so why would they feel the need to slow it down? With drift, it seems that would have made the composite faster.

I don't know. I give up on trying to figure this out. It's the nose of a CGI plane and that's all I need to know.


[edit on 11-9-2008 by Niobis]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Not sure where to put this, because it fits into so many threads, but I was watching footage of the public on 9/11 and tons of people are saying "I thought it was a bomb, but they told me it was a plane."

Juuuust a bit of info.



posted on Mar, 14 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by titorite
 

It has taken me some considerable time to read this posting and I wanted to contribute a small tid bit of information to consider whenever thinking about the possibility that what we saw on TV being broadcast was one thing and what witnesses saw was another. Why was it presented one way when witnesses saw it another? Well it was this exact concern that got me pondering and as things happen, I was doing something non related when I got a this idea or thought process.

I, like others have considered for some time the same concern or suspicion expressed by your posting, that the TV footage and subsequent video footage appears different but in ways that don’t make any sense. While they do appear altered or not even the same incident is what made me wonder if anyone would ever investigate and analogize the coverage from that fateful day and whether anyone could determine if the video of the planes hitting the Twin Towers were fabricated in any way or edited with high tech CGI computer and software technologies.

Well, I want to offer a hypothetical answer to why are the video and media coverage of the planes hitting the Twin Towers appear different and thus confuses most anyone that views the video coverage from that day.

After viewing a series of videos recently on Andrew D. Basiago, Atty at Law, discussing time travel it dawned on me why the videos have anomalies and why witnesses saw things different from what is on the videos. Andrew D. Basiago states specifically in video 9 of 16 that in regard to 911 that quantum access technologies dealing with knowledge of the future was discussed. He states that video was show of the Planes hitting the Twin Towers. Since the videos he and other were watching was from the future as obtained by time travel technologies.

www.youtube.com...

Well this may be a bit much for those that don’t know or have kept up with who Andrew D. Basiago is but this is about the time it dawned on me that the video footage shown to the public on 911 and what has become historical video evidence of that fateful date is indeed factual but only when it was recorded.

When I realized that Andrew D. Basiago was commenting in his interview discussing the quantum technologies on seeing the 911 video of planes hitting the Twin Towers. This when it became clear to me that what we saw, what America saw was actual footage of those planes hitting the Twin Towers, except for the fact that the footage was from the future obtained in the past and shown on 911 to help hide the other part of the magic act. Distraction of what people see vs. what witnesses saw.

This way cargo planes, missiles and all kinds of things could be used in the present when 911 occurred and since the main coverage from the attack was going to be the video footage taken in the future, what America saw was in fact the truth for the future because someone recorded the footage of the future event and kept it. This is why Basiago and others were able to see it long before 911 occurred.

This video footage from the future is what was used to fill in the major areas needed to sell the illusion. Only in such a manner would what the actual on the ground witnesses see one thing, report what they saw and then become confused with was being broadcast as footage of the planes hitting the towers.

America saw footage from the future. As such it is accurate only for that future in which it was recorded. Therein lies the clue to this whole mystery of how it was done and whether CGI was used after the fact is still a possibility, but for the moment consider that there is the witness account of what happened and the television account. Since they differ and since seeing is believing, it is this concern that made me realize that the only way such an illusion could be pulled off is if they show us the truth, but a visual truth from a future that was recorded in the past of the future event that was yet to become the future event called 911.

I realize this may be difficult to grasp, but if you consider it for a while I am certain you and others will be able to discern your own truths of what I just posted to contribute to explaining why video coverage of planes hitting the towers are so different from eye witness accounts.

Since no CGI took place of the future time travel video of 911, what we are seeing in the 911 Twin Tower plane attacks are actual time line differences in all those little things that drive the experts insane with questions and doubt. Whenever anyone studies the video coverage it always runs into problems with eye witness accounts and thus the confusion spreads the conspiracy into a direction intended to mislead and deceive yet again the public. I just think it is time to consider that the footage was factual, but from a recorded future time line which we did not match exactly when 911 occurred.

Hope this has offered some food for thought. Thanks for the posting




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join