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: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaxBlack


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


Interesting to ponder although extremely complex and somewhat of a paradox.

But in any case, though the concept seems logical in a weird way that hasn't yet resonated with me, the question or point i'd pose to you is that if the footage was from the future? recorded in the past? or you mean reverse? And in either case, WHICH FOOTAGE are you claiming would have been the REAL ONE? Or iow, there is OBVIOUS and proven fakery to have been going on in alot if not MOST and possibly all of the footage... so if there's footage that you claim is PURE/raw untampered etc, what specifically are you talking about? Surely you can't be talking about certain footage that is IMO, CLEARLY contains fakery, editing or cgi, right? How can footage that contains cgi be from the future or whatever you're saying? thats what i'm trying to understand while i keep an extremely open mind to whats being theorized.

talk about a mind-f$%k lol




posted on Mar, 17 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Nice thread/topic!! S & F.

Here is my problem with "no plane"....


First if there were no planes where are passengers then? Thats an issue many no planers won't address because if there were no planes, then somebody is going to have to account for all of those people that are missing.

No family to my knowledge has of yet asked "my son/daughter/dad/mom was supposed to be on flight xxx on 9/11/01 and they are missing...where are they?

Thats an issue for me with the "no plane" theory, in reality where I live that just makes no sense at all. And I too get harrassed by both sides because what I believe is this:

* Two planes hit the WTC's without question.
* Flight 93 WAS shot down. Again no question there for me at all on this one.
* Something hit the Pentagon, my gut tells me it was an airplane BUT, I suspect it may have been something else. But once again where's the passengers if wasnt the plane?

For anyone to believe then prove the "no plane" theory they first have to come up with one simple answer:

Where's the passengers at that were supposed to be on the flights?

Answer that one AND prove it, then we can look at the "no plane" theory.



posted on Mar, 17 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   
When 9/11 happened I was living in Boston. A good friend of mine, whom I played high school volleyball with, lost his father on 9/11. He was a passenger on Flight 11 that crashed into the first tower. This plane actually took off from Boston but never landed in Los Angeles. So if no planes ever existed, where the hell did that plane go? A physical plane took off (with my friend's father on board) and now both the plane and his father are gone. They had to go somewhere, they didn't just magically disappear.

The "no planer" subset of 9/11 truthers (I've always hated these labels that go along with 9/11) is the most baffling to me. It's interesting that I've never heard any families of victims ever claim that no planes were involved on 9/11. Maybe there's a reason. Occam's Razor people... that's all I have to say.

[edit on 17-3-2010 by paradigm619]



posted on Mar, 17 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by paradigm619
 


I agree with you on your logic there, key word being logic.

As for the sub-names like "truther", "skeptic" and the rest I find it amuzing most of them banter back and forth at one another calling each other "dis-info agent" but by the labeling of the two towards and by both sides that creates divisions among the theorys they put forth, THAT lableing is a form of dis-information in and of itself because it creates division in the entire truth quest thereby creating dis-information by those who can't agree on a common scenario. Yet both sides believe in a conspiracy but cannot agree on what conspiracy it is they actually agree on.



posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by paradigm619
When 9/11 happened I was living in Boston. A good friend of mine, whom I played high school volleyball with, lost his father on 9/11. He was a passenger on Flight 11 that crashed into the first tower. This plane actually took off from Boston but never landed in Los Angeles. So if no planes ever existed, where the hell did that plane go? A physical plane took off (with my friend's father on board) and now both the plane and his father are gone. They had to go somewhere, they didn't just magically disappear.

The "no planer" subset of 9/11 truthers (I've always hated these labels that go along with 9/11) is the most baffling to me. It's interesting that I've never heard any families of victims ever claim that no planes were involved on 9/11. Maybe there's a reason. Occam's Razor people... that's all I have to say.

[edit on 17-3-2010 by paradigm619]


That to be fair isn't really a valid argument against the NPT. If it the NPT is real then it's reasonable to assume that those behind it can easily make a plane, complete with passengers disappear.

How hard would it be to force it to land somewhere and simply kill the passengers, then destroy the plane?

And the reason the families aren't shouting about it from the rooftops? It's because they are just as much in the dark about it as we are. Their loved ones died that day. Whether it was in a plane that flew into a building or murdered far away probably has never occurred to them because they aren't aware of the NPT.




top topics
 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join