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.

 

Never watch the news EVER again. The 9/11 taboo/NoPlanes video

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by mosey
 


I'm not gonna sit here and rebut these videos line-by-line, but for example:

This video constantly makes the claim that planes don't enter buildings. There are several pictures posted by me and others that show that that is false with even much smaller, slower planes at that.

The video asks why none of the cameramen see the second plane coming. Nobody knew there was a second plane coming, so they were not looking for it. This is not difficult logic here.

The video makes the claim that "either this cameraman is completely blind and deaf, or there was no plane". That is totally false information (disinformation). We have no clue as to where the reporter is calling from or how far away from the towers he is. You can't say there was no plane just because a reporter could be one or more miles away and see and hear the explosion, but not be in a position to see or hear the plane.

The author lies right in his own video. He keeps saying "witnesses = 0", referring to no witnesses seeing the second plane. Then he plays a clip where an anchorman is talking to a female witness on the phone and he says:

"I didn't get the impression that it was that big a plane", and the female witness says "it was big from here".

Here's one of the real disinformation parts of the whole video:

Jeff Hill (shure) calls Boeing to ask about the flight speeds of a 767-200. Boeing confirms that the plane won't fly 500+ mph at 700 feet. While this is partially true, they left the real, full truth out either to purposely deceive, or because they were unresearched.

No, a 757 cannot get up to 500mph flying level at 700 feet. But the plane that hit the south tower wasn't flying level. It came down from a higher altitude as seen in the videos. When any plane descends from a higher altitude, it gains speed unless pilots extend the flaps on the wings. Extending the flaps creates drag and acts as a sort of air brake, slowing the plane down.

So, with both engines on the plane at full power and descending rapidly, you could easily reach 400-500mph no matter what the altitude. But if the plane leveled off at 700 feet, it wouldn't be able to sustain those speeds. I seriously doubt the plane was going much faster than 500mph, but it is possible.

The video goes on to say "have you ever noticed that the 175 strike videos are all amateur shots...not looking in the right spot?" Once again, nobody knew there was a second plane coming. If all cameras were looking in the right spots, then everyone would say that the media knew about it and was complicit. The no-planers are saying the media knew and was complicit, but with the opposite of evidence.

The video says "not one single cameraman seems to notice the (second) plane". For the third time, noboby knew there was a second plane coming to slam into the south tower.

The last words of the video are "Planes don't enter buildings. Think for yourself." Well, we've already shown that planes do enter buildings and you will not find a single building in the world that has or will make a large jetliner just bounce off.

I hope this answered some of your questions, Mosey.




posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


while I do respect your attempt at a rebuttal, I think your attempt was somewhat poor and your points were weak.
All one needs in order to notice that what was shown on the news was nothing short of fantastic illusion is common sense.
# what he says. watch the videos. listen to the interview with joseph keith. if by some miraculous chance the plane could make such a dive it would literally break up! not only that, multiple videos showing the plane coming in from different angles, sides, sizes, one video will show the plane making a huge dive before immediately leveling off and hitting, and another will show the plane simply coming straight on the entire time. i recommend watching september clues. one of the most interesting points that video makes is at one point they show a huge shot of the entire city, then zoom in really quickly and suddenly theres a plane in the shot about to hit the tower... then they do a slow mo replay, and to our suprise... during the city wide shot there is NO plane what so ever, and then suddenly, right after zoom in on the building, a boeing is popped into existence out of thin air right in time to hit the tower.

Im not saying I know what happened that day, but i pride myself with common sense i can say that this theory, though it is a far fetched one, actually holds a lot of weight.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by mosey
I think your attempt was somewhat poor and your points were weak.

Weak? What the hell is weak about facts? It's a fact that nobody was looking for a second plane because they didn't know there was a second plane. It's a fact that this video purposely lied and said "zero witnesses" saw the second plane, and then he played a clip with a witness saying she saw the plane! It's a fact that the 757 can reach 500+ mph to do the damage it did and this video says a 757 can't. It's a fact that planes can and do enter and destroy buildings and that not a single building in the world can make a large jetliner bounce off at those speeds.

You want to throw all these facts out the door to believe the purposeful disinformation? Wow, another one get's sucked into the disinfo cult.


Originally posted by mosey
i pride myself with common sense

I hope you still have your receipt because you need to get your money back. And it doesn't really take common sense when all you need is some simple research.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
AGAIN.
completely ignore everything i say and throw out random parts of the video you thought were wrong.
sure, a plane can go through a building...
NOT THAT #ING ONE.
if you think aluminum can slice through that much steel, theres no point in arguing.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mosey
sure, a plane can go through a building...
NOT THAT #ING ONE.
if you think aluminum can slice through that much steel, theres no point in arguing.

Ah, so now planes can go through buildings everywhere in the world except the WTC towers as they were magical.

By the way, the planes didn't slice through steel. The steel perimeter columns broke at the connectors. The steel columns themselves didn't fail. Only the connectors failed. Of course, you'd know this had that amazing common sense of yours told you to do some sort of research before typing such things out of your keyboard.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


my common sense clicked on when i noticed every video and picture showing a jet made of pressurized aluminum vanish through steel columns and cement, showing NO SIGN OF BREAKAGE on either the jet or the surface it hit.
this is literally the last time i reply to you, but you basically have to be extremely naive and ignorant, or blind... or an employee of a major news outlet.
good luck catchin ol' Bin there buddy!!

PEACE



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

]







Do you care to explain this picture please??

This is what confuses me about the debunking of the " no plane theory", who can debunk this image??....NO ONE!!
Its a fake image that we were all fed on the day by the MSM!!!!!!

EXPLAIN please someone!!



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 05:05 AM
link   
Ive been following this thread with interest, purely from the standpoint of the psychology involved. My own opinion, in keeping the thread on track, is that something hit the towers. Be that missile, drone, unknown weapon or whatever.

What has realy interested me is someone debunking while using the word " professional" at every opportunity. Professional implies payment to the vast majority of people.The Truth Movement are not paid so the word professional is used to imply that those who are in the movement are professionals in their own field.

Now, that in itself is a miss-nomer. Its like saying a plumber is a professional member of the Truth Movement because he is a plumber ? so knows better than others.

There is nothing more obvious to genuine ATS members as someone who overstates their opinion while implying others dont have a clue.

Add to that a low points count and being a member for a couple of weeks and its very difficult to take someone seriously, when that someone throws evidence by the max, at the thread in question.

What Im saying is this. Dont tell us what to think. Respect comes with longevity in these forums, longevity, respect for others and the ability to teach others, be taught and allow others opinions.

Respects


[edit on 8-2-2009 by captiva]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Originally posted by zerozero00

Originally posted by _BoneZ_









Do you care to explain this picture please??

This is what confuses me about the debunking of the " no plane theory", who can debunk this image??....NO ONE!!
Its a fake image that we were all fed on the day by the MSM!!!!!!

EXPLAIN please someone!!


Yes,
I hardly enter these discussions. This photo was posted by a member originally attempting to debunk the NPT.
As a member some what ignorant of these debates, can someone please explain to me how a plane hits a building, and absorbes it without damaging the building. Look at were the wings dissappear near the main fuselage and out towards the engines. The outer wall of the WTC remains intact. No debris at all, can be seen around the Nose area/wtc wall!
How do those sceptical of the OP's video's explain this?



[edit on 8-2-2009 by atlasastro]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by captiva
 

Besides the first paragraph where you stayed on topic, the rest of your post was spent on attacking someone, probably me, which goes against forum rules. But I'll respond anyway until the mods step in.


Originally posted by captiva
Its like saying a plumber is a professional member of the Truth Movement because he is a plumber ? so knows better than others.

I said that no-planes theory is either banned or not accepted at the professional research organizations in the 9/11 truth movement.


Originally posted by captiva
There is nothing more obvious to genuine ATS members as someone who overstates their opinion while implying others dont have a clue.

Who the hell are you to say who's genuine or not?


Originally posted by captiva
Add to that a low points count and being a member for a couple of weeks and its very difficult to take someone seriously, when that someone throws evidence by the max

That may be your opinion, but whether I've been here for 2 days or 2 years, verifiable, factual evidence is still evidence.


Originally posted by captiva
Dont tell us what to think

Nobody is telling anybody what to think. I'm presenting evidence just like everyone else. If you have a problem with that or don't like it, put me on ignore and it will solve that problem.


Originally posted by atlasastro
How do those sceptical of the OP's video's explain this?

As I've stated several times, the perimeter columns failed at the connectors only. That whole wall isn't going to cave in because of an airplane strike. Only the steel columns that are directly affected by the plane are failing at the connectors.



Look at the top of the hole in the yellow boxed area. See the huge chunks of building pushed IN? You would have to have a massive explosive device(s) on the outside of the building to cause this without a plane. Explosives on the inside of the building don't suck in, the explode out. If the holes were done by explosives as some no-planers suggest, then they would be plainly visible on the outside of the building for all to see.

This is simple logic and it ain't rocket science. A little bit of research with a little bit of logic will help you go a long way.

Edit to add - Don't say that there was no plane just because you can sit there and look at a blurry picture and think that the building is not becoming damaged. The picture I posted clearly shows something large impacted from the outside causing the building to be pushed IN, not out if it was an explosion from the inside. Think about it.

[edit on 8-2-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


man. I am not typing laughter, but let me tell you right now that i am laughing my ass off good sir.
every single thing i stated in my side of the debate, you completely ignored and threw your own completely off course explaination. thats great, good for the fncking columns.
you trying to fight us as if we're saying the building never exploded!
cmon man! are you even reading our posts? or just posting random automatic responses? is the next one gonna be about the teletubbies?
I asked you a couple questions, you never answered them, i continued to ask them, u continued to ignore them, offering me answers but to a different question to which i didnt ask while treating me like an a$$hole the whole time. Not only that, but i never ONCE said that the no planes theory was completely falible, i said watch the videos look at the pictures and use your common sense. all Im saying is, anyone with common sense can tell something is wrong, definately. furthermore, this is actually quite entertaining to wake up each morning and see what new completely random answer you've jotted down for me.
its like christmas!
haha dude you're like santa!
peace and love man, peace and love



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mosey
you trying to fight us as if...


then


Originally posted by mosey
i never ONCE said that the no planes theory was completely falible

Yet you associate yourself with no-planers by saying "us". If it's not completely fallable, then why are you associating yourself with them? You can't even keep your own story straight without contradicting yourself.


Originally posted by mosey
anyone with common sense can tell something is wrong, definately

Anyone that understands physics can tell there's nothing wrong, definitely.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I say again to the crowd that seems to think they have something....




Can either of you please provide a link to a video or documents that might back up your statement. I understand you worked hard on proving the no plane theory was a hoax... so after five years where is the documents to show what you proved? I'd like to see a video maybe of someone breaking down the no plane theory bit by bit please.


If not, and you return with more unproven claims by the less than 100points man then I will have little to believe... Since he doesn't listen and recites the same regurgitated tripe over and over.

Provide or slide...



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


hahahah dude, keep going man seriously, just keep digging.
once AGAIN you ignore my entire post and you CONTINUE to pick out some random # to talk about like ur some grade 9 social studies teacher that thinks he knows the world cuz he read a textbook.
im tempted to ask how old you are, but im afraid that if you tell me i might burst a heart valve laughing so hard.
I dont want to be a prick or anything but dammit you just keep coming. honestly, i think you have posted enough pointless worthless replies to make yourself eligable to be laughed at...by me.
lol. lol . looooooooooooooooooooooooool



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
Can either of you please provide a link to a video or documents that might back up your statement. I understand you worked hard on proving the no plane theory was a hoax

Sorry AllTiedTogether. Must've missed your question.

September Clues, TV Fakery debunked in video format:

arabesque911.blogspot.com...



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mosey
 

How about keeping to the topic and get your focus off of me, just as the forum rules say. All you've been able to do is attack me instead of countering the evidence or not, which is not surprising, because you can't.

Until then, I'll keep reporting your posts that aren't on topic and hopefully I won't have to see your posts for much longer.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I'm sorry but I can't watch it... its an insult to anyone's intelligence. I had to stop after ten minutes. WOW you really are swayed by the evidence this video is spouting? I mean discount all the evidence because he called it a "fade to black" and its actually not because it doesn't fade, it cuts the picture...

Amazing evidence...

Guess you wouldn't have anything better that may convince me that the NPT holds no water? Don't mean to put you guys on a limb but you should be able to come up with a link to confirm that the major players of the 911 thinking do not believe in this. That video is incredibly laughable and I'd be embarrassed to say I use this as my defense.

IMO
Rgds



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
I'm sorry but I can't watch it... its an insult to anyone's intelligence.

You asked for a link debunking the no-plane disinfo and then you can't even watch it? You guys scream for everyone to watch Taboo and September Clueless, but when someone asks you to watch something, or YOU even ask for a link to watch something that debunks it, you can't even watch it? That is some of the most amazing hypocritical BS I think I've ever heard.

It's not an insult to anyone's intelligence. It just proves you are wrong, but you don't want to admit it, so you don't bother looking at the evidence. There's 3 videos on that page you didn't even bother to watch which blows all NPT out the water, for good.

Thank you for showing your true, biased colors and unwillingness to look at both sides. For that, I will no longer respond to you after this post. I can't conversate with someone who would rather show hypocricy and bias over looking at evidence from both sides.


[edit on 8-2-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Actually, I later did watch it and the last one.. the second didn't work. I just thought that my feelings hadn't changed and that I didn't have to say what I had already stated, It is an insult to a person's intelligence if they believe that what is being spouted is any justification to not believe the NPT.

His justification for not believing is as sensible as me doubting what you say because of your score on ATS and the fact that you've only been a member for less than a month. But if you want me to see his logic, it will have to cancel you out too... that is one of those conundrums that leads to reality.

In reality, planes don't melt into buildings leaving structures intact bonez.

Sorry your in a losing battle, people see your game and don't fall for your pushy stance. THanks



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join