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: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_


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.
I understand your point of view Bonez. But I am not talking about the Whole wall, am I. I clearly asked you to explain why certain sections seem to be intact, even though the plane has passed through it. What I find amazing is that, even though the connectors failed, in the photo, a photo you linkedpost by _BoneZ_, there is no consequences of physics. For every action there is an equal and/or opposite reaction. In the photo you supplied, where you say the connectors fail, there is still WTC wall. Look between the main fuselage and the engine on the left wing, there is no failure at the wall and the wing had dissapeared. Now. A: if the wall has not failed then the wing remnants should be visible as they would be now reacting to the wall and moving away in opposition as per the laws, and so producing visible debris field protruding from the wall. Or maybe it is, B only the connectors fail making way for the wing with a such precise hole it is indistinguishable from the original wall. The precision of the hole accepting all debris without any resistance from the WTC wall at all. Resulting in all of the plane moving into the building with no debris acting with equal or opposite force against any part of the wall at any time and resulting in no forming of any visible debris against the wall. I find that very hard to believe given the hole in the wall you link here.





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.

Thank You. This is what I am confused about. Your photo shows no reaction from the plane to the wall, no debris accumulating against the wall where is has not failed. Follow the entire outline of the plane Bonez, in your photo. There is no visible reaction from the plane, in some sections the wall is entirely intatct, whilst sections of the plane have dissappeared. ?????. You state that not all the wall failed. Yet not one section of the plane has failed as an equal and opposite reaction to those bits of the wall that remain. There should be visible debris. You yourself have stated that not all the wall failed. Why does this picture not support that claim by showing visible debris reacting to those sections of wall that have not failed.




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, they 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.
Your picture that you link to your reply does not answer the questions relating to the original photo you link. While it shows damage, it is post incident. Can you answer the questions and stop moving the goal posts please. I appreciate your response and am greatful for your reply, but you seem to be shifting the goal posts by injecting the no-planer ideas that the explosion was internal.


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.
Thats the thing, your assuming that I lack logic by asking the simplist of questions. Your photo defies logic. The plane is acting in an illogical manner. You offer the logic that the points of the plane , that I point out between the fuselage and the engines, do not show damage because not all the wall failed. Logically then we can conclude that the parts of the plane in these points should then follow the laws of physics and act with equal and opposite force which would have these parts visible as debris accumulating against the WTC wall. Why does you photo not show this Bonez? Its shows the wall intact, with no damge, and no visible debris.


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.

Once again Bonez, you make assumptions and accusations. Firstly, I have never said that there is no plane. I am asking why this plane is not reacting in a logical manner.
As for the blurry picture. It is your photo, that you posted. This is what you said about this photo when you linked it.

Here's the picture you should have shown, had you not tried to be deceitful. The impact was contained inside the building:
bonez.us...

If its blurry enough to support your claims, why can't I ask questions about it. I find it highly decietful that you would question my opinions based on this photo while your opinion and beliefs from its use seem perfectly reasonable and logical.

just because you can sit there and look at a blurry picture
Why can I not apply this, your own logic, to your arguement?

[edit on 9-2-2009 by atlasastro]




posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by cropmuncher
I watched the event live on tv well before the second plane hit. I watched it hit live - it was definately a plane!


No, you didn't see it live, you saw what the media and government wanted you to see and you believe it was "live" because they told you it was.

and thats the basis for the entire conspiracy, confusion and deception.

It was all planned and staged which most who have done no research and analysis just blindly accept the OS.

A type of "plane" or aircraft may have hit the towers... but it wasn't flight 175 and 11.



Originally posted by cropmuncher
I think its an inside job & believe a missle hit the pentagon but i did see LIVE - the second plane hit the towers.



No, you saw the MSM LIVE FOOTAGE and their claims it was LIVE....

which most have blindly accepted and are easily manipulated.

but its an undeniable irrefutable FACT, the "LIVE" media footage was TAMPERED with, manipulated and contains FAKERY.

Once you do a full investigation on all the evidence, only then can one begin to see the LIE and deception and things were not what they seemed.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 05:45 AM
link   
great posts zero.

nice to see this type of sharpness and someone with real common sense which isn't very common here.




Originally posted by zerozero00
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


BoneZ!
I've been arguing for years with diss info agents regarding this......you and no one else can make anybody with any sort of common sense to believe the "OCT" !

I take it you haven't watched the "Taboo" video then?
When you do come back to me and we can start to debate it properly!
If you don't see any anomalies in the MSM on that day, then I suggest you work for the government or are just a poor brainwashed sheeple!!



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by mosey
 


I'm not gonna sit here and rebut these videos line-by-line,


Because doing so would make your comments and opinion look silly and
lacking.

The only way one can reasonably, logically and factually debunk or make the claim there's no conspiracy and the OCT is TRUTH, one must be able to offer the same LINE BY LINE argument and evidence that truthers have.

TO THIS DATE, NONE EXIST.

why?

because it can't be done.

911 was an inside job.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 05:56 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!!


EXACTLY.

gee, i wonder y



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
In reality, planes don't melt into buildings leaving structures intact bonez.

Sure would love to know what reality you live in because in the reality that most of the rest of us live in, your statement is completely false and totally backwards and opposite of the truth.

I posted a picture of the Empire State building where a B-25 Bomber crashed and made a similar hole and wing slices. The B-25 is much smaller and slower and still did almost the same damage. Also, had you done any type of actual research into planes crashing into buildings, you wouldn't even be spouting off blatantly incorrect disinfo as this.


Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
Sorry your in a losing battle

Have you looked around lately? Not one single 9/11 truth organization supports the no-plane theory, and most have gone as far to say that it's disinfo. Sounds like you're the one's losing, sorry.


Originally posted by atlasastro
The plane is acting in an illogical manner.

Only illogical to you and a few others, not the majority of everyone else. Many of which are smarter than you and me.


Originally posted by matrixNIN11
nice to see this type of sharpness and someone with real common sense which isn't very common here

How the hell could you possibly know what goes on here if you registered only 2 days ago?


Originally posted by matrixNIN11
Because doing so would make your comments and opinion look silly and
lacking. one must be able to offer the same LINE BY LINE argument and evidence that truthers have.

TO THIS DATE, NONE EXIST.

Actually, I have other more important things to do with my time. I posted a line-by-line debunk that a collegue of mine did which is sufficient.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
nice to see this type of sharpness and someone with real common sense which isn't very common here

How the hell could you possibly know what goes on here if you registered only 2 days ago?


Lets start with your only answer for everything, the truth movement BS that denies other theories, Unless you show the explanantion that they have to debunk the No Planes Theory you have no argument whatsoever.

Thats like telling another religion you are false mine is right!

Can you smell the BS now? You should, as seeing how many times you bring it out.

as for the quote, thats so childish, if thats how you debunk theories, all you are doing is offending the intelligence of all the members of the site.

I'll let you in on a secret:

You don't have to be a member to read any threads on this board.

Debunk that smarty pants



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Arsenis
 

This will be my last post on this subject as you guys aren't civil enough to converse with, without attacking. Not a single no-planer has tried to debunk the debunks that others and I've posted for many posts now in this thread. All you can say is it's BS or "if that's all you got you have no argument'.

The video debunk I posted (now in my signature) calls into question everything you guys believe in and that scares you. So you lash out and attack. That's the only thing you guys have been able to do for the past couple years. Same script, different forum.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
BoneZ


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!!




Any chance you dealing with the above post please?

And I'm not attacking you, I just want an explanation for this image!

This is a civilized manner so I can't see any reason you can't deal with it!
Thanks for your input!!

[edit on 9-2-2009 by zerozero00]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by Arsenis
 

This will be my last post on this subject as you guys aren't civil enough to converse with, without attacking. Not a single no-planer has tried to debunk the debunks that others and I've posted for many posts now in this thread. All you can say is it's BS or "if that's all you got you have no argument'.

The video debunk I posted (now in my signature) calls into question everything you guys believe in and that scares you. So you lash out and attack. That's the only thing you guys have been able to do for the past couple years. Same script, different forum.


You guys sounds like an orchestra, If you quote (or Reply to) me, single me out and talk to me, I have no relation to anyone in this forum as I don't belong to any group.

As for you video I'll give it a watch and comment on it. But even then I'll tell you this much, just like you call the NPT BS I call yours the same, why? because all you say is "Its not true this group says it."

How about talking about that question that you choose to ignore? the picture above this post. ^^^

EDIT: I just watched your so called debunk videos, I gotta tell you what a poor job at debunking videos he has done.

This guys starts lashing and attacking, stating that he isn't paid to do what he is doing and what not, seriously a poor job debunking a video.

Ofcourse nobody can say this videos are true or false since all in all its just a theory, but seriously the truth movement its payed by the goverment.

just with the first example, the fading of video, the guys says it was not fading but something else blah blah blah, same result.

2+3 = 5 and 3+2 = 5, I can debunk your debunking theory, so he claimes its not fading but something else, did he even said what caused it? that video its so lame I forgot already, so one way or another the "live" video was tempered one way or another, if you erase a few frames from a video you get the same thing and it was probably to soon for the impact to cause that since the camera was far away, it should have been a few seconds of delay from impact.

Anyhoo I wont continue 'cause I know you probably won't answer this and if you do you'll say something about me just trying to disregard the (false) truth of that video.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by Arsenis]

[edit on 9-2-2009 by Arsenis]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


glad to hear your finished posting here... Maybe the mods will also check on your other postings and see if they are also classified as trolling or shill work.

From the WARNING link below...



"What we (staff and memebrs) have noticed about this group is that their individuals engage in what they hope is an IMPENETRABLE approach in debating. They appear to have have no REAL interest in defending or discussing their theories. Instead they use provocative ideas and inflammatory language ("shills" for example) to bait people into extended debates filled with intentionally frustrating diversions, insults and accusation. Their activity in ATS threads prove they are disinterested in fact, reason, logic, or evidence while attempting to portray themselves as passionately convinced of their own highly questionable positions.


you certainly match what is being stated in the warning.

You also attack someone because they joined 2days ago, there OLD timer...



How the hell could you possibly know what goes on here if you registered only 2 days ago?


I agree with this statement... you continually change the criteria to prove anything...


Can you answer the questions and stop moving the goal posts please. I appreciate your response and am greatful for your reply, but you seem to be shifting the goal posts by injecting the no-planer ideas that the explosion was internal.


I'm sure some of the others that have been insulted by your accusations feel the same way.

I was going to report this via the ALERT button on the console but I thought differently once it opened and stated that it was intended for "Serious T&C Violations". I don't find this Serious but I do find it blatantly against the T&C and highly annoying and child like. Hopefully one of the mods will act on this and then I won't have to hit the button...

Maybe you are an old timer and was previously banned, hence the experience you seem to have.

Rgds



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by AllTiedTogether
 


Well, I did report your post as it had nothing to do with the topic and focussed solely on me, which is against forum rules. If you have nothing to post that relates to the topic, no sense in posting, thanx.

As far as the picture is concerned, there's nothing to explain. It's self explanatory. Big plane hits building. So very easy to see that. Bye bye now.

By the way AllTiedTogether, I'm done posting in the disinfo thread, not ATS, thanx.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
From the WARNING link below...



Instead they use provocative ideas and inflammatory language ("shills" for example)


you certainly match what is being stated in the warning.

Umm, the warning says inflammatory language as in calling others "shills" for example, genius. Not shill-like behaviour...



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
As far as the picture is concerned, there's nothing to explain. It's self explanatory. Big plane hits building. So very easy to see that. Bye bye now.


Hmmm...Thanks for dealing with the image BoneZ!
I see that you are a critical thinker and you are the ideal person to be debunking this theory...Well done!

Is there anybody on ATS who can actually tackle this image from a NPT "Debunkers" point of view....but actually come up with a genuine reason for the anomaly?

I want to believe what I was shown that day...but...my brain won't let me because of images like this one..

help me out please!



[edit on 9-2-2009 by zerozero00]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by AllTiedTogether
 

As far as the picture is concerned, there's nothing to explain. It's self explanatory. Big plane hits building. So very easy to see that. Bye bye now.


You know thats not the answer to the question, same as the video on your sig, evading as much as possible with stupid answers.

"duh, thats not fading... eh, thats called different"

That video is so dumb, even if september clues was a complete lie, your video can't even debunk that!

" oh, so when she sees the other plane she assumes its a sencond... uh... uh"

Well dude if she actually saw a plane hit the WTC wouldn't her response be "OMG a plane just hit the WTC" instead of " Another plane hit".

thank you for not posting in this thread anymore, because the people who actually wanna use real logic will have a discusion to find the answers here or any other thread.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by Arsenis]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arsenis
Well dude if she actually saw a plane hit the WTC wouldn't her response be "OMG a plane just hit the WTC" instead of " Another plane hit".

I shake my head in disgust at your logic. She was talking to a news anchor. She was obviously watching the news. The news said the first strike was a plane. She already knew there was one plane that hit the first tower from watching the news. She said "omg ANOTHER plane".

This stuff is so easy to debunk, it's like eating breakfast cereal in the morning, but less tasty.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
reply to post by finemanm
 


Oh... thanks so much for your expert testimony... this clears everything up. I will consider your story to be gospel and discount all the credible evidence because your father shared space with Dr Netkin. Unbelievable. Dr Netkin no less. Doesn't this beat all...

And your friend who saw it go in. YOUR Friend. YOU, the son of a father who worked in the same office as Dr Netkin no less.

And you saw it on the news at the same time as your friend... this story gets better and better... Plse do continue...

WOW!



I'm going to try this one last time, and then I give up. On September 11, 2001, I was in my first week as an Assistant District Attorney at the Kings County District Attorney's office.

On 9/11 , us new hires had a one hour lecture to attend from 8:00 am through 9:00 am. This is why I personally did not actually see the planes hit the buildings.

However, my friend did see event and relayed the story to me. Additionally, while I was trying to figure out how I am supposed to disprove a negative, i.e. that planes did not hit the buildings, I started thinking back to that day.

The Brooklyn DA's Office is located at 350 Jay Street. There is now a new court house which obstructs the view to manhattan, but back then there were no obstructions. A number of my fellow ADA's who were at work that morning were looking out the windows of the 14th floor of 350 Jay Street at the first tower because it was on fire. They all observed through the window, the second plane hit the other tower.

I was on the fifteenth floor by about 9:15 and I was watching on TV, in the lobby of the Special Victims bureau as both buildings were already on fire. I wish I could tell you that I saw the plane hit, but I am not going to lie just to prove you wrong. I know that I trust my friend who worked in lower manhattan, and my former co-workers at the DA's Office.

I also actually went to lower manhattan sometime between 9/12 and 9/15 with my father to get supplies out of his office. I actaully saw the airplane parts in question. I actually saw the burning rubble of the buildings, I actually tasted the dust (I do not know the contents of said dust) in my mouth. I am telling you that this no plane theory is complete nonsense.

I included the name of Dr. Nitkin only so that if someone were to fact check me they would see that I am telling the truth. I found a link to the doctor's wesite:

www.gynexpertnyc.com...

Why not say that there no buildings, or that 3,000 people didn't die on 9/11.

This is a great one, all the Jews stayed home from work that day. I am Jewish and my second cousin was Jewish and she was at work at Cantor FitzGerald bright and early that day, and she lost her life because a plane flew into that building.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   
I will repeat that I don't buy the "official" story of 9/11, but the no planes theory is just insulting to everyone who actaully saw planes, or in my case airplane parts.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by finemanm
I will repeat that I don't buy the "official" story of 9/11, but the no planes theory is just insulting to everyone who actaully saw planes, or in my case airplane parts.


ginally 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!!




Hmmm... A little insulting to say that the picture in question is legit!!

Touché!



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
You disinfo agents need to give it a rest. For 5 years you people have pushed this NPT nonsense and received virtually no traction, and no support from the 911 truth movement. Not one notable truth website supports your BS and not only that, some of them even bar the topic from discussion. The only thing you NPT agents succeeded at is giving skepti-bunkies a nice straw-man argument to tear down, so give yourself a pat on the back for that, but as for slowing down the truth movement, you failed. Give it up. You lost the info war. It's over. Your wasting your time.

I'll bet cash that you didn't convince a single individual. Not one. Only a debunker would be mentally inept enough to believe the NPT, and that is only if conventional wisdom holds such a thing. Doesn't it mean tell you something that John Lear is the most notable NPT(lol). It should also tell you something that only a single ATS'er wasted his time with you.

Think about it.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join