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.

 

Why they didn't use planes...

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   
An excellent article that puts the anti-NPTers logic & argument to rest once and for all imo



Sometimes people ask me "why would they use missiles or whatever and run the risk of being caught out ? If they're going to sell a story about planes, why not make it as convincing as possible and use real planes"?

It's a silly question, because in the face of direct visual and forensic proof that they didn't use planes (mostly supported by what little witness evidence we have), speculations about their thinking and planning are meaningless.

Nevertheless, since we live in extremely silly times, I'm going to address this question on its own terms.

Put yourself in the position of the perps. You have to think through what could go wrong in each possible scenario and then decide which scenario poses the smallest risk.

You want to sell a story about hijacked planes.

At the first level of decision making, you have two choices.

1) Actually use planes.

2) Use missiles or whatever the blobs 11 thing is, & convince people that they were planes.

Lets first look at the second scenario. You have the media on your side to tell the story. What could go wrong?

1) Witnesses might see that they were not planes & report it.

Well this has actually happened, but it seems that nobody takes any notice. The myth of "thousands of witnesses" to a big plane strike keeps getting trotted out on the basis of a circular assumption. "Because big jets were there, then people must have seen them - because people saw them, that proves they were there."

Clearly the perps thought about how to minimize the problem of contrary witness reports, and came up with a simple but effective plan.

This problem is easy to minimize. The first strike happens, and because the object is small and fast and unexpected, no-one is too sure what it is, or whether they saw it correctly. A few witness reports go to air reporting missiles or small planes or no craft at all, but there is only an 18 minute window for this to occur before the whole world sees a big jet live on TV - using commercially available real time animation technology. This distracts the media from interviewing many witnesses to the second strike, because everyone is fixated on the video replay. Those few witnesses who might get a moment with the media, then lack confidence in what they saw, because once again, the object was small, fast and unexpected. Seeing the TV replay - which was instantly available - would make most people think that they just didn't see it properly. The few who remain unshakable in their belief that it was not a large plane are easily shouted down and drowned out by the endless replays. In addition the airlines release a statement saying that they've lost two big jets and any witness dissent is *instantly* - the moment the second strike happens - marginalized almost to the point of oblivion.

This is not speculation. Read through the transcripts of broadcasts as they unfolded between about 8.47 and 9.30 and you will see that this is *exactly* what happened. From the moment the second strike occurred, anyone who tried to say that it was not a large jet immediately had a TV replay shoved in their face.

What little witness evidence was gathered in the brief time available between the two strikes was not enough to do any real damage, and everything after that was corrupted by everybody having TV replays of the second jet shoved in their face as soon as they opened their mouths.

In that brief period between the two strikes, there was only one witness who said a large jet - and that just happened to be the vice prez of CNN, which of course is a major player in the scam - just as pivotal as the govt.

So we can see that the problem of contrary witnesses, while a minor inconvenience is easily overcome with some good planning

continued full article here www.911closeup.com...


Mod Edit: Use External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3/1/2009 by Hal9000]




posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
An excellent article that puts the anti-NPTers logic & argument to rest once and for all imo

Thank goodness it's just your opinion because that article is one big piece of speculation based on opinoin only. There's no hard factual scientific evidence at all for NPT.

In the following video, after the second plane hits, you can hear the plane parts slamming into buildings and landing on the street. For a brief second, you can see the plane parts falling through the air and landing on the ground.

Here's the kicker, the video even shows someone that got killed from a plane part that landed on top of him. Now unless you think someone killed this person in broad daylight in front of dozens of people and then threw the plane part on top of that person, your disinfo ends here:

www.livevideo.com...


Jet engine that hit a street sign:



Plane part embedded into a car:



For your "theory" you would have to have a massive ground crew and people on top of buildings throwing these plane parts onto the ground. Especially a crew to move that several hundred pound jet engine part while busting up the street sign. Not to mention the crew to beat the hell out of that car and then embed a plane part into the car.

Not to mention another person or so to kill somebody in broad daylight in front of dozens of people and then throw a plane part on top of that dead person to make it look like he got killed by the plane part, as shown in the video above.

NPT holds no water against the real, physical evidence.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Totally agree. I haven't seen anything in matrix's OP that comes even close to approaching logic.

It's ridiculous, over the top larger than life fantasy like the NPT that derailed what used to be a legit movement of people who looked at the existing evidence and had alot of questions about the multitude of inconsistencies, coincidences, ect.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Ill say this like I said on another thread. Quit starting threads like this. It takes away from the true frauds of 9/11 and that is who perpetrated it. There were planes that hit the WTC period end of story. They were not holograms or missiles they were planes. You need to focus on the who done it aspect and not crap like this.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 


That's why nobody in the 9/11 truth movement supports these theories and the whole movement decided to disassociate themselves from these theories by banning the discussion of the topic.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Saying that there were no planes on 9/11 is absolutely ridiculous and ruins the credibility of plausible theories regarding 9/11!!!

There is SO MUCH evidence that proves planes were used in the attacks. Enough with this B.S.!!!

If there was any foul play on 9/11 it was that the administration knew about the attacks before hand and allowed them to happen in order to further their agenda.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Diplomat
Saying that there were no planes on 9/11 is absolutely ridiculous and ruins the credibility of plausible theories regarding 9/11!!!


saying no planes on 9/11 isn't a plausible theory when evidence contradicts that OPINION and has never been conclusively or refuted beyond a doubt, is beyond close-minded and whats borderline insane.


Originally posted by Diplomat
There is SO MUCH evidence that proves planes were used in the attacks. Enough with this B.S.!!!


No, in fact the evidence against planes being used in the attacks far outweighs the evidence against it.

sorry M8.


Originally posted by Diplomat
If there was any foul play on 9/11 it was that the administration knew about the attacks before hand and allowed them to happen in order to further their agenda.


If they KNEW about it before the attacks, then its more than reasonable and logical aside from all the evidence proving inside job, to assume they were not only a part of it, but the perpetrators themselves.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Thanks again BoneZ for posting a picture of the wrong engine in the corner of Murray street.

That is a 737 engine and tells us a lot of stuff were planted.

D.Duck



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by D.Duck
That is a 737 engine and tells us a lot of stuff were planted.

That's pretty funny considering I don't see "737" written on it anywhere. Do you honestly think you can come on a forum and spew stuff like that without proof? Show proof of your theory or stop wasting space, thanks.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by D.Duck
That is a 737 engine and tells us a lot of stuff were planted.

That's pretty funny considering I don't see "737" written on it anywhere. Do you honestly think you can come on a forum and spew stuff like that without proof? Show proof of your theory or stop wasting space, thanks.


The burden of proof is on you my friend, you are the one posting a picture saying it is a 767 engine.

Good luck with that.
D.Duck



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I think the whole reason this theory, regarding the Twin Towers specifically, was put out there was to attempt to negate the fact that NO PLANE hit the Pentagon.

Peace


[edit on 2-3-2009 by Dr Love]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by D.Duck

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by D.Duck
That is a 737 engine and tells us a lot of stuff were planted.

That's pretty funny considering I don't see "737" written on it anywhere. Do you honestly think you can come on a forum and spew stuff like that without proof? Show proof of your theory or stop wasting space, thanks.


The burden of proof is on you my friend, you are the one posting a picture saying it is a 767 engine.

Good luck with that.
D.Duck


You are the one who said that is a 737 engine. The burden of proof is on you. You can't tell someone else to prove what they say is true and not have to prove what you say. If that was the case then I could say that it was an engine off of a lear 35 and you would have to accept that because you couldn't prove what you said to be correct.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140

Originally posted by D.Duck

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by D.Duck
That is a 737 engine and tells us a lot of stuff were planted.

That's pretty funny considering I don't see "737" written on it anywhere. Do you honestly think you can come on a forum and spew stuff like that without proof? Show proof of your theory or stop wasting space, thanks.


The burden of proof is on you my friend, you are the one posting a picture saying it is a 767 engine.

Good luck with that.
D.Duck


You are the one who said that is a 737 engine. The burden of proof is on you. You can't tell someone else to prove what they say is true and not have to prove what you say. If that was the case then I could say that it was an engine off of a lear 35 and you would have to accept that because you couldn't prove what you said to be correct.


I totally agree with you , if you say its an engine off of a lear 35 and I as the first poster cant back the statement I have made in a post then you have every right to see my statement as taken out of tin air.

So you say its a Lear 25 and I say its a CFM56 engine of the Boeing 737.

Now lets see if the first poster can back his statement/picture that its a 767 engine or if it was taken out of tin air.

D.Duck

[edit on 2-3-2009 by D.Duck]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by D.Duck
Now lets see if the first poster can back his statement/picture that its a 767 engine or if it was taken out of tin air.

Once again with the "tin" air. We don't have tin in our air.

All pictures and videos show a 767 hitting the buildings. Until you can show that they were 737's hitting the buildings and can prove it, you have nothing but a "claim" with no proof. And until you can match that crumpled pile of jet engine to one from a 737 vs a 767, you will again have no proof. All you have is your "claim" with no proof.

Then again, all videos and pics are fake to you, so your claims are automatically baseless and disinfo as you get to make up whatever you want without showing proof.

I'm also loving how the disinfo team likes to sit in their little chairs and refresh the thread over and over so they can hurry up and make another post with disinfo in it before anyone else get's to post.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by D.Duck
Now lets see if the first poster can back his statement/picture that its a 767 engine or if it was taken out of tin air.

Once again with the "tin" air. We don't have tin in our air.

All pictures and videos show a 767 hitting the buildings. Until you can show that they were 737's hitting the buildings and can prove it, you have nothing but a "claim" with no proof. And until you can match that crumpled pile of jet engine to one from a 737 vs a 767, you will again have no proof. All you have is your "claim" with no proof.

Then again, all videos and pics are fake to you, so your claims are automatically baseless and disinfo as you get to make up whatever you want without showing proof.

I'm also loving how the disinfo team likes to sit in their little chairs and refresh the thread over and over so they can hurry up and make another post with disinfo in it before anyone else get's to post.


BoneZ,

I am from Sweden so the spelling is not 100% it should be thin air.

You are right no 737 hit the towers and all pictures and videos show a fake CGI 767 hitting the building.

You say a real 767 hit the tower and to back that statement you show us a picture of an engine you say is a 767 engine in the corner of Murray street.

I will give you a chance back that statement/picture. If you cant do that I will write you off as making statements out of thin air and claim that the engine is a CFM56 engine of a Boeing 737 that was planted there.

Best
D.Duck



[edit on 2-3-2009 by D.Duck]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by D.Duck
You are right no 737 hit the towers

Thank you for admitting that. It shows that you really are a disinfo artist and trying to say that the engine is from a 737 when you have no proof, instead you would rather purposefully lie and deceive.

You've been debunked and I responded to you here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Case closed, game over.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


BoneZ,

Its good that you post here because you are so obvious and I think people are smart and can see through the game you are playing .

D.Duck



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by D.Duck
 


Don't hate me because you got caught in a lie and got caught purposely spreading disinformation.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by D.Duck
 


Don't hate me because you got caught in a lie and got caught purposely spreading disinformation.


BoneZ

I don't hate you, I like guys like you because you let everybody else on this forum see who you are and see what game you are playing, so thank you very much for being so obvious.

D.Duck



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



I don't understand you bonez, why are you getting so bothered? Have you forgot that this is a conspiracy forum? Are we only allowed to post threads that only you agree with? If it upsets you that much then just ignore the thread.

I also don't get why time and time again you fail to explain any of the anomalies in Sept clues and other docs regarding the NPT. Instead you just dismiss it as some ludicrous idea that's to beneath you to even contemplate.

Whether planes hit the towers or not, the tv/amature footage that was shown was most certainly tampered with. Do you at least agree on that?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join