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.

 

CONS: Exposing The Fraud of the "No Plane Theory" -- Conspiracy Fakery

page: 10
139
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by alienanderson
The first video in that clip is explained in a discussion I watched the other day
Basically, the plane does not show up in the long shot as it is too small. The camera does not have high enough resolution to capture the plane until it zooms in a bit.
Watch from around 07:00 for a detailed explanation
I have a graphical illustration of that problem up on Video & Media:
media.abovetopsecret.com...
I started out with the DVD quality version of the video. Then I did a Virtual Earth reconstruction by putting the "camera" where the chopper would have been and looking in the same direction. I go about finding the plane differently than Simon Shack. I actually locate it in the virtual geography and not on a two dimensional plane. I draw in a representation of the plane, into the virtualy produced picture.
I went to a lot of trouble to scale the plane. I got it right, as far as the length of it goes. I had to make a decision about fudging on the thickness of the fuselage. I had it worked out to where it would have been something less than two pixels. I decided it was closer to two than it was to one, plus it would have looked like hell, if I had gone with one.
I inserted the frame (actually I cut off part of the bottom) from the video to show that I was in the right place and that the width of the virtual picture matches the video frame. You notice right away that there is a big difference in scale, between my produced picture, and the archived picture. Now, if in the large scaled picture, the plane's fuselage would have only taken up completely, one pixel, what would it be in the smaller scaled picture? Something less than one pixel? Does something smaller than one pixel even show up on a video camera. I don't know, but maybe someone who knows how that particular camera works, would know.


[edit on 30-4-2009 by jmdewey60]




posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by screwedagain
I don't think this was a good debunk. It didn't convince me either way. I'm still not convinced that's a 767 in that video. In the embedded video, it still looks dodgy.


The real question is, why are all those of us who were witnesses and physically, with our own eyes, *SAW* the planes?! Why does it even *NEED* debunking? Thousands of people saw it, some of us rather up close and personally... you'd think that that might factor in, but seldom seems to in certain circles because of the thicknecked determination to PROVE that anything but what was actually witnessed, happened.

I'm so f***ing sick of this entire discussion; I saw what I saw and need no "advanced explosive device" or "Mossad rocket-launcher" to explain what I saw. Thanks for trying to reveal this pile of sensationalist, agenda-based crap for what it is.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
I agree with you 100% and I think people will do ANYTHING for some attention. Good Job!



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I never cease to be amazed at how dysfunctional the Truth Movement is.

After 8 years, everyone is still haggling over different pieces without eing able to fit it all together.

The central problem is this, to solve any crime, you MST put aside grondless assumptions, yet the Truth Movement will not do so, clinging to a bunch of fundamentally flawed concepts. ONce these are removed, simple and sytematic analysis shows exactly who and how it was done.

The first ridiculous and contradictory set of assumptions s this - that the people who did this are total traitors and yet at the same time to presume that they were all patriotic enough to use onlyUS personnel and equipment.

The second is to work in absolutes, that these people wer etotally inflexible and either used only planes or only missiles.

Thirdly, the assumption is made that everyone was in it. This is paranoid and ultra discreditiing. For a conspiracy to work, it wold have to be kep to the smallest number of people.

Fourthly, that Structural Engineers who are corrupt make more money putting up wobbyl buildings. TThis is untrue. As Engineers are paid on a percentage of the cost of a building, the more that they can have thrown in, the more money they make.

Finally, the people always work on the laughable assumption that the people who did this are just like them, that their motives were just like theirs wold have been and so have concentrated on how and who did it, never on why. When WHY is asked, one quickly starts getting bizarre results which, however starnge, lead swiftly to an almost certainty of the truth - however deeply uncomfortalbe it is.

So...REMOVE ALL THESE ASSUMPTIONS and now begin looking at the evidence.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
In any crime there are three factors, means motive and opportunity.


1. WHat happened. Looking at footage in a different way allowed me to spot momentary flashes of explosions. THis I reported to Alex Jones on his radio programme and it was then put on infowars - the indication therefor eis not that all the charges were fired in seqence to bring it down, but were fired one by one slowly over a period of a couple of hours to weaken it so a single final barrage could easily bring it down without people noticing the final handful of explosions.. The presence of chemical traces shows clearly that explosives were used. Witnesses etc shows the same. Furthermore, Les Robertson made a fortune off the WTC by putting in 43 Trusses when only 12 were necessary. Hence, it should never have collapsed without cutting charges. There is numeros other piece of evidence to indicate that it was demolished by cutting charges. Furthermore, tiny aluminium pellets are said to have been found confirming this. I find it hard to deny that explosives brought about the end of the WTC.

2. In the case of the Pentagon, again evidence clearly show that it was hit by a missile, not by a plane.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Now move to opportunity.

Who could have placed the explosives. For this there is only one candidate in the WTC and that is the Turner Corporation. This had been doing unspecified work on the trusses and in the elevator shafts right up to the morning of 9/11. Furthermore, their contract for the clean up gave them ample opportunity to remove evidence.

In the case of the Pentagonand possible use of missiles, however, by looking at opportunity, who COULD have done it produces some interesting results. Turning off transponders is extremely difficult and not really feasible inflight. Furthermore, how come the Pentagon did not see it and why did the airliners disappear from view? Sherlock Holmes once said, remove the impossible and what ever is left, however rdiculous must be the truth. If the transponders cold not easly be turned off, the answer is that the never were. So, if the transpinders were never turned off, who could have launched weapons and what sort of weapons that would have been, in effect, invisible to NORAD and NATO systems. Where this takes the answer is stunning, but as Mr Holmes said, if it is all that is left after the impossible has been removed, then it must be the fact.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by somethingelse
 


Sorry, 'something'.....as to the Pentagon, you fail there.

IF it were just a missile, then the people who saw an American Airlines jet must have been hallucinating?

Oh...and the damage to the Exterior wall (please don't trot out that tired photo from one of the inner ring walls again...PLEASE!!)

The fragments of parts found...the (sorry) body parts, the CVR and DFDR, and on and on and on.....

Please...all this does is give MORE fodder to the NPT baloney.

Finally, wish to put this to rest?? Go out and actually speak to first responders, here in Arlington VA and the Washington DC area. Here their accounts.

Or, continue to be deceived by internet hoaxers, your choice.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
The answer to who had the opportunity to attack the Pentagon and possibly the WTC with missiles lies in the Falklands War between the nited Kingdom and Argentina. Argentina dropped tons of conventional munitions on the British navy, but failed to do any derious damage, suffering heavy casualties themselves, with the sole exception of the lcuky hit ona trooper carrier in San Carlos Bay caused by extreme neglience of the British commander.

ALmost all serious damage inflicted on the British by the Argentines bwas caused by one and only one weapon systemm... the Exocet. ANd why? At the time a stunning fact was revealed in the newspapers which has gone unnoticed for 8 years by the Truth Movement. The Exocet sank ship after ship, because it was... French. Weird? Let me explain as explained in the newspapers at the time. When Nato andNorad systems were developed, it was envisaged that the next war wold be between NATO and the SOviets. It was concluded that the killing would be so staggeringly fast that as soon as fighting boke out, naval radar personnel would have but seconds to live in which to take hyper urgent decisions. It was viewe that it was essential to keep NATO and NorAD radar screens as clear and simple as possible, so they are programmed only to show three types of items -
1. Your own weapons, missiles, planes and ships
2. The weapons, missiles, planes and ships of your enemy and their allies.
3. Civilian aircraft, shops etc.

Hence one grop of weapons, missiles, planes, ships etc was left off the screens in order to unclutter them... those of your own allies. Hence the Exocet was invisible to British radar. The only was to see it was for the British ROyal nNavy garrison a line of sailors with binoculars along the outside edge of each ship.

Now try apply in gth same logic to the SA. What missiles, planes etc wold beat the Pentagon and NORAD systems? those of the close allies of the USA , namely the UK and France. Wold all of America's systems fail to spot incoming missiles? Actually no. Old systems, not locked into NATO wold actually spot them. The main one still in use being in Langley. It is presumed by the Truth Movement that Langley launched their planes to Whisky 386 in the midle of the Atlantic in a cynical attempt to give New York and Wahsington no cover, but there is another explanation.... that Langley alone CORRECTLY identified where the missiles/planes were coming from and correctly launched.

So ofthe K and Frnace, which cold easily be compromised. Well, in the USA, all missiles, nuclear or not are loaded and maintained by the US Navy or at least under their watchful eye....but in the Britain, this is not the case. In the UK, all the Royal Navy's missiles are maintained by a private contractor who cold have easily repainted them to look like aircraft, switched warheads and switched the circuit boards and reporogrammed them. Who is this contractor who, effectively could sabotage the UK boomer feet without them even knowing? Answer... Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton. ANd who put them in charge? Why Tony BLair, Bush's pal.

Furthermore, some people have noted that the colouration of the explosions is similar to that of a nuke going off and lead them to the false logical step of assuming that a small nuke was used. Nuclear weapons function by using a three stage detonation. First there is a conventional detonator, but this does not set off the war head, only the Bomb initiator which actually fires the warhead. The bomb initiator, base don Caesium is a truly awesome conventional explosive. It would never normally be used as its cost as its cost is so astronomic as to make it useless for anything other than setting off nuclear warhead. BUT, is one sabotages a British nuke by taking out the radioactive material, the initiator alone wold turn it into a very powerful missile whose initiator chemicals would cause the same colouration as happened at the WTC.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Now who has the authority to launch British nuclear missiles?

Offically it wold seem to be the Queen and Tony Blair, but this is not actually the case. The British Government is paranoid abot anti-nuclear protestors, and are therefore keen to avoid a K19 Widowmaker scenario. Hence, if there is a severe radiation leak form the missiles as shown on his Kellogg Brown and Root installed equipment, a British Boomer Captain can and must launch to ditch missiles at sea. This they will do, unless of course they have been reprogrammed.

For 8 years the Truth Movement has been searching the missile inventories of the USA to find missing missiles to no avail. In the K, public records show that a British nuclear submarine (whose name escapes me at the moment) actually left England a few days beofre 9/11 and arrived in the Far East a few weeks later. At that speed, she wold have been in the vicinity of the Eastern Seaboard of the USA at about 9/11. Furthermore, it is recorded that upon arrival, several of her missiles were missing.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Were planes used? Ndoubtedly, but also so were missiles.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   
A common criticism of the Truth Movement is that surely someone wold have talked by now. A simple solution to this is, of course, for the conspirators to eliminate the witnesses. Since the Truth Movement has continuously watched theUSA, no one has kept watch on theUK where people could easily have been bumped off. Indeed, lots of scandals in the UK have centred on deaths of electrical engineers, consider the Brazilian who was shot dead on the subay system by the Police.

So how did they remove the witnesses for the setting of the explosives?



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by somethingelse
 


something....."nuclear missiles"???

Nuclear, are you sure?

Really? Wanna go that direction?

OK, open forum, can anyone else see the flaw in this 'logic'?

NPT has gone pretty far and wide, in an attempt to cram non-sensical notions into the discussions. This one is just a bit over the top, methinks.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Now consider the question of MOTIVE.

THe Truth Movement never asks WHY... believing that it has the luxury that this is obvious, but is it?

Consider, WTC7. Its destruction has sprayed clues everywhere as to indicate that it was an inside job. So why would conspirators blow up a pointless WTC7 when they wold otherwise have it pretty much "sewn: up.

The obvious answer is that in blowing up WTC7 they covered up more clues than they left. A security guard who went in there before its collapse swears blind that it was full of bodies.

How to silence the people who set the cutting charges and knew about it at City Hall and the Port Authority? Simple, call them into Guiliani's emergancy centre on the day, then have someone else rig it up also beforehand, allowing for all of them to be terminated as well. Andf if this is what they wanted to do , then those who might have worked on this in Britain are clearly long dead in their graves now.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   
The Crash in Pennsylvannia

Was it a plane that crashed?

Sadly, the Truth Movement goes to the extreme of presuming that everything that is said iby the state is either true or false.

One of the interesting points about the crash was that various journalist claim to have heard the original flight recorder tape and that this was amended later. On the original, the tape runs on some time after the initial explosion. There would be no reason surely for those involved to have incriminated themselves in having the first tape, yet other evidence indicates that faking on phones was done.

Seismological readings too indicate that the crash time was a few minutes and seconds after the official time and it is known that for the conversations to have taken place informing someone on board that WTC had fallen means that it must have crashed at a marginally later time.

A hard fact exists: in the history of aviation, no passenger revolt against hijackers has ever occured. No one could or wold have ever predicted it. So what's with the faking of phone calls?

The conclusion reached it that planes were hiajcked,, switched for dummies and missiles including from the UK... BUT a passenger revolt did truly take place on that plane unexpectedly.

So if it was shot down by two missiles why? and Why is the USA so embarrased to say do?

There is an interesting comparison here. It was viewed that it wold take about 90 minutes for any firefighters to reach the blaze in the SOuth Tower, yet one firefughter guy, dumped his kit and sprinted up there in 30 minutes or so. He reported back that the blaze was not intense and that they cold deal with it. The South Tower fell seconds later. Likewise, as soon as the cockpit was overrun by the paseengers, it was shot down. The conclusion is that the flight was shot down PRECISELY because th epassengers had taken control and the SOuth Tower was felled earlier than planned pPRECISELY because a firefighter had got there early.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by somethingelse
Ndoubtedly, but also so were missiles.

Please provide a source for this claim.



Originally posted by somethingelse
A security guard who went in there before its collapse swears blind that it was full of bodies.

Please provide a source for this claim. Thanks.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
IN summary, this is what I believe ocuured and felel the evidence backs.

KBR juryrig British nuclear missles. The radioactive part is removed, turning them into super-powerflul missiles. ONe of these at least was used on the pentagon. A phone emergency then causes them to be launched from a British boomer in Whisky 386. As these were British, the NORAD and NATO systems would never see them coming, only Langley.

Flights were hijeacked., Some might have been crashed into the WTC, but more likely, they wer elanded and deboarded at airbases, with the passengers and crew being done away with. In the case of Pennsylvania, however, although set up to be replaced, the passengers revolt before they can be taken off, so it has to be shot down to protect the guilty.

Witnesses in the UK were then elimiinated along with the crews and their remains fed into the ludicrously overly complex chain of custody that was developed to handle the human remains. Photos were then faked up.

RESULT: The entire operation could have been done by Kellogg Brown and Root and the Turner Corporation with no US Government help or involvement.

As 9/11 wold therefore have been done "privately", of course everyone in Government in the US would laugh at the 9/11 Truth movement everyone in Government genuinely knew nothing of it (other than Rumsfeld, Bush, Guiliani, and Cheney personally) and the obvious target for blame being the US Government would discredit the Truth Movement from the get-go.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


SIr, have yo not read ANY of what I have written. The entire piecce is to demonstrate that use of missiles was by far the easiest option, and by not using any facilities of the US Governement, the TRuth Movement can be discredited from the get-go.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by somethingelse
 


something....dude, I don't know where you're getting this info. TWO missiles from the UK?? To 'shoot down' UAL 93?

Try looking at this website:

www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_AA77_UA93_study.pdf

Not sure if it links, here on ATS. If not, just type it into your web browser.

EDIT = There will be technical info there...ask me, or other pilots for clarifications. EDIT to correct link.

What you will see is only a portion of the evidence extracted from the DFDRs from American 77 and United 93. It focuses on the Autopilot/FMS (that's Flight Management System) data as recovered.

This is NOT stuff that can be made up, and 'planted' as evidence...these devices are digital. What's more, when co-related with the CVR (Cockpit Voice Recorder) timing -- transcripts, with time references, available at the NTSB site -- the mounds of data also include the tapes made at the ATC facilities (the ARTCC). THEY co-incide with the cockpit recordings as well.

Furthermore, the Airline Piot's Association, ALPA, years ago lobbied and won rules that are enforced so that ACTUAL CVR recordings are not made public. Transcripts only. IN THE CASE of UA93, the victim's families were allowed to hear the actual tapes, in a closed Courtroom setting, as part of Moussani's trial. (Mousanni was aleged to have been the 'fifth' hijacker slated for UAL93, had he not been detained and arrested earlier).

The original 'plan' was for five Operatives on each airplane. We were sorely lucky that Moussani was intercepted, else we may have lost another landmark...most likely, the US Capitol Building.





[edit on 5/2/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by somethingelse
SIr, have yo not read ANY of what I have written. The entire piecce is to demonstrate that use of missiles was by far the easiest option

How does text demonstrate anything. I see you typing a whole bunch of words but you provide no sources for anything. Your words mean nothing without sources. I again ask you to provide sources for the above, thanks.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by somethingelse
 


something, NOW you are saying that the UK intentionally removed the 'nukes' from their Nuclear Missiles....well ahead of time, mind you...and then launched dummies??

THEN, WHAT exploded???

Digging deeper and deeper. I daresay, in deference to our British friends on the Board....I see NO WAY they would be in collusion to such a heinous act.

The 'no-plane-theory' is ever more desperate, methinks.



new topics

top topics



 
139
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join