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: 11
139
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 

Well, of course, what you have said is complete and uteer nonsense.




posted on May, 2 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Huh?

As I explained...

1. what exploded? Answer, the bomb initiators.

2. The British DID NOT launch and attack nor were involved to any large degree. All it needed was for Tony Blair to hive off the servicing of the missiles to KBR which indeed he did. This was done by Kellogg Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, an all American company.

3. I am, myself, from Westminster in England.

4. I do not deny the possibility of hijacking and of some of the planes existing and certainly believe that the Truth Movement is wrong about the plane in Pennsylvania. They did revolt, they were shpot down, they were heroes.

5.However absurd it all sounds, this wold all mean that 9/11 could have been done without any Grand Conspiracy involving huge wings of the US Government.
Conspiracies only work when they are kept small. With this, it wold be possible to do 9/11 using only half a dozen people who would know what would be happening, a couple of teams of workers who don't realise what they are doing and a bunch of folk in the media who are encouraged to colour the truth through appeals to their patriotism. Infiltration of NATO or NORAD becomes irrelevant.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by somethingelse
 


Just to clarify, detonatinga nuke is a tough job. As the two halves of the critical mass approach, there is an exponential rise in radiation forcing them apart. Most ordinary explosives cannot force them close enough, so an initiator is used. The explosives in a tiny initiator wold easily bring down most of a city block, but the cost is so astronomically high that it would be pointless to use in convential weapons when one could buy enough explosives to flatten a much larger area for the same price as an initiator... but since they would have been stolen, why should KBR and their backers care.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by somethingelse
Well, of course, what you have said is complete and uteer nonsense.

Care to enlighten us and show some kind of evidence instead of just typing words on your screen? Thanks.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by somethingelse
 


the Truth Movement is wrong about the plane in Pennsylvania. They did revolt, they were shpot down, they were heroes.
That makes about no sense to me. Why would the plane need to be shot down if the hijackers were overcome by the passengers?
My thought on this is that it was being held in reserve, in case one of the other planes failed. Once they knew the others were successful in hitting their targets, the plane would have been something impossible to explain. The best way to deal with it was to shoot it up to destroy the evidence.


[edit on 2-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


That's a good idea. Not sure why that never crossed my mind. Something to ponder...



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by infoliberator
No planes hit the World Trade Center!
No Hijackers were onboard!
No Passengers were aboard!


The burden of proof is upon you to submit evidence for your claims. So far you have none.


No plane parts.
Plane parts were found. Do some research


No passengers.
remains have been found. Again, research.


No hijackers.
That is a claim not yet proven.


Planted plane parts.
Planted Passenger lists.
Planted Hijacker Passports.
More claims unproven.


No planes under the reported names where scheduled to depart that day.


Wrong. bts.gov has the records. The problem is, that website is nothing short than the eternal fires of hell to get around. It is near impossible to find what you are looking for. I once made an inquiry to a plane that my mother took last year. It didn't show up. Does that mean the plane never existed? No.


No passenger families are known to exist.
An absurd claim that can easily be thwarted if you do research. Wasn't a Senator's (or someone in the government, can't remember who exactly) wife on one plane? Where is she now?


Hijackers were found living in various countries, each cliaing to have had their passport stolenm at some point before 911.
Yes, based upon a news report right after 9/11 when things were still sketchy.


All Videos have been proven to be faked, and none are known to be real.
No they haven't been proven to be faked.


All videos coming from sources after 911 were in fact done by people in media and entertainment, and CGI effects.


So? Who else do you think would film the events? And you are wrong, there is at least 1 video from someone not in the media.


All videos shown including the ones on TV during the day of 911 show different airplanes angles as they enter the building.
What? Are you saying there were different angles of the event or that the airplane hit at different areas?

If it's the latter, then you seriously need to look at the videos again.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by balon0
 


The interesting thing about no planers like you is that you run and hide whenever someone says "yes I was there and saw it." You guys just hate witnesses because they refute your bogus theory. Tell me, why are you attempting to discredit the many number of witnesses out there when you can't even find ONE person who was there and says it wasn't an airplane?


Originally posted by infoliberator
Any [INSULT REMOVED] who watches September Clues becomes INSTANTLY, a No Planer.


An intelligent rationally minded person will not become a no planer after watching that garbage.


blah blah blah blabber

How did they get that bridge to float downstream, and the cop cars to drive backwards?
Source?


How come people who watched the buildings explode, claim they saw "no planes", and argue with the news cam,eramen that day, as it happened, INSISTING THERE WERE NO PLANES?
Source?


How come on one video, the guy with his two friends claims he saw a missile enter the building and claim with confidence, "that was no plane!" ???
Source?


How come every video that exists shows the plane entering at IMPOSSIBLE ANGLES THAT CONTRADICT EACH OTHER?
Source?


How come the pilots questioned by people, claim that it is impossible for a jet to fly at 500 mph above the water at near sea level?
Source?


How come Newtons law of Physics suddenly don't apply here? How come an aluminum plane can penetrate a steel building at 500 MPH, and no parts crash outside the building, when a BIRD can penetrate the hull of a plane while it flies in midair, and destroy the plane? In other words, under what conditions can aluminum penetrate steel and bend Newtons laws of Physics? And if this is true, then how come flies don't come crashing through my windshield no matter how fast I drive?


I love this argument. No planers seem to think that anything slamming into something else at a very high speed (faster than you can drive) will just thump against the object without doing much exterior damage. Have you ever seen damage after a hurricane? If you have, you would know it is possible for something like a small tree to go through parts of a car.

Furthermore, you have zero understanding of physics. Because of that, it's easy to prove your bogus theory with your limited knowledge. People who believe in a flat earth can "prove" it using limited science. Problem is, there's much better info out there.

In addition, go look up the plane that crashed into the Empire State Building. It was a smaller one going at a low speed, but most of it still went into the building. One wing even went through.

Or was that "fake" too?


How come you can see the airplane wings, including the one BEHIND the plane, when the plane is flying at an angle, toward the building? And if this IMPOSSIBLE stunt is possible, how long can a plane fly at a tilted angle, while flying across in one direction?


It was turning so it could hit the building!


How come all the people who have videos that have turned up on the internet, and the ones that were shown on television, are all people who work in ciomputer animation, and cgi, and special effects?
Source?


How come people are trying to stop people from watching September Clues?


Because it's a bunch of garbage that has no foundation to stand upon.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by MrRandomGuy]

[edit on 4-5-2009 by MrRandomGuy]



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Well, I personally think that the passengers did revolt, might have even suceeded, but were shot down for their troubles. it's unlikely the fighter pursuing the jet would have been aware of any revolt or anything going on, was simply told to hunt, shoot, kill on sight.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
(sorry mods for all the posts, trying to keep the server running smoothly while having my say as well)

reply to post by Insolubrious
 


Yes, that's right. Use a smaller plane traveling at a small speed impacting a much weaker building. I'm glad you gave me that orange and called it an apple.

reply to post by infoliberator
 


Refuting that is easy. I'll start with the scripted claim. If there were scripts, then we would see every statement about the event as it happened repeated verbatim by every eyewitness and everyone in the media. But that didn't happen did it?

Want me to continue or do you want to cling to the bogus theory some more?

reply to post by infoliberator
 


This is interesting info, so let me ask YOU the same question. Have you watched September Clues in it's entirety? Have you watched the old version AND the new version INCLUDING the epilogue AND the addendum? I'll be kind to you and will let you answer the question instead of speculating.


Originally posted by infoliberator
Fact : The Videos shown were faked, not real. I believe that and i'll bet my life on it. Does that itself mean no planes flew into the buildings? No. It does mean that no planes flew into the building at the precisde moment that the video showed they were. It could have been an hour earlier.


No, that is an opinion based upon faulty evidence.


Fact: No airplanes crashed through steel. That is physically impossible.


Again wrong. www.youtube.com...

Click at nine minutes into the video. Also look for the Empire State airplane crash.


Fact: No hijackers were aboard any of the supposed airplanes


Opinion based upon no evidence.


Fact: No passengers are known to exist, before or after the crash


Wrong. There are, I do not have time to show you but I'm sure others can spot me out here.


Fact: People who made the videos, were known VIDEO producers and CGI special effects technicians.
Source?


Fact: No airplane serial numbers from the planes that are supposed to have crashed, existed at the time, or were scheduled for flight that day.
Source?


Fact: Airplanes cannot fly at 550 MPH at a low altitude, low enough to fly into the buildings.


Source?


There are many more facts...but as they say "maam, the facts is the facts."


Most of your "facts" are really opinions or are based upon lies.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
reply to post by jmdewey60
 

Well, I personally think that the passengers did revolt, might have even suceeded, but were shot down for their troubles. it's unlikely the fighter pursuing the jet would have been aware of any revolt or anything going on, was simply told to hunt, shoot, kill on sight.

If that was true, it would mean the government is lying to us. They may be hiding the truth because it may not be something we would like, or because it would be evidence of their criminality.
On the other hand, if it was pre-rigged to blow something up, it could have been remotely blown up, without any fighter-launched rockets. It was known that there was a fighter in the area, so it would be convenient to leak something that would indicate that the fighter did fire on the "hijacked" plane, but never acknowledge it. When you have multiple layers of deception, I tend to think the worse.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   
I'm convinced! There were no planes. It was a false flag operation to create the War on Terror and deprive freedom loving Americans of their precious rights.

But thankfully a bunch of geniuses sitting at home were able to analyze the Youtube videos and prove the government and MSM set up everybody.

These noble people are the heroic defenders of Truth, Justice and the True American Way.


err .... can we get back to the waterboarding now?


Mike

[edit on 5-5-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 02:58 AM
link   
After the first plane hit people came out into the streets to watch (myself included). I can't say how many eye-witnesses there were for the first plane, but there were plenty for the second one.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


What convinced you of no planes?



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrRandomGuy
reply to post by mmiichael
 


What convinced you of no planes?


I think he had his [sarcasm] mode on Mr Random



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by alienanderson
 


Thanks, it's hard to tell sarcasm when you can't hear their voice.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
I am coming late to the discussion, and I have been reading all the posts for the different arguments on whether there were planes or not involved in 911. At this point I'm mostly a listener.

I just wanted to add one thing: I discussed the WTC attacks with an architect, who says the World Trade Center was not that well constructed. Unlike most skyscrapers the buildings did not have a concete core, so they collapsed rather easily. In addition, the stairwells had only sheetrock surrounding them and they allowed a great deal of smoke to penetrate as people were trying to exit. He says an airplane could indeed have brought a tower down.

The Empire State Building is unusually solidly built, on the other hand, and that is why it survived a less major airplane impact at an earlier point. He says it probably could withstand even the assualt of a Boeing.

Just my 2 cents.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


Sestias.....very interesting comments.

We've seen a lot of words written about the WTC Towers. They were "Steel"....and on and on.

I'd like to see someone comment on just HOW each steel beam was connected to the other????

I would think, given a side-load that was never imagined by the architects who designed the structures.....wouldn't the bolts or rivets be a weak point???? Substantial damage, (from airplane impact at very high speed) coupled with gravity....seems to me, a building might collapse, as seen.

OK....some will likely say....the buildings were designed to withstand a jet's impact. But, really??? They were selling the concept of building a sky-scraper (well, two, actually) near three major airports. Folks, unless you're a suicidal maniac, pilots don't fly airplanes into buildings at speeds as fast as they can physically manage.

SO....even IF the architects/engineers thought that a mass as big as a commercial jet could impact, and the buildings would survive....they likely assumed an airplane at approach speeds....kinetic energy is an amazing force. F=MA. Einstein.....this is not rocket science!!!!



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I was in New York on the morning of 911. I was watching the building after the first explosion. I saw no planes and all I saw was an explosion. I watched the building explode and I saw no planes.



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by somethingelse 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.



Could the name please catch up too you?
I have never heard this side before and it is intriguing.
It is plain that T.V. fakery was used (not so plain that their were no planes).

On a unrelated note(this is not directed at you somethingelse):
If you call someone a "Stupid delusional Kool-lad drinker."
Do you think they will respond with Peace and Love?...
The reason NP's act like a "Cult" is because you "Real Truthers" herd them into a circle and than you are surprised when they band together for strength.
As someone else stated when the "Truth Movement" started did everyone think you were loons? Of course. Were you? No.
People we need to stop petty fighting its Us vs Them not Us vs Us...
Anyone with a 3rd grade education can see their was deception around 9/11 wither that was full planning or pre-knowledge.
Also "Disinfo agent" should not be thrown around lightly that goes for both sides unless you have their pay stub you have no proof only speculation.



new topics

top topics



 
139
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join