Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
105
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by infoliberator
I'm seriously SICK of people shoving the lies down everyone's throat and calling people No-Planers and ridiculing them, and trying to debunk them. It's pretty obvious to me that the disinfo agents are the ones who spread lies trying to discredit the "No-Planers".

Do you any specific comments on the detailed analysis I've provided, or are you simply going to continue tossing insults as if I were someone refuting your religion?


The problem is...you never provided any analysis. You took a bad piece of evidence, created a strawman, and tore it down. So what?
The video was crappy, yes, but not all the videos are crappy. The whole "No Plabe" argument does not revoilve around crappy video or the showing of planes entering one building. The whole idea revolves around many issues that are irrefutable.




posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by infoliberator
The whole "No Plabe" argument does not revoilve around crappy video or the showing of planes entering one building. The whole idea revolves around many issues that are irrefutable.

Then perhaps you can succeed where others have not.

Please provide the link of one, just one, video proposing the no-plane theory that is based on high-quality source footage, not online digital video footage.

Just one. That's all I've ever asked.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by infoliberator
The whole "No Plabe" argument does not revoilve around crappy video or the showing of planes entering one building. The whole idea revolves around many issues that are irrefutable.

Then perhaps you can succeed where others have not.

Please provide the link of one, just one, video proposing the no-plane theory that is based on high-quality source footage, not online digital video footage.

Just one. That's all I've ever asked.


Precisely what I just said. Avoid the issue, by trying to base your whole argument on "bad video". It has nothing to do with the video, or at least, very little. Check out freedomdomain.com 911 Revisited, if the Mods allow you to see this. Then, refute the Plane angles discrepancy. Refute the Backwards bridges and police cars. Refute the Missing 19 Rector Street building from the CNN footage, etc. etc. etc. Do you homework!



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Nice Presentation MrOldSkool! Well done.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by infoliberator
 


'info'.....explain THIS:



It is in slo-mo. It ends just before impact. You can see the bank angle.

Other shots from different references show the camel jockey banking even more steeply to the left, to be sure to hit....as is, it was very nearly merely a glancing blow.

OR...this one:



If you look at the utube OP, you'll see that he is a NPT kool-aid drinker. What I find interesting is how one can see that footage and immediately cry "FAKE". It makes no bloody sense!!!

(I blame HollyWood filmmaking and the ability of the younger generation to 'believe' that anything is possible....even "magic").

"info"....why not spend a few years learning how to fly, then come tell us how it was 'faked'

Y'all invited....take yer shoes off, sit a spell....y'all come back, now, y'hear?

[edit on 4/26/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by infoliberator
Precisely what I just said. Avoid the issue, by trying to base your whole argument on "bad video".

Because bad video is the entire point upon which the fraud of the no-plan theory is based.

Please... if you are so passionate about this theory, just link me to one quality video created from quality source footage. It shouldn't be so hard should it?

After all, I've done my part to illustrate my point through both time and expense. Surely you can do you part by just providing one link?



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
I hadn't heard the "no-plane theory" for WTC. I'd heard it about the Pentagon, of course.

So what these NPT people are saying, basically, is that there were no airplanes that crashed into the towers, it was all an inside job of some sort? Explosives planted to damage, then take down both towers? And they somehow managed to convince crowds of people that they saw airplanes that weren't there? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Many people saw the first plane hit the tower. I suppose it might have been a hologram, except those require some sort of medium to be displayed on - smoke, dust, clouds, etc. Didn't see any of that in the films. Far more people saw the second plane, because everyone was watching the towers by then. I saw clear videos of the second plane, from several different angles. Sure, it could have been faked. Movie special effects are common and convincing.

But the explosions themselves had direction. They moved along the direction of travel of the "imaginary" planes. That is, they blew out the opposite sides of the buildings from where these nonexistent planes struck. Sure, special effects again, maybe.

In the meantime, you've got four airplanes that disappear somewhere, along with the passengers. What did they do with the planes and the people on them? Take over by remote control, and crash them into the ocean? If they could do that much, they might as well have crashed them into the buildings using remote control, to make it more realistic.

The NPT requires a whole lot of bizarre events to happen, in order to concoct an unconvincing story. Mass hallucination or special effects; sinister plots to take down the WTC; and getting rid of four big jets.

I don't know who committed the 9/11 atrocity. Maybe it was Saudis; maybe the CIA or other government agency. Maybe even the Post Office. But I can't see that there is any reason to doubt that planes were involved in the attacks. It's a wholly unnecessary complication that has little to support it.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by infoliberator
 


'info'.....explain THIS:



It is in slo-mo. It ends just before impact. You can see the bank angle.

Other shots from different references show the camel jockey banking even more steeply to the left, to be sure to hit....as is, it was very nearly merely a glancing blow.

"info"....why not spend a few years learning how to fly, then come tell us how it was 'faked'

Y'all invited....take yer shoes off, sit a spell....y'all come back, now, y'hear?


Camel jockey, and No Planer are o.k., but Planehugger is "bad". O.k., I get it.

This plane does not enter the building, as far as I can see.
Where was that video taken from? Exactly where?
What is the name of that building next to the Twin Towers? Is that the empire state building? So close?
How did anyone get that angle captured? Where was that cameraman standing?



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I too have never heard of this no plane theory. Of all the conspiracy theories I have heard of, some of which scare the hell out of me by their implications, this particular one is downright laughable. I was in NY that day and witnessed for myself the second plane hitting the tower. Tens of thousands of people witnessed that event. The news cameras were there and recorded it live, and millions of people watched that live feed. There might be a real conspiracy behind who orchestrated that attack, but one fact is for certain, planes flew into those towers. Unless you want to insinuate some sort of citywide mass hypnosis...?



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by infoliberator
 


I wish I got a dollar every time the same vids, pics are put on this
board labeled "New" evidence.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
No planes hit the World Trade Center!
No Hijackers were onboard!
No Passengers were aboard!

Prove any one of these.

These need to be proven, not the fact that it is true.

Prove the lies if you can.

No plane parts.
No passengers.
No hijackers.

Planted plane parts.
Planted Passenger lists.
Planted Hijacker Passports.

No planes under the reported names where scheduled to depart that day.
No passenger families are known to exist.
Hijackers were found living in various countries, each cliaing to have had their passport stolenm at some point before 911.

All Videos have been proven to be faked, and none are known to be real.
All videos coming from sources after 911 were in fact done by people in media and entertainment, and CGI effects. All videos shown including the ones on TV during the day of 911 show different airplanes angles as they enter the building.

No Planes hit the Trade Center.
No Passengers were aboard.
No Hijackers on 911 either.

Those are the facts. Prove it otherwise.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
This video with the boeing was shot on the rooftop of a building that is closed for public.
I don't know exactly the name and address but I have it in my files somewhere. I read about it before. No private person or media would have ever been allowed to shoot on there....which makes it interesting!



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
I love the no plane theories.

I mean, of course, it sounds like a plane, it looks like a plane, oh f it....it's not a plane, it's a missile!





Star and Flag for this. Brilliant work. Thank you!!!



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by infoliberator
 


Yes, info, I wrote 'Camel Jockey' because I have no respect for any of those 19 criminals. I can't say the words to describe them, without getting a little red tag under my name....

BUT, major diff --- your direct insult to an ATS member in good standing...that's vastly a whole 'nuther animal. I insulted the jack(snip) who flew the airplane....all 19 of 'em.

You do have a point though....there are likely Arab-Americans pon ATS. So, I apologize to them.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by thegreatobserver
 


greatobserver, please if you can locate that info, would be nice to know.

Perhaps the OP would also be interested.....



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by infoliberator
 


Well....I guess now we have the true answers. The entire 'conspiracy' was designed to ultimately find its 'legs' on the Internet, especially schlock sites such as utube (although there are some interesting gems there occasionally).

utube is a perfect site to twist the minds of people, especially those who are young and naive. This is evident when you read the text responses.

The other reason for utube is to sell baloney 'conspiracy' paraphenalia for fun and profit.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by thegreatobserver
 


greatobserver, please if you can locate that info, would be nice to know.

Perhaps the OP would also be interested.....


I will look for it tomorrow. As far as I can remember it is a government building.

[edit on 27-4-2009 by thegreatobserver]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by thegreatobserver
 


Good stuff!!


I'm looking at Google Map, satellite view. Just not as familar with the various landmark buildings in the area.

An address would be helpful.....



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Just answer the questions, allright?

This is the 911 Test for Eight-Graders. If you can answer the questions, you may pass. We'll see who can.

www.livevideo.com...






top topics



 
105
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join