CONS: Exposing The Fraud of the "No Plane Theory" -- Conspiracy Fakery, page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 105 times

reply posted on 27-4-2009 @ 03:24 AM by Insolubrious

You don't need high quality footage to understand that no normal passenger airplane crashed into the WTC, a good picture of the hole it made should be enough. Normal planes don't make plane shaped cut outs in structural steel and concrete.

YouTube Link

ACME 9/11 physics. Looks more like a missile hit the WTC to me (above picture).

Planes do not leave plane shaped holes in structural steel. That's like something out of a road runner cartoon!

[edit on 27-4-2009 by Insolubrious]

reply posted on 27-4-2009 @ 03:27 AM by DrumJunkie

I guess I don't have my finger on the pulse of all the 911 conspiracies. I have heard several but to say no planes were there at all is simply mind boggling to me. Too many people had seen what others are saying was not there. don't know for sure who is truly responsible but those planes were there. AS to people saying they were falsely accused or they were not on the planes..I guess no one could have stolen an identity. I mean, it happens every day thousands of times. And they are better at catching them now than they wee before so that could not have happened. Because bad people that want to wreck planes into bug buildings couldn't have used that kind of forethought.

I'm not going to say it went down exactly as it was reported. But it could have. Passports can be stolen. Or maybe just some personal info. It happens all the time. By much dumber people that could have pulled off the 911 stuff. All these sides yelling proof-proof but not listening to anything except what you want will accomplish nothing. I can't say without a doubt what or actually whom did i. But they did it with those planes. This wasn't some David Copperfield crap. No one pulled back a curtain and all the people that are on the planes passenger lists come popping out. The people in the WTC didn't pop up saying September fools! To trivialize the lost lives to a parlor trick is nothing short of shameful. There were people on those planes. People lost loved ones. I'm sure none of them wanted to do the talk show circuit afterward. I can't say I blame them.

reply posted on 27-4-2009 @ 03:30 AM by king9072

Absolutely nothing you just said is anymore than hearsay. You haven't looked into one bit of it, and your making your life decisions based on opinions put together and served to you by someone else.

reply posted on 27-4-2009 @ 03:35 AM by infoliberator

Originally posted by Freezer
Planes, or no planes.. I would think people would be trying to figure out who actually perpetrated the attack and why rather than figure out if it was commercial planes, military planes, holograms, or whatever else. If it was planes or holograms it makes no difference, we were attacked, a lot of people died, and we need to figure out who did it and why.

GEEZE......

What does it take to wake people up????

If you understood the videos WERE FAKED, then you would KNOW WHO THE PERPETRATORS ARE!!!

THE MEDIA, is a part of it.....

The Pentagon....is a part of it.

The CIA, THE NSA, THE MOSSAD, are all a part of it. It was a worldwide orchestrated event. The Trilateralists Agenda. Most Media are members of the CFR and Trilateral Commission. That is a fact. That is the cross collaboration, and Hollywood is controlled by the Zionists.

All of these are just words, and group affiliations, but they are all centralized around one ideaology, ....CONTROL OVER THE PEOPLE, the centralized Dictatorship.

reply posted on 27-4-2009 @ 03:41 AM by weedwhacker

reply to post by Insolubrious

Insol....you've trotted out this before....except, the Teterboro stuff...new, that....and completely irrelevant.

Teterboro involved an airplane that crashed during take-off...because of a poor preflight, it had the flight control clamp --in this case, on the elevator -- (used while an airplane is parked) still in place....it never reached more than about 160 Knots....because of the 'gust-guard' (another term for the 'clamp') the crew could not rotate....the elevator was clamped....again, a poor choice to relate to 9/11 tragedies.....

This shows a great example of what I have been saying, all along.

People who have NO idea about aviation, and the various aspects of flying, jump in where they shold not tread.....

[edit on 4/27/0909 by weedwhacker]

reply posted on 27-4-2009 @ 03:45 AM by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by Sherlock2009

You stated it was ""United Airlines Flight 175", and that you saw it!!!

Yes, I did so at the beginning of this thread just to point out that I saw a plane. I never said that I was aware either of the plane model or flight number as I was watching. I can't imagine how a lay person would know such things in the moment.

And, now you say, "you dont know what plane it was and like everyone else on site saw a passenger plane hit the building."

Sherlock, I'm just telling you what I saw. Just so you know I have no horse in this race. I almost never post in this forum as I usually find it rather difficult. I am not a "truther" or whatever the opposite is called. Spin my words any way you want to, a plane hit that building that day.

Im not saying it wasnt a plane, im just pointing out the fact that you didnt know what plane it was even with your own eyes untill the media told you.!

Yes, once more I concede I didn't know the flight no. and model ...

Yet you have still to answer my question as to what that has to do with the No Plane Theory.

Are you suggesting that the media convinced me to see a plane before I went out on the street that day?

Edit for sp.

[edit on 27 Apr 2009 by schrodingers dog]

reply posted on 27-4-2009 @ 03:49 AM by infoliberator

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Insolubrious

Insol....you've trotted out this before....except, the Teterboro stuff...new, that....and completely irrelevant.

Teterboro involved an airplane that crashed during take-off...because of a poor preflight, it had the elevator clamp (used while an airlpane is parked) in place....it never reached more than about 160 Knots....

You can think about this stuff on this level, but you cannot refute this page?
www.freedomdomain.com...

I find that very very strange. I think I have a new project now.

I think I smell something funny ....sniff sniff.

Oh, what is that in the closet, a plane clothes officer, hiding in plane sight. How many more can I find around here?

Sir....may I ask, who do you work for?

I would assume that if you work for the people, you would look into items that are of the people's interest.

And if you work for someone else....then maybe you'll be looking out for someone elses interest.

If you are that intelligent, you should check out the conflicting evidence. That's all. You seem too intelligent to be outsmarted by the government.

[edit on 27-4-2009 by infoliberator]

reply posted on 27-4-2009 @ 03:57 AM by weedwhacker

reply to post by infoliberator

I've already told you, 'info'....I've looked at YOUR liinks.

I was addressing another member, but you felt the need to be rude, and butt in. So be it.

You will be addressed, in due course.

In the mean time, I strongly suggest you refrain from further 'insolence'.

I saw your exchange, on another thread....you have been 'banned' once already, according to your own testimony.

You now have three 'flags'....yet, you taunt, nonetheless.

Tread carefully, my friend....IF you wish to be taken seriously.

BECAUSE....it is NOT about 'censorship'....itis about being an adult.
'

reply posted on 27-4-2009 @ 04:05 AM by infoliberator

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by infoliberator

Tread carefully, my friend....IF you wish to be taken seriously.

'

If you mean as seriously as you take the truth, I couldn't care less then.

It's kinda like....if you believe the givernment tells the truth, or
if you believe the television......
or if you believe in the tooth fairy.......

No, I don't believe in those things, ...so the only people I want to take me seriously, are the people who take the truth seriously.

Everything else is a joke to me.

I find it MORE than a joke, that anyone in aviation would believe the impossible.

[edit on 27-4-2009 by infoliberator]

[edit on 27-4-2009 by infoliberator]

reply posted on 27-4-2009 @ 04:07 AM by Sherlock2009

reply to post by schrodingers dog

Ok we agree on that...

Its just that this is how disinformation starts.
Someone states something that they heard along with something they see and all of a sudden the story changes.
Do that a dozen times and the story is far from the original truth.
And thats what we all should be looking for. THE TRUTH.

Regards

reply posted on 27-4-2009 @ 04:10 AM by believer81

Originally posted by infoliberator
Any planehugger who watches September Clues becomes INSTANTLY, a No Planer.

Yes do watch it, then read truthaction.org...

And as for freedomdomain 911 revisited, well the person who wrote that site is rambling on like he's lost all sense of reality, the same way you seem to do and clearly does not have much of an education in maths, physics, aviation or photography (or he just can't write).

How does someone not qualified to teach a subject get away with attempting to do just that?
Oh, and I have studied specifically aviation to university level and I do believe 2 airline sized aircraft hit those towers.

[edit on 27-4-2009 by believer81]

reply posted on 27-4-2009 @ 04:16 AM by infoliberator

Originally posted by believer81

Originally posted by infoliberator
Any planehugger who watches September Clues becomes INSTANTLY, a No Planer.

Yes do watch it, then read truthaction.org...

And as for freedomdomain 911 revisited, well the person who wrote that site is rambling on like he's lost all sense of reality, the same way you seem to do and clearly does not have much of an education in maths, physics, aviation or photography (or he just can't write).

How does someone not qualified to teach a subject get away with attempting to do just that?

Anyone can come up with a pamphlet and call it "blah blah blah debunked", that does not mean it has any useful info in it. I have read that document, and it's a simplistic diversion from the true facts.

This is how it works......

You view a limited piece of information. Likely, you have not viewed Septmeber Clues at all. Only the DUMB pamphlet. So, then you watch a video and see a couple points to this and you read in the pamphlet how this could not be true. But you fail to do the real research. That means, you failed to watch September Clues in it's entirety, and you failed to Read the Whole pamphlet and you failed to use deductive reasoning because you failed to see how the pamphlet only addressed a couple small points, BECAUSE you never viewed the movie at all. !!!

That is pretty simple.

If you viewed the movie BTW, tell me what it was about BESIDES video fakery. Tell me a brief description of it. Just tell me some of what was in it, and tell me something about the media and cgi. ANYTHING, just to show you actually watched it and understood the points they made.

[edit on 27-4-2009 by infoliberator]

[edit on 27-4-2009 by infoliberator]

reply posted on 27-4-2009 @ 04:19 AM by Skyfloating

Exaggeration = Deflection

An old and often used trick in Information-Spin (Psychological Warfare) is to exaggerate a conspiracy-theory until it looks ridiculous and people stop caring.

"Extraterrestrial-Contact is being Covered-Up" turns into "Reptilians are eating our children"

"Lee Harvey Oswald was not alone in assasinating JFK" turns into "JFK was killed by a Cosmic Ritual conducted by the CIA, the Mafia, Cuba, Freemasons and Russians in Unison".

"9/11 was an Inside Job" turns into "There were no planes"

The info is spinning around, then you add some extra spin and some extra spin still until it spins out of control.

If the "no-planers" were serious about their theory they`d present it as a theory, a consideration, an option, not as a fact. Their attitudes alone expose their dishonesty.

Good job exposing this OP

[edit on 27-4-2009 by Skyfloating]

reply posted on 27-4-2009 @ 04:22 AM by infoliberator

Excuse me, are you claiming you're truth is the only consideration now?????

It appears as though you are claiming something as fact......

reply posted on 27-4-2009 @ 04:24 AM by infoliberator

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply posted on 27-4-2009 @ 04:25 AM by Skyfloating

reply to post by infoliberator

Im presenting it as an option. Do you present your theory as an option or as "thats the way it is"?

reply posted on 27-4-2009 @ 04:34 AM by Grimstad

reply to post by Insolubrious

And here it is again.

there is no STRUCTURAL STEEL visible in those pictures. The sturctural steel is not on the outside.

reply posted on 27-4-2009 @ 04:37 AM by infoliberator

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by infoliberator

Im presenting it as an option. Do you present your theory as an option or as "thats the way it is"?

You can tell me the sky is red all you want, and I will tell you the sky is blue.

Who is telling the truth? Would I present the sky being blue as an option? Not if I believed the sky was blue!

Now, if I were to say, it's not an option, the sky IS BLUE, I would know it as a relative statement, because some people are color blind. But, is it an option of the truth, absolutely NOT, it's the way I see it, but if I'm going to say, this is how I see it, and I stand behind 20 years of research and I believe it with all my heart, mind and soul, then I BETTER BE RIGHT, wouldn't you say?

If you are absolutely right, you have the right to claim it as RIGHT, but you BETTER BE RIGHT.

So, in answer to your question, YOU can present it as an option, because you are supposed to be a moderator, which is and should be an "impartial judge or referee", but I will not tell you the sky is "Possibly blue", when I have fully investigated it for myself and I se it everyday, and I know it's blue.

Now, maybe we can isolate what I believe and what I do not, and that would be a totally different matter, since we have mentioned NOTHING of substance about what I believe and what I do not.

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.
Fact: No airplanes crashed through steel. That is physically impossible.
Fact: No hijackers were aboard any of the supposed airplanes
Fact: No passengers are known to exist, before or after the crash
Fact: People who made the videos, were known VIDEO producers and CGI special effects technicians.
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.
Fact: Airplanes cannot fly at 550 MPH at a low altitude, low enough to fly into the buildings.

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

[edit on 27-4-2009 by infoliberator]

reply posted on 27-4-2009 @ 04:44 AM by Grimstad

OK. That one just makes my head hurt. I believe it may have actually killed a few brain cells. I wonder what that smells like.

reply posted on 27-4-2009 @ 04:50 AM by Grimstad

reply to post by infoliberator

Please cite all your alleged facts.