It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 04:59 AM
reply to post by infoliberator

To clarify a misunderstanding: At the bottom you will find a list of Moderators who Moderate this Forum. I dont. And even if I would...Moderators are members first and foremost and dont Moderate in threads they participate in.


As for the planes: As long as you dont present the no-planes-theory as an option but as an irrefutable fact, it is unlikely that I or many other people will be willing to listen.

Even if you are convinced beyond doubt: There is an effective way of communicating your conviction and an ineffective way of communicating it.

I think some conspiracy-theorists would do good to attend courses in Communication.

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 05:31 AM
Im not totally convinced either way there were planes or there werent.

However, there are many anomalies in video evidence from 9/11 that raise serious questions about what we all saw on TV. Much of which of course was provided by the mainstream media. Yet there is much footage provided by independent witnesses that show NO planes, that contradicts mainstream media video, and which is also backed up by videoed eyewitnesses that are adamant there were no planes. Why is that?

My other concern with this thread is all the noted disinfo agents responding to this thread in the affirmative - ie that there WERE planes. IMO if there were no planes this is the sort of response you would expect. Their liars through and through and have a hard time with the truth.

Lets hope for the OP's sake he is right and that in a few years time we dont have to turn round and say 'I told you there was something not quite right with a lot of the video footage on that day..'

[edit on 27-4-2009 by Nonchalant]

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 05:44 AM
reply to post by Nonchalant

I think it is safe to say that we will never find out exactly what happened. Just like we will never know the truth about who killed JFK, UFOs and the likes. It will remain under wraps until something fundemental changes.

I object to this 'theory' mainly because I find it offensive that what was seen by so many who were actually there, is discarded and dismissed by its supporters. It is not fact by any means and it is disingenious to portray it as such.

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 05:55 AM
reply to post by Insolubrious

that's good you point this out.

i didn't make absolute opinion on plane or no plane yet, but the fact that the OP run after the secondary points of the NTP rather than the very main one (how an aluminium craft cuts and slices columns of steel?) make him look suspicious...


how exactly an aluminium craft cuts and slices columns of steel?

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 05:57 AM
Very good information to counter those who say no planes were involved.

It is funny how the media concentrates on those people when they even hint at the "9/11 truthers" - as if everyone is nuts who question the official information from the govt.

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 06:17 AM
reply to post by ::.mika.::

Exactly, It doesn't. Something else must of happened. Personally In my opinion I think it was some type of missile but I could be wrong. Stepping back and looking at the bigger picture remember we had a so called 'plane' punch through 3 rings of steel and concrete re-enforced wall at the Pentagon. This sort of behavior is not to be expected of a normal airliner but rather a bunker busting missile.

Look at it this way- the military spends billions on research and developing missiles to penetrate steel plate along with delayed explosion after penetrating such hard targets yet on 9/11 we have a bunch of flimsy, cumbersome passenger airliners punching through steel walls as if they were made of butter and only exploding once fully inside the building! It should of exploded on contact with the wall, but no it goes right inside and does it's business where no one can see it! So why doesn't the military save it's money and start using passenger planes instead of missiles? It's a bit like the collapse of the twin towers- why do we even need demolition contractors to implode structures into their own footprint when you can simply start a few fires and the building will take care of itself. It's the same false logic with the planes cutting holes in steel buildings.

[edit on 27-4-2009 by Insolubrious]

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 06:22 AM
reply to post by

I took this from your OP.

Here is my thing: What is this ring, in the middle of the fireball coming out of the building? This is a pretty distant view of what was going on. You can not see any smaller rings because they would be just too small. This one is big enough to show up on a good version of the video, like you came up with. My theory is that once you have a plane running into the building and making all this material coming out, it makes a good cover for following missiles to go through it, without it being too obvious. Now, you see how obscure something as large as a airliner is at this distance. Imagine something a fraction of its size and twice the speed, hitting the building. It would not even register on a video. The thing that is impossible to hide is the trail that it would make as it goes through that cover. I have been trying to tell people about these trails for a long time and no one seems to be able to see them. I hope this will get someone to take a closer look and not think that I am just delusional.

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 06:36 AM

Originally posted by ::.mika.::

i didn't make absolute opinion on plane or no plane yet, but the fact that the OP run after the secondary points of the NTP rather than the very main one (how an aluminium craft cuts and slices columns of steel?) make him look suspicious...


How does aluminium sheetmetal cut through steel girders? I think we can safely disregard eye-witnesses. They contradict one another. So if we also disregard video, mostly provided by the mainstream media that purports the 'hijackers' lie (and assume the TV footage is fake) what are we left with? And is this where the truth lies? The truth can sometimes appear really far-fetched..but its still the truth.

[edit on 27-4-2009 by Nonchalant]

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 06:38 AM

Originally posted by weedwhacker

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

[edit on 4/26/0909 by weedwhacker]

You've heard of "pilots for 9/11 truth?" John Lear?

Oh and by the way Ricky Martin is no ametuer pilot. He's a frustrated pilot, who's spent hundreds of hours flying boings in a sim before that interview.

I'm sure he's also spent a ton of time sitting next to Daddy, who has been a liscened pilot for 25 years. so hardly an amatuer.

How anyone can say with a straigt face nothing fishy at all wen't on on 9/11, I'll never understand.

How does BBC "prophecize(sp?)", the collaspe of WTC7, 20+ minutes before it's actual collapse, then play it off like they lost the signal that reporter, when they realized, the building was right there over her shoulder.

Yes believe everything the government tells us, that's what we should do, because we all know how honest politicians are

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 06:56 AM
reply to post by Insolubrious

Nice lie Isolubrious - why dont you tell them the REAL STORY !!!

That this plane, a Canadair Challenger 600 skidded off the runway
during an aborted takeoff, broke through fence at end of runway,
went across RT 46, striking several cars before hitting warehouse

Here is news account of the accident

Big difference between a business jet running off runway and a 767
hitting building at 500 mph

This took place several miles from where I live - know some of the FF
and police involved....

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 06:57 AM

Originally posted by

Originally posted by Nola213
You have to watch the video, as those explosions occure a good deal after the initial "explosion". So those picture comparisons are pointlesson that one.

Not at all. The comparisons are exceptionally valuable in that the pattern of deceptive editing, image manipulation, and less-than-sufficient source video are exposed.

a fireball, some 25-30 stories below the impact.

Which also occurred, on the north-side, when the second plan struck the south tower.

The black smudge drawn in again, you clearer photo only proves it's suspicious even more, beause it's not, there,

If you refuse to believe that an intense fire on the floor will break and darken a row of windows, then there is nothing I can do for you.

Fire does not melt steel my friend, if you cannot understand that, there's nothing I can do for you.

It can weaken it, yes it can break windows and blacken those (but if you've ever been to the Twin Towers, I have, I've worked inside there), the outside is not copmpletely windows by any means. I guess this smoke had some paint mixed in with it?

Again though thanks alot for takeing the time to upload HQ pictures of some key events. It helps both sides, to develope a better opinion of what "really" happened that day.

I'm not a no planer, but I believe there was media deception. Just look at BBC reporting on WTC7 collapsing 20+ minutes beforehand.

The sheer enourmity of cicumstantial evidence pointing to LIHOP, or MIHP is overwhelming. Surely someone of your intelligence can see there aresome fishy things that took place on that day, and the following weaks?

I always enjoy your posts and think of you as an intelligent person. I still do. But you have your opinion, and I have mine. I'm not looking to change yours though. Just confused at how someone with your insights cannot see all of the suspicious activities, from money gains, war propoganda, to media callusion/ and straight disinformation. Lack of any defense reaction by NORAD, who oh was running wargames dealing with the exact situation that took place that day, the list goes on and on and on.

Add to that the London bombings. Again they were running drills for the exact scenario that took place at the exact time. Coincidences are one thing, but this is way beyond that.

Consider, Rumsfeld saying 93 was shot down. Or Bush and Rice saying we had never envisioned hijackers useing planes as weapons, when they clearly had. Why the lies?

Why not one single video of the pentagon crash? when there are cameras all over that place. Not to metion civilians, who knew NY was under attack, and planes were heading to D.C.

You have to think outside of the 9/11 commissions box. I know you can. I hope you do one day.

But I have a ton of respect for you Mr Old School (unlike some others who are spamming this thread, I won't namenames, but he's there in every 9/11 thread, likes it's his job to be, to try debunk any 9/11 truth), so please don't take my posts as insulting.

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 06:58 AM
reply to post by infoliberator

How did anyone get that angle captured? Where was that cameraman standing?
You should watch this video:
I show where the video was taken. No, it does not show the plane going in because it was taken from the opposite side of the tower from the side that got hit. In the comments on the video, I tell what the angle was of the view and the distance.

[edit on 27-4-2009 by jmdewey60]

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 07:20 AM

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 07:40 AM

Originally posted by thegreatobserver
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!

Here is a capture from Google Earth of where the Alonso video would have been taken from. (the x is not the actual spot, just something to help me find the area again) The camera would have been looking over the part of the roof that the yellow marker is on, across Rivington from the building with the X. (generaly towards the letters for "Bowery")

You can find this by starting at DeLancey, which is the continuation of the Williamsburg Bridge.
Here is another Google Earth capture that shows how the video did not have to be taken from the roof, but could have been taken from the other side of the street, from this building that had a clear shot over the other roof, at the point that the camera angle ends up at.
The lower roof on the right side of the picture is where someone would have been looking over, which could have been done out of one of the windows. Go there, yourself in Google Earth and go on street view. (this building in the center of the picture is the one I put the X on)

[edit on 27-4-2009 by jmdewey60]

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 07:47 AM
These types of things are what the people see, and then it confirms for them that that 9/11 was NOT an inside job. The fictional theories are being used by the false flaggers themselves to shut the movement down. They use such ludicrous excuses like there were no planes. Causing the average "Joe" to think all the debunkers are crazy, and put them in the same boat. Whenever you see crazy outlandish stuff about any great event you can count on the fact that it was embellished. Like the Racism meeting where media sensationalized the fact that the leaders of some countries left the meeting, but the "facts" are that a majority stayed at the meeting and try to discuss racism and how to combat it. It’s the same old thing I keep saying. The US & EU want every country to lay their cards on the table and be upfront about where they stand on arms, energy, tech, you name it, but they always have a trick up their sleeves, and zero interest in truth and fairness.

[edit on 27-4-2009 by humilisunus]

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 07:50 AM

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

Why should anyone give credence to a video production that begins with blanket insults?

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:00 AM

Originally posted by infoliberator
You can think about this stuff on this level, but you cannot refute this page?

It's easy to refute every still on that page with little or no effort. Each still appears to be pulled from an online streaming video. Please see my post on the realities of streaming digital video, especially on the simple fact that stills cannot be trusted because of the compression format.

If you had used a properly digitized video, created from high-quality source footage (as I did for the opening post), you'd have a master video with intact frames, suitable for frame-by-frame analysis.

No photography or video expert on this planet will trust what is seen in a paused streaming video delivered over the web.

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:03 AM

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Here is my thing: What is this ring, in the middle of the fireball coming out of the building?

Many people also saw brief devil-faces in the smoke of the explosions. Simple shapes are to be expected and there are likely thousands of possible explanations.

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:06 AM

Originally posted by infoliberator

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

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


We now know the perpetrators of the faked videos we see are Nico Haupt, The Webfairy, simon shack, and others. I've shown you that the video has been intentionally altered for sensational effect. May we ask why you don't wake up?

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:14 AM
Wow. I didn't realize there were "no plane theories" relating to the WTC.

I thought the no plane theory was primarily relating to the Pentagon.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in