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: 8
139
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nola213
The still framesof the secondary explosion o matter howclear you make them are irrelivent.

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.

The explosion at the top of the tower, you actually, do the opposite of debunking it, by showing how it is clearly a seperate event. Thanks for that.

South side explosion, dodgy on you tube, but in your screen cap, clearly a seperate event as its a fireball, some 25-30 stories below the impact. Again thanks for clearing that up better as well.

The black smudge drawn in again, you clearer photo only proves it's suspicious even more, beause it's not, there, then (if you watch the video,you see it gets painted in.) I expected it to be there in your Screen cap, but it's clearly not.

So thanks for the clearer pictures, it only leads me to believe it was a military jet loaded with exotic weaponry, descibed by many witnesses, prolly more if the MSM wasn't handpicking witnesses, and inserting thier own, as a windowless plan, no logos.

They say a picture tells a thousand stories, well a video tells 1 million. I'd love for you to upload the above screenshots in short video form from your clearer copy.

Anyhow thanks for the hard work, and solidifying my sneaking suspicions that there may have been something wrong with the "planes" that hit the trade Towers. Npt, I'm not quite ready to go that far. But a different plane than whats claimed in the 9/11 commision, as well as multiple explosions, I'm getting more and more convince by this after watching hours upon hours of video.


PRECISELY NOLA. well stated.

and just like i predicted his debunking has not only failed miserably in dis-crediting Simon, but its back-fired and only helps to validate simons analysis and the NRPT even further.

1. so i have to thank Mr Old school for validating that the VIDEO itself is taken from the NAUDET and UNEDITED contrary to the failed argument
and logic bonez claims discredits the ANALYSIS being done because as you say, its IRRELEVANT or really DOESN'T even RELY ON THE VIDS CLARITY for one to SEE whats OCCURRING...

its the SAME in BOTH videos!

two thumbs up for ya pal


2. he can try to make a case that simon has intentionally blurred this video when in fact a more plausible reason is most likely INNOCUOUS and he was simply using the BEST source video he had access to since
pixelization and compression didn't hinder or obscure the evidence/argument being presented anyway.

3. his attempt to discredit the video and simon by implying that he's INTENTIONALLY BLURRING this footage is laughable at best and not only makes no sense for simon to do so, but what would be his MOTIVE!? More clarity would only PROVE THE OBJECT ISN'T FLIGHT 11!

4. so whether its blurred or not, is irrelevant and has NO BEARING on whether the "anomalies" are there or not, or whats OCCURRING.

5. He's not comparing the 2 videos FRAME FOR FRAME... so of course a frame FORWARD or REVERSE might have MORE BLUR to it.

6. He and the REST of the [INSULT REMOVED] continue to ignore explaining, addressing or answering the question regarding how and why the OBJECT DOESN'T EVEN REMOTELY RESEMBLE A BOEING 767, let alone flight 11... so whether this new video version is in fact more CLEAR, he's only further validated the visual EVIDENCE of this OBJECT NOT BEING A BOEING 767... if anything it resembles anything but a 767 and is far
closer to what MOST suspect, a MISSLE/DRONE.

7. Most interesting of all is how he can put up all these comparisons, but NEVER offers up THE SOURCE for a counter-analysis or shows MOTION and the NEW CLARITY that can now be seen by a MOTION COMPARISON!!


conclusion: Another debunking bites the dust

YAWN.

Now lets get back to discussing the OBVIOUS FAKERY going on.

Its even more irrefutable in MROLDSCHOOLS VERSION!

i love it.

thanks m8



 


(insult removed and user warned)

[edit on 28-4-2009 by SkepticOverlord]




posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
his attempt to discredit the video and simon by implying that he's INTENTIONALLY BLURRING this footage is laughable at best and not only makes no sense for simon to do so, but what would be his MOTIVE!?

The motive is simple, perpetuating the fraud of the no-plane theory. I believe I made that clear in the opening post of this thread, did I not?




More clarity would only PROVE THE OBJECT ISN'T FLIGHT 11!

Would it be possible for you to be more specific? Judging from much of the reaction in this thread, your opinion in this regard appears to be in the minority. More detail about your rationale that clarity proves the opposite from the generally accepted conclusion would be appreciated.




Now lets get back to discussing the OBVIOUS FAKERY going on.

Again, the generally accepted consensus within the responses within this thread (and many other discussions regarding the no-plane theory) is that the only "obvious fakery" originates with the proponents of the no-plane conspiracy fraud.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 09:37 AM
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.



sorry pal... but YOU can't offer up ONE single clear original verified un-edited footage that shows what the NRPT evidence shows ISN'T THERE!

BEFORE you can claim we have to PROVE NRPT in the manner you assert or provide footage of, NOT ONLY do you have to prove the footage simon et al are analyzing ISN'T from the SOURCE and has been edited or tampered with (which pixelization and compression are separate unrelated arguments), but you have to PROVE there were REAL PLANES ie BOEINGS to begin with.

You yourself have just helped with the DESTRUCTION of the RPT and bonez' argument about SIMON and SC analysis not being credible due to the claim Simon and other docs supposedly using TAMPERED FOOTAGE and/or EDITING themselves to SHOW ANOMALIES that are NOT IN THE ORIGINAL SOURCES!

but again, AS ITS BEEN STATED BY SC and other docs, EVERYTHING BEING ANALYZED IS VERIFIABLE, UNTAMPERED WITH ie whats analyzed is exactly what the ORIGINALS show.

Now please, can we all get back to discussing the obvious fakery and fact there were NO REAL BOEING PLANES USED ON 911?



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.school

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.


NO, the BAD VIDEO is what the MSM and GOV aka perps have used to CREATE the DECEPTION and what this FRAUD IS BASED UPON that SIMON et al are using to ANALYZE!

So i'm still waiting for you, bonez, and other plane-huggers to present one single original untampered video or pic showing conclusive PROOF of a REAL BOEING COMMERICIAL JET FLIGHT 11, 175, 93 and 77.

the burden of proof doesn't start with those claiming NO PLANES.

It starts with YOU being able to PROVE THE PLANES ARE THERE and PROVING the FOOTAGE that was used to SHOW PLANES is UNTAMPERED, UNEDITED and ORIGINAL SOURCES.

All anyone can see are DODGY footage with OBVIOUS FAKERY OCCURRING.

now get to it old man... you've barely even got started proving your case or disproving NRPT.

PS. sorry you had to pay 175.00 to find out what i already told you you'd find and end up showing... which actually only validated NPRT even more
so thanks again


[edit on 28-4-2009 by matrixNIN11]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
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...?


in case you missed the threads that address what you and tons of others keep CLAIMING but never seem to offer any evidence to back up:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...








[edit on 28-4-2009 by matrixNIN11]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lebowski achiever
I think it is obvious that the "no plane" theory was devised to discredit anyone seeking the truth on what happened that day. Of course there are people who believe anything and will mold and distort the truth until it fits, in their mind, disregarding any evidence that screams at them that they are wrong. Because of tripe like this we are all tarred with the same brush and dismissed as crazy and stupid. It annoys the heck out of me and I think this kind of rubbish should be ignored until this theory withers and dies.



I think it is obvious that the "real planers" theory was devised to discredit anyone seeking the truth on what happened that day. Of course there are people who believe anything and will mold and distort the truth until it fits, in their mind, disregarding any evidence that screams at them that they are wrong. Because of tripe like this we are all tarred with the same brush and dismissed as crazy and stupid. It annoys the heck out of me and I think this kind of rubbish should be ignored until this theory withers and dies.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by fooffstarr
The no plane theory and others like it were manufactured by certain parties to destroy the truth movement from the inside out.

Who would take any truther seriously when some in their midst think the planes hundreds of people saw were hi-tech holograms?

Many other aspects of the 9/11 conspiracy hold weight and need to be looked at by far more people, but when you bring in some far out theories as the no plane theory it discredits the whole movement and effectively kills it's chances of making waves.

The same technique has worked wonders with the UFO community. For every solid military or pilot witness there is a basement crackpot to balance it out, and sadly the general public only see the crackpots.

It is the same with the 9/11 truth movement. Every time it is brought up in the MSM (which isn't often), jokes are thrown about the no planers and all truthers are tarred with the same brush as fringe lunatics and mentally unstable dangers to society.

It is good to see some of the community speaking out against this clear and deliberate effort to sabotage the movement.



yet another example of someone that has done little or no research and knows nothing about even the basics of what the NRPT is about.

this ignorance is nothing less than the same type that denied and laughed at those who first began to expose the basic evidence of 911 being an INSIDE JOB.

just as it had its beginnings and took YEARS for evidence of Inside Job to be embraced and understood, the same process and situation is taking place with another aspect of the conspiracy aka NRPT.

All you people who attack Nrpt without ever being able to PROVE it wrong as this thread demonstrates, are nothing more than hypocrites and nothing short of disgraceful.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
wow we are are seriously blind or enjoying what we are being told



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

info....since, despite my time at ATS, I do not know how to 'parse' your post, and respond point by point, I use my memory to zero-in on one aspect.

You have been lied to....and given false info.


I couldn't have described your situation better.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
(edit) because, as stated above....your claim, "infoliberator" about the speeds of the airplanes. Again, more dis-info.

One has to understand not only aerodynamics, but also kinetic energy and potential energy to begin to understand.

A B767, at approx 1000 MSL (remember, the WTC Towers were about 1300+ feet tall) full throttle....will max out in speed....in fact, because of compressibility issues at that altitude, and the increase in both induced drag and parasitic drag components....the maximum steady-state velocity will reach a point....where the drag co-effecients will be enough to overcome the given thrust of the two engines.

BUT, this assumes a level, steady-state flight profile. WHAT is NOT taken into account, by these detractors, is the added use of Gravity.

If one wishes to dismiss this as a concept, then one would have to dismiss every instance of 'dive-bombing' as recorded in WWII history.


And Now its more than obvious you're [INSULT REMOVED]

but now you're actually going to try and compare WWII planes and their dive-bombing to MODERN DAY BOEING 767's that defied the laws of physics and newtonian laws as they supposedly flew into one of the most advanced steel structures ever created?




Originally posted by weedwhacker

ANYONE who has ever flown an airplane knows the effects of diving...and the rapid speed increases that can result...as long as you survived to talk about it afterwards.

AND....the pull-out to nearly level, as you bank to aim on target....I have pulled up to 6 Gs...(specifically in Aerobatic airplnaes, designed for aerobatics. YOU each wear a parachute, per FAA regulations...) you do NOT 'black out' at 6 Gs. Far less G-forces were employed, on 9/11 ... based on the final bank angle of UAL 175, prior to impact....I'd guess somewhere around about 2 Gs.

Just to compare...and, you can look this up, I am not pulling this out of thin air...an airplane in a sustained 60% bank, maintaining altitude and speed, will 'pull' 2 Gs.

UAL175 was showing, at the end, about 35-40 degrees....final seconds.

WELL within the design parameters...EVEN IF there was a pull-up as well...

UNLESS and until everyone who believes false info learns how to fly, and actually understands not only the forces involved, but also the technical information needed to truly understand the complexities....well...

In the meantime....here's an indication of how, even an 'amateur'....not even a licensed pilot, can actually fly a Boeing.....


and this is a link to a thread that presents irrefutable facts and evidence shredding your argument to bits LINE BY LINE.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

R.I.P. RPT


 


Insult removed and post author warned.

[edit on 28-4-2009 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by king9072
 


Video fakery by Simon Shack.

Plain and simple.

He (simon shack) wishes to sell his BS!!!

HE (simon) promotes himself, via utube....I mean, it is FREE advertising!!!!!

There is another thread, on ATS, about possible 'dis-info' agents. I predict that all those who proclaim that 'Simon Shack' or any other purveyor of BS propaganda is valid, IS a dis-info agent!! NOT on the payroll of the Gov't....but on the payroll of those who are shilling their BS junk, the junk for sale....they are clever, since they can't directly steer people to the websites....they do it serendipitously......in sigs, or buried in the text...code words.....



Except unfortunately for you, MrOldSchool has proven Simon Shacks analysis is based on the ORIGINAL SOURCE used by the MSM and GOVERNMENT as evidence of RPT and the OCT.

If you still don't understand what that means, it means the fakery isn't from SIMON..

SIMON EXPOSED the FAKERY in the story you're basing your delusion off of.

I understand how difficult it might be for you to accept you've been so badly deceived for so long.

one day you'll have the courage to admit you were and SIMON was right all along.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted 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.



yet ANOTHER example of someone that not only knows nothing about even the basics of NRPT, but has ZERO evidence and arguments to support all the CLAIMS nor even attempts to show EXACTLY how and where the EVIDENCE and ARGUMENTS supporting NRPT, is wrong.

do you debunkers and naysayers have anything but UNEDUCATED OPINIONS and wild assertions to support what you claim is BS about NRPT?

how can you call NRPT BS when you've done little or no research on it?

drumjunkies post sums up the ignorance that supports RPT and why NRPT continues to grow and has NEVER to this day, been disproven.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
I understand how difficult it might be for you to accept you've been so badly deceived for so long.

Judging form your recent posts, it appears to be difficult for you to accept that people are not willing to tolerate your deception.

I've asked you for the courtesy of more specific information in regards to your refutation of my analysis -- your only response, thus far, has been a posting spree with lots of shouting and meaningless acronyms, apparently in the hope that and annoying frequency, volume, and irascibility will somehow convince people.

Facts and sober analysis is what convinces people. So far, you've offered none. How unfortunate.

Since you're unwilling to put forth anything that resembles an intellectual effort, I can only assume that your agenda is that of deception and obfuscation. Therefore, I find it impossible to engage you in worthwhile debate on actual facts and data, and will from this point forward consider your input invalid and not worthy of response.

Is there anyone else who can respond to my long-standing simple request? That is, a no-plane theory video of high-quality based on high-quality source footage.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 


Perhaps no-planers would have more credibility:
- if they weren't constantly attacking other patriots.
- if they weren't represented by odious creatures like Mr. Nico Haupt.
- if their theories didn't contradict common sense and eye witness observations.
- if it weren't an obvious attempt to derail the real truth movement.

NPTers need to ask themselves why they focus entirely on that one aspect of 911, and why they viciously attack and slander any who disagree.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   
 

 



ADMIN WARNING!

The amount of insults and ad-hominem attacks has increased dramatically since matrixNIN11 joined the discussion.

I want to remind this member, and everyone else, of the text shown at the top of every page of every thread in this forum:

This forum is dedicated to the discussion and speculation of cover-ups, scandals, and other conspiracies surrounding the events of 9/11/2001. Participants should be aware that this forum is under close staff scrutiny due to general rudeness by some. Discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to lean in favor of conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups. Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of focusing on conspiracy theory, cover-ups, and scandals.


Any further inappropriate postings in this thread, or from the participants of this topic within other other threads on ATS will result in an immediate account termination without warning or recourse.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation in helping to maintain civil and productive debates.



 

 



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Really Overlord???

I've observed a barage of ad homs and derogatory attacks from RPTists long before i entered and the ratio of these posters far out-number those defending or setting the record and facts straight... Its odd that you seem to put the brakes on the heated debates/posts in this thread only on the one/s responding to EACH of the MANY who again, far OUT-NUMBER those defending NRPT. So of course most are coming from me. If it were an EQUAL number or balanced ratio of nrpt defenders, i highly doubt you'd have even stepped in and singled my "RESPONSES" to ad homs etc out.

but okay then...






posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
I've observed a barage of ad homs and derogatory attacks from RPTists long before i entered and the ratio of these posters far out-number those defending or setting the record and facts straight...

There's an important different that you, and an unsettling majority of "9/11 extremists" are unable to grasp -- critiquing the theory, and the theory's authors, not ATS members.

What you classify as attacks are, for the most part, attacks on the theory and the authors of the theory. Fair game for an intelligent discussion.

You have engaged in insults and intensely derogatory remarks directed at the ATS members involved in the discussions.

If you're unable to understand the difference, ATS is not for you.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 


matrix, your reference to Capt. John Lear's opinion isn't anything new to me...I've discussed this with him (when he deigned to participate at ATS).

Whilst I have great respect for Capt. Lear and his accomplishments, I still disagree with his conclusions. We have seen example of jets exceeding the maximum safe speeds -- EgyptAir 990 comes to mind (suicidal pilot, tragic outcome) but, during the dive, speeds were recorded similar to what is calculated for the 9/11 airplanes. Also, TWA some years ago, a B727 actually exceeded Mach in an uncontrolled dive (this is the infamnous Hoot Gibson story). They recovered and landed safely.

Back to Capt. Lear. As I've written, even at max throttle, in level flight, the jet will reach a max speed in the denser air at low altitudes...drag increases exponentially with speed. BUT the addition of a dive will allow speed to build up higher than could be maintained in steady level flight.

Capt. Lear knows this, but he obfuscates in favor of his pet 'theory' involving 'secret' space stations and orbiting energy weapons platforms. Few take those notions seriously.

As to the forces involved with the kinetic energy of an airplane at these velocities, I submit a comparison to the aftermath of an F5 tornado event. Even with winds that are barely one-quarter the velocity as indicated by the jets, some amazing things have been seen. A 2X4 piercing a re-inforced concrete wall, for instance.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.school
Originally posted by matrixNIN11
his attempt to discredit the video and simon by implying that he's INTENTIONALLY BLURRING this footage is laughable at best and not only makes no sense for simon to do so, but what would be his MOTIVE!?
The motive is simple, perpetuating the fraud of the no-plane theory.


by further blurring a video MORE that the oct claims shows a boeing 767?

if simon claims its not a boeing, why wouldn't he want the best possible res to support that claim? And technically its SO EASY to obtain a clearer version as you have... but then perhaps simon agrees that there was no need to obtain a slightly clearer version as what he needed to show was not reliant on the clarity.

all your video does is further prove that the object simon claims isn't a boeing, is CORRECT... it doesn't even remotely look or behave like one
should be expected to.


More clarity would only PROVE THE OBJECT ISN'T FLIGHT 11!

Would it be possible for you to be more specific? Judging from much of the reaction in this thread, your opinion in this regard appears to be in the minority.


of course its in the minority... just as those who first exposed the conspiracy itself, were laughed at, ignored and in the minority.

so whats your point



More detail about your rationale that clarity proves the opposite from the generally accepted conclusion would be appreciated.


again, most of those who don't accept NRPT, are among those who have done little to no research, are in denial, lack common sense, or are agents.

so the logic you imply is ridiculous since it doesn't in any way invalidate NRPT.


Now lets get back to discussing the OBVIOUS FAKERY going on.

Again, the generally accepted consensus within the responses within this thread (and many other discussions regarding the no-plane theory) is that the only "obvious fakery" originates with the proponents of the no-plane conspiracy fraud.


there used to be a consensus that the world was FLAT...

so how does your point have any relevance to whether or not NRPT is false?


[edit on 28-4-2009 by matrixNIN11]



new topics

top topics



 
139
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join