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: 9
139
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.


its one thing to disagree or assert he's wrong.

its a whole other to actually prove it and show where and how.


Originally posted by weedwhacker

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.


so what? that doesn't invalidate the science, physics, or facts he presents.

your OPINION in no way disproves the evidence he's presented.. and i have yet to see you or anyone refute his argument in context or even in basic detail.




posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
the only question I have about the "planes" is - when the second plane hit the second tower, the video showed the nose of the plane come through the other side of the building in perfect or near perfect condition. It could be that the video I have seen is blurred, but I would expect the front of the plane to be flattened and mostly unrecognizable. I always thought the first plane was real, but the second could have been faked. Any opinion on why the plane looked undamaged after going through a building? just curious.
I was also curious, why there was no wreckage at the pentagon? I thought that was faked too, just my thoughts, Ive always been a little creeped out by that.
good post, S&F



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by AKARonco
Any opinion on why the plane looked undamaged after going through a building? just curious.

The generally accepted explanation for the north-side gray eject is smoke and small debris. If you look at all aspects of both impacts, and any high-speed impact for that matter, the first thing we see is what appears to be smoke, but is actually a cloud of small pulverized debris.

If you look at those videos again, or this still image --

or this animation --

You can see the smoke-like clouds ejecting from the east-side as well. The explanation for the shape of the north-side eject is that it's the cloud, under high-pressure, exploding out of a broken window.

More at these older posts of mine:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by infoliberator

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by mister.old.school
 


Thanks mister.old.school for this excellent presentation.


Of course this whole NPT business has been nonsense to those of us who were there in person on that day and watched United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower.

No amount of digital trickery will ever erase those images.


You mean, people who saw holograms, who believed they witnesssed airplanes that cannot fly into and penetrate a steel building????


Well that didn't take long. Hopefully you're kidding about the hologram thing but if you aren't, this has been thoroughly debunked on an ATS thread months ago.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by AKARonco
 


AKA....seems you may be referrrring to a video that is already discredited.

The seeming 'nose' is nothing more than debris being ejected as a consequence of the impact. There would be a tremendous amount of forces at work, and a lot of Kinetic energy behind the impact.

As to the Pentagon: There are numerous photos of mangled airplane parts.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by infoliberator
You mean, people who saw holograms, who believed they witnesssed airplanes that cannot fly into and penetrate a steel building????


I'm trying to figure out your angle here, lest I become enraged at your disgraceful disrespect for all the lives that were lost on that day, many of which were those of my friends.

I have no problem with anyone pursuing what they believe is the truth behind the events of that day, one thing I can assure you of, it was NO hologram.

Remarks such as those make your mission here seem dubious at best, suspect at worse.

This will be my first and only response to you.


Edit for sp.

[edit on 27 Apr 2009 by schrodingers dog]


There has been a fringe element that have followed the completely baseless beliefs of John Lear who believed the whole no planer crap and also believed that holograms hit the towers. The problem begins with mr. lear as he has no knowledge of holograms and this person also has no knowledge of holograms so my guess is that he/she is just passing along the falsehood of the story.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by mister.old.school
 


Star and a flag !
Good work !
You've obviously spent a lot of time researching this and have some very solid knowledge about the subject you're speaking about. This is a nice change of pace
Unfortunately, you'll be attacked by the truthers because you're attempting to debunk their religion.

In any case, keep up the good work. I hope to see more of your analysis' !!!!



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Grimstad
The truthers single biggest piece of evidence for controlled demo is how the building fell.

And debunkers' single piece of evidence for structural failure is denial:



I don't understand why it's so hard to comprehend that a building cannot fall like the way WTC7 fell unless every single support column was severed simultaneously at exactly the same time. The only thing in the entire world that has ever caused that or CAN cause that to happen is with explosives in a controlled demolition. Period.



Originally posted by Grimstad
People keep refering to 660 arch and engs that support their theory when in fact they only signed a petition demanding an independent investigation. A reasonable request.

Right now with the above statement, you're either spinning or trying to obfuscate the facts. The petition specifically mentions the collapses of the 3 WTC towers on 9/11 and what AE911T is trying to accomplish with the new investigation. If the petition signers didn't agree with AE911T's claims, they wouldn't have signed the petition, ergo, every single person that signs the petition supports AE911T and their theories. Totally opposite of the spin you try to do in your post, but it's a typical debunker tactic, so not too surprising.

[edit on 27-4-2009 by _BoneZ_]

I stand corrected, sort of.
The petition reads:

“On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7.

We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.”

It does say there is enough doubt about the official story to warrant an investigation.
And because of that doubt the investigation must include an inquiry into possible use of explosives that might have been the cause of the destruction. The petition does not commit to probability, only possibility.

I retract my previous statement as it was too general. I shall reword it to be more accurate in future instances. I made no attempt to deliberately mislead anyone. I had never actually read the petition, I only read about it (on a thruther site, not MSM). That’s what I get for taking someone else’s word for it.

I believe you have read the bulk of my feelings on this subject in another thread.
Here is the video of which I spoke. Examine it for yourself.
The NIST video shows the same footage of WTC 7 that almost every video of WTC 7 uses.
www.youtube.com...

Go to youtube and look at all the debunking WTC 7 Report videos you want. Every one that I found that actually shows it collapsing, starts about the 18 second mark. If you watch starting about the 12 second mark you will see the progressive collapse that is properly modeled at the 55 second mark. And again at the 1:30 mark.
This video clearly shows the “progressive collapse” NOT the “global collapse” that all the truthers assert..

Why does every thruther video not show that missing few seconds?

Why does A&E for 9/11 Truth not post a correction or at least pull the 3 videos showing their completely inaccurate analysis of the WTC 7 collapse?

Who is misleading whom?
And who is in denial?

I do not believe that you are trying to deliberately mislead anyone.
I believe you have been mislead.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
I appreciate the work that mister.old.school put into his presentation. Now I'd like the same consideration given this vid. There are several like this one which present an interesting possibility.


www.youtube.com... ferent%2520paths%26sa%3DN%26tab&feature=player_embedded



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   
OLD SCHOOL..


Thanks for your efforts to debunk this No Plane Theory(NPT).....
just wondering, where do you stand on the whole sorry 9/11 saga??
Are you believing the official word in regards to everything, including the Pentagon, wtc7 etc??
Do you have any bias one way or another??

I ask because you mentioned to one poster that they were in "the minority"in this thread...which caused me to wonder the above...

Think its only fair that you show all your cards here...whose "team" your in sotospeak....
might even strengten (or weaken) your case...!!



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
Think its only fair that you show all your cards here...whose "team" your in sotospeak....


Perhaps these contributions may provide the background you seek?

Smoking Gun Evidence for US-Sponsored 9/11

The End of The United States: The Bush Administration Plan

The Mainstream Media Has Picked Your Candidates, Based on Advertising Budgets

The Dangerous Mythology Of American Hope

My "team" is none as the definable "sides" of various issues (especially 9/11) are only concerned with that which strengthens their "team's" efforts. I'm on an odyssey for the truth, no matter what form in which it is discovered.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by baboo
I appreciate the work that mister.old.school put into his presentation. Now I'd like the same consideration given this vid. There are several like this one which present an interesting possibility.


www.youtube.com... ferent%2520paths%26sa%3DN%26tab&feature=player_embedded


The first video in that clip is explained in a discussion I watched the other day

Basically, the plane does not show up in the long shot as it is too small. The camera does not have high enough resolution to capture the plane until it zooms in a bit.

Hardfire DID A PLANE HIT THE SOUTH TOWER? / BAKER / WRIGHT / WIECK - 28:47 - Apr 24, 2008 (Google Video)

Watch from around 07:00 for a detailed explanation






[edit on 29/4/2009 by alienanderson]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.school
I'm on an odyssey for the truth, no matter what form in which it is discovered.

Amen. In the search of truth, there are only two teams: Truth or Lies.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Ok, I clicked on your first link to try and fathom your standpoint here, and concluded that you are believing a conspiracy took place....

So, am i correct in saying you may not accept the NPT but are open to skullduggery by the US Govt. and some involvement on their part??

I ask not to be smart, but because i thought you were in support of The Official Word.....something i suspect may have been assumed by others.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Thanks Alienanderson for your input.However, there are other, similar vids showing the second plane in two different videos on two different approaches. There are examinations of the moment the plane hits the building and penetrates through the other side showing a silhouette exactly like the one pre-impact. I'm not a bit buff of these plane/no-plane arguments. All I know is that this whole mess needs to be re-opened and a closer look taken to determine what really happened. There is too much going on now based on the belief that terrorism is rampant and I'm not convinced it is.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by baboo
 


baboo, I know you responded to Alien, but if I may chime in, please take a look at the google link in his post. It shows quite clearly that the assertions of a certain 'video' that you referred to (I am assuming "September Clues"??) are truly false.

Simon Shack, the moniker used by the maker of "September Clues", wishes to sell DVDs. He will go to any lengths to suppress detractors. He is profiteering on tragedy. Plain and simple.

edit = OH! AND, welcome to ATS, baboo!!!!


[edit on 4/30/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 05:33 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
139
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join