No plane ...with proof, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times


reply posted on 25-5-2009 @ 08:19 PM by stuballs77
reply to post by dino1989


sorry but i can see the plane in the right hand side picture at about 17sec

second line to add: 9/11was an inside job!



reply posted on 26-5-2009 @ 07:47 AM by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
reply to post by _BoneZ_


What you said. Anyone with average intelligence can see the video was simply clips taken from large interviews and completely out of context, where they were most likely interviewing people who believed in the no-plane theories.

I am speechless if anyone actually takes these things at face value.


reply posted on 26-5-2009 @ 04:28 PM by titorite
reply to post by _BoneZ_



Why is it so unfanthomable that the purpatraitors of the 911 attacks might not of used any planes? I mean can't you put yourself in the conspirators shoes to do some risk management?

Follow me on this one.

The previous attempt to bring down the WTC buildings failed because the FBI informant would not park the car next to the support columns. From this we can be certain that people are unpredicable and their for unreliable... A risk.

If we want this to happen we want to use as few people as possible. So as to minumize the risk. We could use remote control planes or have some MK ultrra brainwashed junkies hi-jak real planes but with both scenerios so much could go wrong... and in the day and age of CGI graphics we could eleminate The whole plane thing completely and by doing so nobody will miss the target and nobody will try to be heros or chicken out because we wont use planes. We shall just use CGI graphics and show planes on TV over and over and over until people buy the lie.

This is why their is the nose in nose out footage... This is why the strip mine scar of shanksville was choosen as a crash site. This is why their is so little wreckage from any of the alleged four planes. The wreckage all had to be planted. This is why none of the plane crashes had lugage.This is why we see PODS on the plane that hit tower 2... purposeful misleading to get us to argue about something.. a bone thats thrown to keep amature investigators off the right track. This is why their are some many differnt camera angles of the plane hitting tower two This is why secret service convescated all the cameras that show the pentagon explosion... Because they show explosions with no plane impact because their were no planes.

At the end of the day the only evidence we amature investigators have is the video coverage of that day. When you critically examine all of it you begin to see the minor flaws and CGI slips... And you might find yourself wondering why hasn't Alex jones or Jack Blood or the Power hour guys see it? Because they didn't want too.. The truth seems so outlandish that it is dismissed out of hand by most without people even going over the old footage to look for the flaws.

Give the old footage a critical examination of your own and you find the flaw that the OP has found and attempted to bring to your attention... But Don't call us dis-info agents when we are doing all in our power practiclly begging you just to look at the whole picture. The plane melting into the building footage, The zoom in and zoom out errors, the Nose in nose out mistake, the impossible turns, the lack of air traffic control towers being able to find commercial jets painted with radar reflective paint... THEIR IS A BIG PROBLEM HERE... and its not the No planer people. We suck up alot of heat just trying to bring this thing to your attention. We wouldn't do it if we had any doubt at all.



[edit on 26-5-2009 by titorite]


reply posted on 26-5-2009 @ 07:16 PM by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by titorite
in the day and age of CGI graphics we could eleminate The whole plane thing completely and by doing so nobody will miss the target

But the second plane almost did miss the target. The sharp bank in the last few seconds made the plane hit the side of the tower instead of the middle like the first plane.


Originally posted by titorite
We shall just use CGI graphics and show planes on TV over and over and over until people buy the lie.

That still doesn't explain the dozens of pictures and videos from mainstream media, independent journalists and home videos from private citizens that all corroborate each other. Then there's the countless thousands of people that were on the streets watching the towers and saw the planes with their own eyes. Then there's the actual damage to the towers where large chunks of building are pushed in:



Something very large and very heavy hit those buildings. Sort of like a 300,000 pound jetliner perhaps.

The witness testimony, video and photographic evidence and the physical damage to the buildings all say a plane hit. Those are the facts with nothing made up or chopped up out of video clips.


Originally posted by titorite
This is why we see PODS on the plane that hit tower 2

There were never any "pods". People think they see a pod when the sun and shadows highlight the starboard wing fairing.

"Pods" have been debunked at this link for years.

Also, in the following video go to the times of 3:21 and 3:29. You can see the underbelly head-on and there are no "pods" hanging off of the plane:

www.youtube.com...

Further, the above video shows 43 different angles of the second plane. That's 43 different videos from mainstream media, independent journalists and private citizens' home videos. Add the witness testimony and the physical damage and you have undeniable, undebunkable proof of planes, period.


Originally posted by titorite
When you critically examine all of it you begin to see the minor flaws and CGI slips

There are minor flaws in every single video every created. As far as CGI slips, well, that's someone's unprovable opinion.


Originally posted by titorite
And you might find yourself wondering why hasn't Alex jones or Jack Blood or the Power hour guys see it?

Um, maybe because you really don't have any proof?


Originally posted by titorite
The truth seems so outlandish that it is dismissed out of hand by most without people even going over the old footage to look for the flaws.

It's already been thoroughly looked at, debated, debunked, labeld disinfo and the 9/11 truth movement has moved on a couple years ago. The 9/11 truth movement is distancing itself from NPT by banning the discussion of NPT and publicly denouncing it.

There's no proof, no hard evidence, nothing tangible that would remotely prove NPT. All NPT is is theory, conjecture, opinion and deception.


Originally posted by titorite
Give the old footage a critical examination of your own and you find the flaw that the OP has found and attempted to bring to your attention

As I stated above, been there, done that and moved on long ago.


Originally posted by titorite
The plane melting into the building footage

The planes didn't "melt" into the buildings. The 300,000 pound plane travelling around 500mph slammed into the outer columns breaking the connectors that connected the columns. Virtually none of the outer steel columns were severed or failed. Only the connectors connecting the steel columns failed. If the outer columns had been continuous from top to bottom, you would've seen a different scenario.


Originally posted by titorite
The zoom in and zoom out errors

That's called live tv. How many video errors did they have on American Idol this year. So very many. Why? Because it's live tv. That's what happens on live tv. Nobody is perfect.


Originally posted by titorite
the Nose in nose out mistake

There is no mistake. I debunked the nose in/nose out years ago. And even though it's been thoroughly debunked, to still peddle it is blatant disinfo.

The nose out wasn't a real nose because there's no exit hole:



The nose wasn't a CGI nose because it's not the same shape or size:



There was no real nose because of no exit hole and there was no fake CGI nose because it would've been the exact same shape and size, but it's not. Any questions?


Originally posted by titorite
THEIR IS A BIG PROBLEM HERE... and its not the No planer people

When the no-plane supporters post videos like in the OP and profess them as "PROOF" when it's not, is disinfo. When the no-planers keep peddling the nose in/nose out when I debunked it years ago and still debunked it again in this thread, is disinfo. I was just banned at a no-planer forum a couple days ago just because of my name. My name is revered in the no-planer community. They know I debunk everything they peddle and when they have nothing left they attack and get banned. It's happened so many times here and several other forums and has been happening like that for years.

No-planers peddle their "theories', I debunk them, they attack, they get banned. It's a never-ending cycle that's been happening for years and will continue to happen for years to come.


reply posted on 26-5-2009 @ 09:10 PM by titorite
reply to post by _BoneZ_


_BoneZ_ Ummm You seem to have your mind already made up. With this cut and dry viewpoint of yours you may not be understanding what I am trying to say to you.

If their were no planes then the pictures and videos from mainstream media, independent journalists and home videos from private citizens are all forged. Phoneys. CGI fakes. Also the varity of the film and photo do not corroborate each other. That is why we "no planers" say that the planes were faked because the evidence does not match up from one photo source to the next.

You say CGI slips are unprovable opinion...The only opinion here seems to be yours... Black is Black and White is white and whats on film is on film and it can proven with ease but whether or not you accept it is on you.

you say
There's no proof, no hard evidence, nothing tangible that would remotely prove NPT. All NPT is is theory, conjecture, opinion and deception.


I will quote you all the time stamps on the You tube link you gave me and point out to you all the inconsistencies and if you can explain it and humble me then by all means I invite you. I also invite you the reader to follow along and double check the things I will now point out.

From minute 0:00 to 0:15 we see Horazontal approach. 0:18 we see a plane on a horazontal approach by 0:20 the plane disappears then explosion. 0:36 through 0:47 we see explosion but no plane. 0:48 through 1:07 we see a plane come in on a vertical approach. 1:08 through 1:30 we see the plane come in on an angular approach from top right Way above the buildings moving down left . 1:31 through 1:43 we again see a horazontal approach under and behind a few buildings. 1:44 through 1:53 horazontal approach. 1:54 through 2:02 Horazontal approach moving low and behind buildings. 2:17 horazontal approach . 3:21 through 3:27 the plane enters on a horazontaly curved approach. 3:29 this time the plane is coming in under the buildings on a horazontal approach (clear contradiction of minute 1:08 through 1:30) impact is hidden behind building. 3:45 through 3:51 down ward horazontal approach above all buildings except the WTC towers. 3:53 Horazontal approach. 5:53 through 6:03 NOSE IN NOSE OUT FOOTAGE Horazontal approach just above the buildings. 7:03 through 7:15 Long angular approach from high above the buildings So high in fact that it starts off ABOVE the WTC towers. By 7:08 it has leveled off below the towers.

Yada yada... Its not a matter of camera perspective. The CNN footage from 1:31 is VASTLY differnt than the CBS footage from 7:03.... In fact each one is slightly off. If only one plane came in at only one angle then how is it all these clips have SO MANY differnt angles unless the footage was faked?

In one clip the plane comes in low right at building level then in another clip the plane comes in so high that it is above the WTC?

The proof of fraud is in front eyes... Its on you to accept it.


reply posted on 27-5-2009 @ 09:15 AM by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Originally posted by titorite

Why is it so unfanthomable that the purpatraitors of the 911 attacks might not of used any planes? I mean can't you put yourself in the conspirators shoes to do some risk management?


Because the idea is ridiculously complex, uber risky, and well, outright silly for those with some grounding in reality. I have put myself in the conspirators shoes. Risk management indeed. Why cook up an unecessarily complex, expensive, conmplicated plan using untested technologies and exotic, totally out of the ordinary things like holograms and crap when real planes and real people will do the trick just as well, with less direct involvement by them?

Follow me on this one.


The previous attempt to bring down the WTC buildings failed because the FBI informant would not park the car next to the support columns. From this we can be certain that people are unpredicable and their for unreliable... A risk.


THATS your logic? Fail. Epic fail. In too many ways for me to go into.

If we want this to happen we want to use as few people as possible. So as to minumize the risk. We could use remote control planes or have some MK ultrra brainwashed junkies hi-jak real planes but with both scenerios so much could go wrong... and in the day and age of CGI graphics we could eleminate The whole plane thing completely and by doing so nobody will miss the target and nobody will try to be heros or chicken out because we wont use planes. We shall just use CGI graphics and show planes on TV over and over and over until people buy the lie.


Do you realize you have just debunked your own argument? CGI, holograms, fake planes, ect would mean THOUSANDS would have to be directly involved, with FULL knowledge of the conspiracy. That in itself is a MAJOR risk. You would need every FBI agent, every news station employee, plus hundreds of stooges to operate the equipment. And that doesn't even include the original conspirators, and their lackeys and beneficiaries. Try again.

This is why their is the nose in nose out footage... This is why the strip mine scar of shanksville was choosen as a crash site. This is why their is so little wreckage from any of the alleged four planes. The wreckage all had to be planted. This is why none of the plane crashes had lugage.This is why we see PODS on the plane that hit tower 2... purposeful misleading to get us to argue about something.. a bone thats thrown to keep amature investigators off the right track. This is why their are some many differnt camera angles of the plane hitting tower two This is why secret service convescated all the cameras that show the pentagon explosion... Because they show explosions with no plane impact because their were no planes.


.....Do you actually think before you post? Have you read the above?

At the end of the day the only evidence we amature investigators have is the video coverage of that day. When you critically examine all of it you begin to see the minor flaws and CGI slips... And you might find yourself wondering why hasn't Alex jones or Jack Blood or the Power hour guys see it? Because they didn't want too.. The truth seems so outlandish that it is dismissed out of hand by most without people even going over the old footage to look for the flaws.


No, you are 100% wrong here. Video footage is not what any serious investigator goes by, at least not alone. They go through the many news reports, eyewitness statements, official statements and documents, physical evidence, ect. Going by news clips alone is a major fallacy.

Give the old footage a critical examination of your own and you find the flaw that the OP has found and attempted to bring to your attention... But Don't call us dis-info agents when we are doing all in our power practiclly begging you just to look at the whole picture. The plane melting into the building footage, The zoom in and zoom out errors, the Nose in nose out mistake, the impossible turns, the lack of air traffic control towers being able to find commercial jets painted with radar reflective paint... THEIR IS A BIG PROBLEM HERE... and its not the No planer people. We suck up alot of heat just trying to bring this thing to your attention. We wouldn't do it if we had any doubt at all.


The only flaws I see are in the mentality of the No-Planer crowd basing their "theories" on misleading photos, super compressed video footage, and the lack of anything better to do by CGI nerds and their ilk.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 10 days ago with 14 member flags
In Depth Look At The Pentagon Witnessess On 9/11
  Posted 17 days ago with 12 member flags
There is no 9/11 conspiracy
  Posted 19 days ago with 11 member flags
Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 14 days ago with 11 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 3 days ago with 11 member flags