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.

 

No plane ...with proof

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   

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?
[edit on 26-5-2009 by titorite]


Oh, I'd say mostly becuase of the fact that after the FIRST plane hit, everyone in Manhatten was watching the events unfold when the SECOND plane hit. Mindlessly claiming all the witnesses to the attack were really secret gov't disinformations agents is being uninformed and ignorant.

Among all the really screwball 9/11 conspiracies floating around the internet ("nukes in the basement", laser beams from outer space", "cruise missile hitting the pentagon", etc) the "no planes" idea has to be the most screwball yet.




posted on May, 27 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Oh my. If Fox says so then it must be the truth


It was shot from a different angle (helicopters at different altitudes, perhaps). People saw the planes hit so please let's get off this nonsense. People in the streets with video cameras filmed the planes as well as did the French documentary makers who were filming on that day.

It really makes me mad. Let's talk about things that really are NOT explained sufficiently.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by titorite
_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.

As I've stated earlier, the no-plane theories have been thoroughly looked at by me and several others, debunked and we moved on a couple years ago. There's absolutely nothing to them, not in the slightest, not even a residue. At this point, I'm making sure that when a no-planer makes a thread, that every point get's debunked with fact so that nobody falls into the BS that is no-plane theories.



Originally posted by titorite
If their were no planes then the pictures and videos from mainstream media, independent journalists and home videos from private citizens are all forged.

Yes, I've heard this time and time again. All photos and videos are fake. All the private citizens must have invested into some high-tech computer systems just before 9/11 so they could put out phoney plane videos with their VHS recorders.

You and every other no-planer are truly dispicable to implicate all of these innocent people as conspirators in 9/11.




Originally posted by titorite
I will quote you all the time stamps on the You tube link you gave me and point out to you all the inconsistencies

You can post your opinions all you like, but you clearly have no understanding of camera angles or distances or depth of field or any knowledge of photography or videography and that's why you can't understand what you're seeing and make things up to explain them in a way that you think you understand. Understand?



Originally posted by titorite
The proof of fraud is in front eyes... Its on you to accept it.

As I continue to say, I've already thoroughly looked at NPT and since there's nothing there to accept, I don't think I'll be accepting it anytime soon.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
FWIW, here are my thoughts on the "no-planes" theory.

First, it's not one theory. There seem to be two possible scenarios. Either there were holographic planes which were realistic enough to fool eyewitnesses and be picked up on random witness cameras: or, the planes were CGI, which fails to explain witness accounts and all the independent witness video.

That leaves us with the "holographic planes" theory.

This depends entirely on there being secret holographic technology. Hmm. Well, it's possible. I certainly think that military (or, if you will, shadow government) tech is way beyond anything we know about. We do know that the military is unveiling applications for this technology. A simple Google of "holographic battlefield technology" shows quite a variety of applications, though in a short search I couldn't find anything to substantiate John Lear's claims. That doesn't mean he's wrong, though.

But, you know, we don't need holograms when real planes can be flown by remote control. Global Hawk technology has been around for a long time and is amply reliable for the job - obviously, far more reliable than the hijackers, two of whom simply did a runner from their Cessna on the runway when they couldn't take off. These people are not going to be able to do the kind of manoevring that the planes exhibited on the day.

As for the video "proof"... not convincing to these eyes.

Could the planes have flown at the claimed speeds at that altitude? Opinions differ. Is the source of the planes' speeds reliable? Not to me, or indeed to, say, Pilots for 9/11 truth, who have thoroughly debunked the official story and the supposed flight recorder data.

So if the source of the planes' speed is unreliable, then it seems hardly worthwhile to worry about it too much. If there were planes they don't have to be going quite that fast. Has anyone tried to calculate the planes' speed from known video footage?

Another claim is that no-one, not even an experienced pilot, could have flown those planes at that speed with that accuracy. John Lear is even swearing an affidavit to that effect in a court case. He's certainly putting his reputation on the line there. He also claims to have seen extraordinary holographic imitations, complete with sound effects.

But replacing real planes with holographic equivalents produces its own set of problems, most notable of which is co-ordinating image and explosion.

We also have to look at the Pentagon and Shanksville separately. The picture that's emerging for me is that there was no way anyone was actually going to fly a plane into the Pentagon. The potential for cockup is just too great. No, a flyover and a wall-breaching kit will do - and Craig Ranke's interviews with the two police witnesses in the Citgo garage has convinced me that the planes overflew the Pentagon from a different angle of approach to the purported impact.

This, for me, actually makes this scenario more plausible. You can fly a hologram any way you choose. Real planes have to obey the rules of aerodynamics, and considering the 270-degree turn that the Pentagon plane made, it's not surprising they didn't quite get the angle of approach right. But here's the thing: this fact has only emerged about seven or eight years down the line. For a very long time the flyover and explosion was good enough to convince most sheeple of the official story.

Shanksville, frankly, is a mess and I don't think anything about what we know about it has any definite bearing on the planes/no planes debate.

Now we have to approach the vexed question of disinfo.

Given that it was an inside job, then of course there'll be disinfo.

BoneZ (whose postings I greatly respect) is, for my taste, perhaps too aggressive in charging people with disinfo tactics. Not everyone espousing the NPT is a disinfo agent. (If they were, it means that the NPT has convinced no-one at all.)

However, I am leaning towards the NPT being disinfo because of the people who are involved. I noticed recently that Jim Fetzer and Finian Dunne are buddies. I think Fetzer is probably an honest guy who gets rather too carried away and doesn't think terribly carefully about the issues: and I think he's been propelled into a rather too-prominent spokesman role for the truth movement by people who want to make the truth movement look stupid.

Finian Dunne, however, is a little 9/11 industry all on his own. I found his site, which purports to expose CIA fakes, and (I'd like to think) debunked it fairly effectively in this thread. Virtually all the people he "exposes" are people whom, over years' experience of looking at this stuff, I've learned to "trust" - in other words, I don't think they're deliberately lying. Some I really respect, like the guy who runs Mad Cow Morning News. If you look at the thread, you'll see that Dunne never has any solid reasons to back his claims that all the people he names are fakes. He even accuses MadCowMorningNews of "peddling the official story". That is utter nonsense.

Dunne and Fetzer are buds. That immediately makes Fetzer suspect, as far as I'm concerned. And the no-planers tend to hang out with both, from what I can see.

Again, John Lear is a major proponent of the npt. My personal opinion is that while he knows a lot of interesting people, some of them are using him as a conduit for disinformation. I do not think he's personally dishonest, although I find him, at times, a little careless with the facts. There were a couple of things he said in a fairly recent Project Camelot interview which I believe were factually incorrect and had I been giving an interview to camera about the subject I would certainly have tried to be as accurate as possible. On the other hand, he's not a young man anymore and he could have been just mistaken.

But perhaps the biggest nail in the coffin of the npt is that Pilots for 9/11 truth don't have anything to do with it. These are the expert witnesses. They tell us how the flight recorder data is wrong, and it makes sense to me. They don't go with the npt - and if anyone's in a postion to give an expert opinion on it, those are the guys.

P.S. (edit) - the OP really needs to understand the meaning of the word "proof". As BoneZ said, it's very likely disingenuous to put the p-word (which should be banned from use in this forum until people know what it means, in the mathematical, logical, and legal senses) in the thread title.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by rich23]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
Another claim is that no-one, not even an experienced pilot, could have flown those planes at that speed with that accuracy. John Lear is even swearing an affidavit to that effect in a court case. He's certainly putting his reputation on the line there.


Bwahahaha!


Thanks for the laugh!

Oh no.... not his reputation!!! After all this is the guy who believes you can breathe on the moon, and that it's has a yellow sky, oh and also it's a hollow alien ship with strip mines, and parking garages, and nuclear reactors, etc., all over it's surface! I believe he also watched Bob Lazar do some demonstration with the magical Element 115, but didn't seem to interested to pay close enough attention to everything. Wow, one of the greatest finds in history, and he's like no big deal.


He's also one of the dozen or so people in the world who seem to believe Billy Meier's hilarious UFO hoax.

Reputation, hah, I don't think that matters much in this case.



He also claims to have seen extraordinary holographic imitations, complete with sound effects.


"Sound effects" and replicating the sound of a real jet (with doppler effect )to fool thousands of bystanders are two totally separate things! I challenged John once to try and make more sense of that, and his only suggestion was that one only need to merely hang "a couple of speakers out of some windows". Pfffft! With logic and insight like that, do you HONESTLY think he's seen anything remotely close to what happened on 9/11?

I'm sure he hasn't and of course he doesn't prove it either. But I guess one doesn't need to since they put their "reputation" on the line!



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
As usual, the number of emoticons is inversely proportional to the quality of the post.

People are so desperate for certainty. All that stuff about what's on the moon... you know what? I haven't been there. I don't know if there is any atmosphere there.

Your whole post attacks Lear while actually leaving the rest of my argument intact. Nice contribution.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
That leaves us with the "holographic planes" theory.

No matter which theory you pick, the no-planers to this day have still not been able to tell us how these massive chunks of building got pushed inward:



The no-planers keep dodging the question and won't answer. They also won't answer how all of the private citizens faked their own home videos, which is just sickening to even think about the no-planers implicating innocent private citizens as conspirators.



Originally posted by rich23
If there were planes they don't have to be going quite that fast.

This is very true. Even at 300mph, we still would've seen the same exact thing on 9/11. A 767-200 weighs around 300,000 pounds. One of the main claims of NPT is that aluminum planes can't penetrate steel. If no-planers looked at the photos, the planes didn't penetrate the steel. The steel columns were all intact. The planes broke the connectors that connected the steel columns together. Had those columns been continuous from top to bottom, we would've seen a whole different scenario. A 300,000 pound object moving at 300-500mph will do some severe damage. The connectors that connected the steel columns never stood a chance at such a large, heavy, fast-moving object.



Originally posted by rich23
Another claim is that no-one, not even an experienced pilot, could have flown those planes at that speed with that accuracy. John Lear is even swearing an affidavit to that effect in a court case.

When I read that affidavit, I could not believe what I was seeing coming from someone so closely related to aviation. After reading it, I came to the conclusion that John Lear had either mentally lost it or other possibilities that went through my mind, but to say the things he said in that affidavit and to be a professional pilot is the epitome of an oxymoron. Being a professional pilot and saying the things he did in that affidavit are so contradictive, I was just blown away at such things coming from a man of his stature.



Originally posted by rich23
BoneZ (whose postings I greatly respect)...

Much appreciated.



Originally posted by rich23
...is, for my taste, perhaps too aggressive in charging people with disinfo tactics.

I am a little aggressive when it comes to things like the no-plane theory. In my years of debunking them I've had my name, address and phone number posted to a Youtube video with libelous claims, I've been threatened numerous times, had people call my number. This is what the no-planers do when they get debunked. They have no sense of professionalism at all.

When the nose-in/nose-out has been debunked by me and others for years, and I've again debunked it in this thread, and they continue to peddle it as "evidence" or "proof", that is disinfo. When someone posts a video with chopped-up video clips to make Fox News say things they never did and then proclaim it as "proof", that again is disinfo. I've caught several of the no-planers in direct lies on this very forum when they proclaimed some of their "facts" as proof and that is disinfo.

Am I abrasive when it comes to no-planers? Absolutely. It only takes a few minutes of going through their threads on this forum at how many of their posts have been deleted or edited or had themselves banned because they have no professionalism, no respect, no regard for forum rules and will not treat anyone with the dignity they deserve. I apologize for my abrasiveness towards no-planers and their "theories", but they will not show you any respect otherwise.


Sorry, Rich, but I wanted to use some of your points to make more points, hope you don't mind.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

But perhaps the biggest nail in the coffin of the npt is that Pilots for 9/11 truth don't have anything to do with it. These are the expert witnesses. They tell us how the flight recorder data is wrong, and it makes sense to me. They don't go with the npt - and if anyone's in a postion to give an expert opinion on it, those are the guys.


Funny you should say that.
It was members, some being pilots, of the P4T forum, whose arguments convinced me that no Boeings were used in the attacks.

A while back a very co-operative effort was taken in that forum with people on both sides of the fence exchanging info and helping sort out the truth, regardless of their individual beliefs. It was far deeper and more enlightening than I've seen anywhere else.

However, to view the forum it was in, you need to be a member of P4T.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


I was part of that back in those days. But either way you look at it, P4T's official position is that they do not support the "no-planes at the WTC" theory. And neither does 9/11 Blogger, Loose Change forums, Architects and Engineers, Firefighters, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. No research organization in the 9/11 truth movement supports NPT. It's been thoroughly researched, debunked, labeled disinfo and most everyone has moved on.

The 9/11 truth movement has went even further to distance itself away from NPT by banning the discussion of it and publicly denouncing NPT. P4T is the only 9/11 research organization that I know of that still allows NPT to be discussed.

Right now, NPT is just a thorn in our sides that is slowly slipping away into nothingness.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
No matter which theory you pick, the no-planers to this day have still not been able to tell us how these massive chunks of building got pushed inward:


Good point.


One of the main claims of NPT is that aluminum planes can't penetrate steel.


That's never cut any ice with me. A kid's programme on TV in the sixties and seventies called "How?" showed that you can shove a candle through a thick piece of wood if you fire it out of a twelve-bore.


When I read that affidavit, I could not believe what I was seeing coming from someone so closely related to aviation.


That's a shame. I do find Lear to be quite charming and interesting.

Any chance of a link for the terminally lazy?


I've caught several of the no-planers in direct lies on this very forum when they proclaimed some of their "facts" as proof and that is disinfo.


Steady there... I personally think it's important to leave the possibility open that someone is dumb and enthusiastic rather than malicious. The malicious ones expose themselves sooner or later anyway.


Sorry, Rich, but I wanted to use some of your points to make more points, hope you don't mind.


No need to apologise. I thought that was what debate and conversation were all about.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa
A while back a very co-operative effort was taken in that forum with people on both sides of the fence exchanging info and helping sort out the truth, regardless of their individual beliefs. It was far deeper and more enlightening than I've seen anywhere else.

However, to view the forum it was in, you need to be a member of P4T.


That sounds interesting... and of course you wouldn't get all the OMG kids on a forum like that. On the other hand, do you have to be a pilot to register?



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
I accidentally deleted part of BoneZ' post that I meant to reply to:

"In my years of debunking them I've had my name, address and phone number posted to a Youtube video with libelous claims, I've been threatened numerous times, had people call my number. This is what the no-planers do when they get debunked. They have no sense of professionalism at all. "

Forgive me BoneZ for being picky about English. Words are tools, keep 'em sharp and all that.

I wouldn't have used the word "professionalism" there. Are there professional no-plane theorists? I don't think so. I might have subsituted the words "intellectual honesty" or "integrity" myself.

However the kind of behaviour you describe is characteristic of a certain kind of profession, and it puts more weight, for me, behind the idea that the NPT is disinfo.

It also explains why you are, as you say, "abrasive". Don't blame you. If that sort of thing had happened to me, I'd be... well, banned, probably.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 

I'm not. I was invited to join, so I never found out whether just anyone could join or not.
It's worth trying.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Right now, NPT is just a thorn in our sides that is slowly slipping away into nothingness.


And this is why the truth movement will never succeed in prosecuting the case.

The methods by which it was done are considered by most to be too far fetched to take seriously.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
People are so desperate for certainty. All that stuff about what's on the moon... you know what? I haven't been there. I don't know if there is any atmosphere there.


Yet you put faith into someone who makes such wild claims, posting they are putting their "reputation" on the line. Perhaps you should look into the person you are using to base part of your argument around if you don't want to look foolish here.

Remember you are the one who brought up his silly theory, have you ANY proof whatsoever of it, or do you blindly take his word? If you have proof, please show us!



Your whole post attacks Lear while actually leaving the rest of my argument intact. Nice contribution.


Can you answer how the sound was done? He sure couldn't, other than making things up off the seat of his pants while offering NO proof. Do you honestly believe it was done with "a couple of speakers hanging out some windows"?

Please.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Well at least the emoticons are gone.


Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by rich23
People are so desperate for certainty. All that stuff about what's on the moon... you know what? I haven't been there. I don't know if there is any atmosphere there.


Yet you put faith into someone who makes such wild claims, posting they are putting their "reputation" on the line.


No, I don't. I'm simply trying to weigh the pros and cons of the npt. I like Lear's posts. They're entertaining and have some style. If you look at the rest of the argument you might notice, although I have no faith you will as you seem so fixated with Lear, that I'm not especially on board with the idea. If the technology is available to create a completely realistic holographic illusion of a plane, then creating realistic sound is just another technical problem that could be solved.

You might notice that I came down against the npt in my posts. I'm just not as knee-jerk and certain about it as some posters. It's called thinking about things.

And the fact of the matter is, whether you like it or not, John Lear does indeed have a reputation. Some people think he's great, others don't. But he is definitely a person of repute, and I'm sure he is aware of that.


Perhaps you should look into the person you are using to base part of your argument around if you don't want to look foolish here.


Perhaps you should get your act together to be more polite. I really could not care less about looking foolish, especially to someone who hitherto has plastered their posts with emoticons, presumably because they think it adds to the impact. I've been wrong plenty of times on this forum, and concede points with good grace.


Remember you are the one who brought up his silly theory, have you ANY proof whatsoever of it, or do you blindly take his word? If you have proof, please show us!


I brought up his theory because it's part of the no planes debate. You clearly don't understand the meaning of the word proof, along with most of the tragic posters on ATS. Mathematical proof? Logical proof? Legal proof?

I'm trying to sort out the consistencies and inconsistencies in the theory, that's all. Because I'm not simply disparaging it, you feel I have some attachment to it. Think again. Or, acutally, just try thinking.

I really don't know what your deal is, other than that you clearly dislike Lear and can't read my posts beyond that. Try looking at what I've actually posted. It might save you from looking foolish, if you care about that sort of thing.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
I like Lear's posts. They're entertaining and have some style.


And completely fabricated.


If the technology is available to create a completely realistic holographic illusion of a plane, then creating realistic sound is just another technical problem that could be solved.


But according to Lear, it's real, no? It must be since he's so willing to put his reputation on the line.


Creating the sound of low flying jets in downtown Manhattan is a HUGE technical problem, and not one that can be solved by hanging a couple of speakers out of some windows. Seriously, do you understand how difficult of a task that would be? If you want to believe that it's even an option these thing must be answered.

They have not.



And the fact of the matter is, whether you like it or not, John Lear does indeed have a reputation. Some people think he's great, others don't. But he is definitely a person of repute, and I'm sure he is aware of that.


Oh, I don't deny he's got a reputation alright!


But I find it hard to take someone even remotely serious who believes for one second he's staking that "reputation" on his unproven claim.



I brought up his theory because it's part of the no planes debate. You clearly don't understand the meaning of the word proof, along with most of the tragic posters on ATS. Mathematical proof? Logical proof? Legal proof?


I guess this shouldn't come as a surprise from a Lear supporter, but to answer your question, physical proof. Since he's putting his "rep" on the line, we should have some by now, eh? But of course like anything else he claims, we still have nothing. See a pattern?



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

Originally posted by rich23
That's a shame. I do find Lear to be quite charming and interesting.
Any chance of a link for the terminally lazy?

Sure thing. Go to Page 3, Section II, Paragraph 8. That's where the unbelievableness starts:

www.drjudywood.com...



Originally posted by rich23
do you have to be a pilot to register?

I used to be part of the staff there. You do not have to be a pilot to register or partake in discussion on the forums. Anyone can join.



Originally posted by rich23
Are there professional no-plane theorists? I don't think so.

No there are not, but you'd think they would do everything in their power to appear credible including getting some kind of professionalism.



Originally posted by rich23
It also explains why you are, as you say, "abrasive". Don't blame you. If that sort of thing had happened to me, I'd be... well, banned, probably.

Yeah, well, you just don't stoop to their level. You just let them get themselves banned.



[edit on 28-5-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Truthers, Official Story Believers, Schills, No planers, ect all those groups, we are all in the same boat.

That is we have no idea exactly how 9/11 wen't down.

So quit makeing like any of you do.

You no little bits and pieces, each side, but the real story. Well it's definitel not the official Story, or found in the the 9/11 Commission Report.

TV Fakery, well no , definitly not even 5% true. maybe MSM lies, and callusion(sp?) with on site perps yes.

Explosives, yes partly true.

93 shot down, possibly true.

No plane hitting the pentagon, VERY likely to be true.

So we in all our little camps know some things, but will never know all things. And this is how it will stay till it's generally accepted, that the US government owns our collective butts. They can do what they please, and theres not a darn thing we can do about it at this point.

Talking is gonna get us no where.

But anyone that believes the 9/11 story 100% I feel bad for you.
At least admit, the U.S. government Let it happen, if your not gonna go as far as saying they actually did it.

Even then though thats just one step toward the right direction, with a million more ahead of you.

This should have been taken care of right after the fact. Instead of everyone Yelling..(including myself), Lets Nuke the hell out of ANY country that suppourts terrorism, and cheered like a Sheep when Bush Jr. stood on a pile of death that his administration created and gave his megaphone speech, and hugged an elderly NYFD guy.

They got the initial reaction they wanted, and some people are just too stubborn to admit they are wrong.

Well I'm not. I was wrong. I shoulda been cheering for us to put Bush and his administration on trial.

But it took me too long to realize this, and heck a good 35% of Americans will Never ealize it, thats the shame here.

Might as well forget it, and just plan for how we SHOULD react the next time the US government pulls a False Flag attack. Do not back thier War machine, whatever you do. First and foremost.

If American soil is attacked, bet your bottom dollar that our government was in on it, and it's only a way to gain public support to invade a country, or attack someone, or some place. Don't buy it. Stop and think. Think for a few months heck a year even before backing any war.

If we had done that after 9/11 we wouldn't be in this fix. and the perps would be answering for thier crimes.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   






I see columns going both inward , outward and sideways. That photo does not do the best to support your theory.

And in my mind the best people to investigate the no plane theory would be those that work with digital media.

The metal has all been carted of and recycled. What we all base the majority of our beliefs on is the photos and news coverage.

When one goes over the old news footage the thing that should grab your attention is that the planes appear from different angles depending on the news station covering the event.

Again and again sometimes the plane comes in from on high and sometimes it flies in low and inbetween the buildings. The Multiple angles of entry should be a RED FLAG. One that can not be explained away from different camera positions because you can reference the planes position from the buildings....in the shots where the plane flew at ground level.



[edit on 18-6-2009 by titorite]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join