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: 4
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
If in some situation there is a proper presumption that something is true, anyone seeking to prove its opposite is said to bear the burden of proof. A certain amount of philosophical jockeying consists in trying to shift the burden of proof.


Couldn't come up with your own response and thoughts bonez?


you're gonna build your case on a concocted and twisted idea about "proper presumption"? Can you show any legal language or case example that refers to proper presumption that relates to any event similar to 9/11? And please show how it relates to NRPT and video fakery.

So you're actually telling me that your evidence of planes is based on the PRESUMPTION that planes hit the towers?

reallllly now.



Originally posted by _BoneZ_
There is a proper presumption that planes hit the towers. Since you are seeking to prove it's opposite (no planes hit the towers), you and the no-planers bear the burden of proof.
Now, unless and until you obtain orignal footage and have it professionally analyzed for fakery, you''re peddling disinfo, opinions, conjecture, hearsay, with zero proof or evidence, period.


The burden of proof lies with those who claim the images showing real planes, are authentic.

As it pertains to the video footage at the wtc, the presumption whether proper or not that the images/footage shows real planes, is NOT proof of real planes by any stretch of your imagination in the real world. The official conspiracy story relies on the same video footage that SC and others have analyzed, as evidence and proof real planes hit the towers.

Now since there's more than enough evidence and proof 9/11 was an inside job, all aspects of 911 including NRPT are reasonable to suspect and fairgame to investigate which nullifies your false premise about PROPER PRESUMPTION since the PRESUMPTION is no longer proper and the evidence the presumption is based on, is suspect.

As Tezz said:

"The whole official story has to be bought as an entire package. None of it can be false or contradictory if it is to be consumed in its entirety. Therefore, any aspect of the official story that can't support itself is subject to intense scrutiny. As long as part of the story is a lie, then the whole story is stained."

Not only have they ALL failed to CONCLUSIVELY PROVE ANYTHING, but the official story has been PROVEN to contain contradictions, flaws, physical impossibilities, unanswered and unanswerable questions, omissions suppression of evidence, and obvious tampering/manipulation of the evidence claimed that allegedly proves the official conspiracy story real planes hit the towers.

All that has to be shown is just ONE contradiction, flaw, physical impossibility, or evidence of tampering and we've demonstrated the official story can not be trusted or used as evidence for anything.

If you claim there's no evidence of NRP, not only do you have to show the footage the Official Conspiracy Story is based on, is authentic, but you also then have to show how and where the arguments pointing out fakery, are wrong which plane huggers can barely do. All you and the rpt camp present are opinions, conjecture, speculation or hearsay and then say oh but the burden of proof is on no-planers to prove whats never been proven to begin with.

In fact, if you're going to invoke this concocted cockamamy concept of proper presumption, then its fair game and time to re-introduce Null hypothesis logic into the mix.



[edit on 26-6-2009 by Orion7911]




posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory
Originally posted by Orion7911
Actually the real flaw and misconception comes from those who think NRPT doesn't include the existence of a drone or missle and who also ignore that to people on the ground, such objects would have appeared to look like planes
Yeah, if you are five years old.

To any normal human, it would be easy to distinguish between a drone or missile, which are relatively small, and a huge commercial airliner.


then explain why there were reports of people having thought they saw a missle. If it were so "easy" to distinguish and there was no deception,
no such reports would have ever occurred.

only a 5 year old or disinfo agent would ignore those facts and make an absurd reference about what normal humans would have done in the midst of so much confusion, chaos and what we now know was a deception unlike few modern humans have ever experienced.


Originally posted by WhatTheory
This is especially the case for the people who saw the planes up close due to them being in the upper portions of the World Trade Centers.


what people are you talking about? please back that claim up with links and supporting evidence.

Thanks!



[edit on 26-6-2009 by Orion7911]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Really I am. But I'm not quite sure why you're so interested about who I am or what nerve I've hit to cause you to threaten me.

It wasn't a threat. I was merely stating that if I find out you are a sock of someone banned, then it will be properly reported and you'll go bye bye, as in banned yet again. Got it now?


Its rare that I see someone with such an intense desire and need to ban and censor free-speech and intelligent discourse on a forum thats supposed to be designed for such debate and investigation on one of the most controversial subjects in history. Even when there's no rules being violated and the discussion is civil, you're trying to suppress, ban and do away with topics and members you don't like for personal reasons, don't agree with and can't stand because you can't disprove or win the arguments. You prefer to focus on who people are here and banning people just because your OPINION doesn't agree with someone elses or you don't like the topic? Just WOW.

Should you succeed in such an evil and malicious campaign, I would hope many of this forums members will see the danger you and such censorship poses to this site, the internet as a whole and FREEDOM OF SPEECH not to mention the future of the truth movement which is essential for the survival of this country and ultimately civilization if the perps are not brought to justice and stopped which these forums are essential in helping with.

Imo your comments and efforts are beyond disturbing and borderline,,, no,,, absolutely evil.

You give a new meaning to the term disinfo agent.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 



***SLAP***

How many times do we have to go over this???


www.britannica.com...#

The air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) had a length of 6.3 m (20.7 feet); it attained a range of 2,500 km (1,500 miles). It was designed for deployment on the B-52 bomber. The Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM) and the Tomahawk ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) had a length of 6.4 m (21 feet), a diameter of 53 cm (21 inches), and a range of 2,500 km (1,550 miles).



A Boeing 767-200 is 159 FEET LONG!!!


A Cruise Missile is only 13% as long as a B767!!!

It has a diameter of less than two feet!!!!

Now, I know some 'eyewitnesses' can be morons, but anyone with two brain cells to rub together should be able to tell the difference!

edit: And you accuse others of spreading "disinfo"???

[edit on 6/26/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Orion7911
 



***SLAP***

How many times do we have to go over this???

A Boeing 767-200 is 159 FEET LONG!!!

A Cruise Missile is only 13% as long as a B767!!!

It has a diameter of less than two feet!!!!

Now, I know some 'eyewitnesses' can be morons, but anyone with two brain cells to rub together should be able to tell the difference!

edit: And you accuse others of spreading "disinfo"???




Uh, you conveniently forgot to include some data on drones and global hawks.

I just love watching how you cherry pick your information and calculate responses that also many times leave out context.

figures..........



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 



OK.....



RQ-4 Global Hawk Specifications

Primary Function: High Altitude Endurance Unmanned Aerial Reconnaissance System
Contractor: Northrop Grumman, Ryan Aeronautical Center
Crew: None
Unit Cost: N/A
Powerplant
One Rolls Royce (Allison) AE3007H Engine at 7,150 lb thrust
Dimensions
Length: 44.4 feet
Wingspan: 116.2 feet
Height: 15.2 feet

Weights
Empty: 25,600 lb -- estimated
Maximum Takeoff: N/A
Performance
Speed: 454 mph
Ceiling: 65,000 feet
Endurance: 42 hours


(Follow this link to a photo):
www.globalaircraft.org...

Right....uh huh....easily mistaken for a B767 that is 159 feet long. Sure, happens every day!!! 45 feet vs. 159 feet? Yuppers!

The Global Hawk is the largest UAV (drone) in the arsenal. Maybe this was seen on September 11th???
www.globalaircraft.org...


BTW, funny guy, how about looking in to when these particular flying machines were first built, and put into use.



[edit on 6/26/0909 by weedwhacker]



new topics

top topics
 
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join