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 Planers Do Dig Up Some Interesting Stuff, Gotta Admit

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Now look, I don't mind at all entertaining theories, heck that's what we're here for. But PLEASE, you guys are going to HAVE to do better than this. Why go to these lengths based upon crappy videos? When really you should stick to solid guns.


And now you see the entire essence of No Planer disinfo: using heavily stepped on crappy/grainy Youtube video clips as actual 'evidence' in an 'investigation'. The original Sept. Clues was so deeply flawed using the worst quality video clips as the sources for its low video quality release, as well as countless misrepresentations and fabrications, that I do not understand how a person could see more than one example of this and still weigh even a gram of credibility in Simon's direction.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]




posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Have you seen this yet? I found this s few weeks ago while browsing ATS. This is what gave me the idea to do something similar.

www.freedomdomain.com...

I had to read the page like 3 or 4 times, because each time I did I found new info that made me think even more. I have been convinced about all this for some time, but very few people are actively doing any research on it in any new or groundbreaking way. This site breaks down some things from September Clues, but also did their own independent research it seems.

I would recommend reading it a few times and then please do post your thoughts on specific issues and points. The site makes very good points and has picture comparisons.



[edit on 18-10-2009 by nwodeath]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Uhhh as a witness, planes did hit the towers...

so this seems very.... unlikely

EDIT: to clarify...

I was 17 when this happened, i saw both planes strike the towers.

i was on Montgomery ST in Jersey City, had perfect view of the towers. saw the first one hit while my dad was dropping me off at school (going down Montgomery st.)

i saw the second one hit from my school.

it looked pretty real to me... if anything they were solid silver color.

[edit on 10/18/2009 by ugie1028]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by nwodeath
Just because you say it's so, does not make it so.
BTW, who is cointelpro? I thought it was people who cover up the no plane theories, like the planehuggers always do. I always thought these were the real cointelpro.


Let me try this again, below, but first I must explain what COINTELPRO is / was. COINTELPRO was much more than spreading disinfo to get people to spread misinfo. It was about total disruption of movement(s). One of its targets was the Black Panthers. In hindisght, the BP didnt whither away from lack of neccesity, instead it rotted from the inside out. Agents were placed inside to to influence it in violent directions. Another facet had the FBI mail fake death 'hit' letters on behalf of the leadership of the BP & local crime gang in that city, which resulted in actual deaths and blood on the streets. Others facets included actual assassinations (ie Fred Hampton).

Divide and conquer. The 9/11 movement was divided and conquered, via No Planes. And their agents along with unwitting minions engage in character assassination against the down to earth leaders in the now fabled movement.

As I argue et al, you dont even need WTC demolition examples to rally an unstappaoble true 911 lynching movement. Demo's hurt the movement, No Planes KILLS it.

And now to the PROOF I linked in above that is being ignored:


Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I'd like to make it even more perilous:

In addition to Robz examples, I'd like to add to that:

1] How did they manage to 'spit' the monster fireballs out the other side with perfect timing?




2] And launch the 'engine' and related debris out with perfect momentum and angles coinciding with the planes speed and impact angles?
Note the smoketrail from the engine:

CLICK THIS ONE:
www.erichufschmid.net...
It shows the shooting engine in high-res!


When you add those in with my other argument, which I've posted in multiple threads yet not one single person has been able to answer it (be sure to click the first link):

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
In the first video of interest the cameraman was on W. Broadway, which was right in line with where the the plane debris was ejected from the opposite side of WTC2. At around time 7:00 the impact occurs. You can hear pandemonium and loud noises as if large things are crashing down around him. Then, as he turns back, you can see plane debris that had apparently landed and killed a pedestrian.
911blogger.com...


www.lib.utexas.edu...
As we've all been covering inother recent threads, other large bits of plane debris were found including a 'still smoking' engine that landed on a street corner not too far from our above cameraman.


While I haven't done an advanced analysis on the raw source video presented above, it does seem to debunk the "MIB Flashy Thing" Theory for how they placed the plane debris on the streets, once and for all.

www.abovetopsecret.com...[/im]

It's case closed. But, if you insist...

For those of you claiming only 4 parts were found, here's some more tidbits from none other than Killtown's website, all WTC related:
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...
killtown.911review.org...



Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Nothing you’re saying is weakening the hologram theory. It is my understanding that none of the 9-11 films show holograms. Yes, that’s right, the holograms weren’t caught on camera. The images we see are all CGI inserted fakery.


I see nothing can shake your faith in No Planes.

But since you're obviously right, tell me, how in the world could they prevent every 'rogue' citizen with a video camera from capturing it?

Ok, say you're a conspirator: You have to assess how to ensure getting away with your crime: You consider that you might be able to get away with these mumbo jumbo technologies... But there is one problem: If one single civilian just so happened to get a recording showing no plane whatsoever, you're busted. Even a 10 year old would be clever enough to realize that's not the way to go.

You're suggesting that every camera and tape produced from that day is faked. Sinc etey're faking all of these tapes, why not fake the tapes of the video cameras at the Pentagon to "show" a plane, thus "proving" that one hit there? Why release tapes that look more like a missile than a Boeing? And, again to the 50th time, why not also produce some fake NTSB/ec reports to put the icing on their fabricated event?

No Planes is about as real as Aesop Fables.

Ok, I'll be fair, I won't say that it's impossible, however, considering the difficulty in producing the observed effects to 'near' perfection, in conjunction with the decisions they'd have to go thru in consideration of my statement to you above, and so on, I'd say there's a about a 0.002% chance of "No Planes" being what happened.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by nwodeath
 


No, Simon definitely posted that video at Killtowns fourm:

911movement.org

I'd post you a link but it wouldn't do any good .That web site got Axed about a week ago.



[edit on 18-10-2009 by waypastvne]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Argh. A few image links at the beginning of my self-quote are now down. The main one is the one that shows the hi-res image of the engines flying out of the building with smoke trails. The high-res video and photographic evidence shows engines shooting out of the building. FACT!

From that we have the conclussion that planes in fact hit the towers. You might dabble over what planes hit the towers, but not the idea that planes didnt hit the towers.

Or you could go for the stretch of imagination that planes didnt hit the towers, and the explosions with resulting fireballs and jet engines ejected to be photographed on the street were engineered and fabricated. But you still have to leap over the idea that instead of just smash actual planes into the buildings theyd make their operation many times more complicated than needed.

I seen a recent post allege that the engines found on the street werent the right ones, so even if that were true why would they send fake ones ejecting from the building? I'm far from convinced that the wrong ones were in fact there, and I'd place a thousands times more potential on the theory that some planes did hit the towers, just not the ones we were told.

You still have to deal with teh 'fake' people who ere supposed to be on the planes and died. I'm still waiting for proof of fake people dying. Or we could say that they hid the real planes and machine gunned the real passengers, and then went to the added lengths of the rest of it all that the No Planers spew. To that I say the idea of that idea making so much noise HAS to be COINTELPRO. These sorts of claims are like a wet dream to the social group known as the "Skeptics", and are a laughable joke to the masses at large.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
@~5:15 -
I believe those are NOT the same two building profiles. They are close at first glance, but upon further review, I don't think they are the same at all. There are clear differences in the tops of the buildings there, watch close. I believe this to be misrepresented and false.


They are not the same and differ greatly on the left side. The big red building is absent in the YouTuber's video but present in the overlay.

Not even one comparison in that video is of the same perspective-- proper distance perhaps but not the correct east-west view as can be judged by the two foreground structures in relation to one another.


And frankly, I found a different but related issue with another video done by no planers, and posted exactly what I found when I obtained high res versions of the video.


The part about the wing disappearing or whatever it was cracked me up a bit. I wonder how many truthers of this sort that overanalyzed compressed and recompressed footage ever saw it as it happened, on T.V. or otherwise. How many developed their stance based solely upon YouTube video? How many have never seen anything but YouTube video? By now, some were probably grade schoolers when it all happened.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Now keep in mind I am not a no planer, but in their never ending pursuit to either distort or expose the truth (I haven't exactly figured out which one yet), this video does bring up some interesting research.



Expose. We are trying to expose the truth. And truth is it is a self evident thing... as the next generation of architects and pilots go through school they will ask the questions that do not make sense...the will dig through the net... and they will see the no plane theory and they will look at the News footage and they will understand.


I mean seriously,. ... we have commercial jets that pull High G maneuvers that would rip off the wings and black out the pilots. We have physical evidence that lands in the street with out scraping pavement just like the magical passport that did not burn. and pilots Pilots that flunk flight school but can navigate by compass and cloud.


No man.... I saw September clues... I compared what they said to my own copy of the days events when my brother in law hit record...Bless him for doing so.

It matchs.. the lie is bigger than can be belived...yet it is what it is.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by titorite
Expose. We are trying to expose the truth.


Truth? How about the truth that jet engines flew from the towers after impact? Why No Planers never want to address this fact directly?




posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Truth? How about the truth that jet engines flew from the towers after impact? Why No Planers never want to address this fact directly?


Ummm...extremely accurate and fast 3-D printing? You know the government has advanced technology, years beyond what we get to see. Heck, I'll bet Kinko's was in on it!



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


Ok I will address your statement when YOU ADDRESS MINE FIRST! . I mine.

The engines that hit the pavement... they did not scrape the pavement.

Hmmmm Explain that?!?!



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
I'll bet Kinko's was in on it!


This is what I'm talking about. The more people you suggest would be in on it the more insane it sounds from likelyhood of actually being possible. So insist on the 'truth' being the most unlikely form possible, and see where it goes...



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Can I be the one to point out the obvious?

Just because they doctored the videos, doesn't mean there weren't planes. CNN could have had fake videos for a number of reasons besides just editing in fake planes.

I am one of the people who believes that planes hit the towers. I think, based on the overwhelming amount of eyewitness accounts, it would be foolish to assume planes didn't hit. Someone who is close to me and lives in NYC witnessed the impacts. These people are not making up stories about the planes, they really did hit.

Perhaps the fake videos were made for other reasons, such as to hide secondary explosions. Perhaps there are reasons we do not understand. One thing we can be sure of, the evidence is piling up that many of the videos released by the media were doctored, or perhaps even entirely fabricated.

We can also be sure, thanks to the many amateurs who captured those events on film, that many of the films circulating are real. What really needs to be done is a comparison between the assumed fake and assumed real videos, to see what doesn't add up. Perhaps then we will be able to uncover why the videos were doctored in the first place.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by titorite
Ok I will address your statement when YOU ADDRESS MINE FIRST! . I mine.

The engines that hit the pavement... they did not scrape the pavement.


I missed where you said that. But since you're now generating a 'new' claim, the burden of proof is on you to lay out a display of evidence that demonstrates your claim.

The sad part is that even if you do manage to demonstrate such, it doesnt prove that the engine didnt land there by 'normal' forces. The sake of argument is still on you to explain how it got there, better than my example of how they covered that up:
www.std.com...



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd
Perhaps the fake videos were made for other reasons, such as to hide secondary explosions.


In past debates I have suggested that any potentially actual doctored video could be part of the COINTELPRO operation that I speak of. But on the other hand I havent been convinced of such doctored video existing from the mass of now 'old school' No Planer 'evidence' that got everything where it is. I happen to have roughly well over a 1TB set of some of the best sources of 9/11 video and images, and have consorts with better collections than I, and when looking at near source examples of the ones the No Planers put in youtube it is typically really is funny.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
Uhhh as a witness, planes did hit the towers...

so this seems very.... unlikely

EDIT: to clarify...

I was 17 when this happened, i saw both planes strike the towers.

i was on Montgomery ST in Jersey City, had perfect view of the towers. saw the first one hit while my dad was dropping me off at school (going down Montgomery st.)

i saw the second one hit from my school.

it looked pretty real to me... if anything they were solid silver color.

[edit on 10/18/2009 by ugie1028]


But you see, anyone with typing skills can come on here and say what you say. I do not believe you for one second. Sorry, that's my choice.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by nwodeath
Just because you say it's so, does not make it so.
BTW, who is cointelpro? I thought it was people who cover up the no plane theories, like the planehuggers always do. I always thought these were the real cointelpro.


Let me try this again, below, but first I must explain what COINTELPRO is / was. COINTELPRO was much more than spreading disinfo to get people to spread misinfo. It was about total disruption of movement(s). One of its targets was the Black Panthers. In hindisght, the BP didnt whither away from lack of neccesity, instead it rotted from the inside out. Agents were placed inside to to influence it in violent directions. Another facet had the FBI mail fake death 'hit' letters on behalf of the leadership of the BP & local crime gang in that city, which resulted in actual deaths and blood on the streets. Others facets included actual assassinations (ie Fred Hampton).

I said that rhetorically. Anyone who does not know what Cointelpro is, should not be posting on ATS or should at least go back to Conspiracy 101.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by nwodeath

Originally posted by ugie1028
I was 17 when this happened, i saw both planes strike the towers.


But you see, anyone with typing skills can come on here and say what you say. I do not believe you for one second. Sorry, that's my choice.


The funny thing is his claim of witnessing it is vastly more plausible than claims of the being no planes despite all of the unadressed evidence I've already posted here...



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:01 AM
link   
CNN Rector Street Video Comparison
Building Vs. No Building - What do you see? Or what do you NOT see?

Look MA, No Building!!!



[edit on 18-10-2009 by nwodeath]

[edit on 18-10-2009 by nwodeath]

[edit on 18-10-2009 by nwodeath]

[edit on 18-10-2009 by nwodeath]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
C'mon people, the No Plane religion has been smashed to WTC pieces for at least a year on this site. It's sad that to this day the childish COINTELPRO antics of the founders of the No Planers still has the old "this forum is now under close scrutiny" status here at ATS.

For physical PROOF that planes hit the towers see here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And beyond that read that entire thread.

There is no longer any verifiable "9/11 Truth Movement" thanks to the damaged caused by the No Planes (COINTELPRO) 'movement' in particular.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]


do you seriously believe a plane crashed into the pentagon?

do you seriously believe a plane crashed in shanks-ville?

seriously?

reply to post by nwodeath
 


those two pictures seem like very different points of view nwod

[edit on 10/18/2009 by JPhish]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join