No plane theory is a Hoax!!!

reply to post by GoodOlDave


fair enough but I would like to see this opened up and then let the chips fall where they may.

Originally posted by Seiko
Certainty is a hard line for me. Having said that I'm fairly sure that two jet planes hit the world trade towers. There is more evidence to support this fact then any others I have seen presented. There are too many pieces of film for me to say that this was faked, or that no planes actually hit them.

If thats true, then why can't you nor anyone else show any logical counter-argument or evidence and proof conclusively disproving or even addressing all the anomalies and contradictions to the OS and video evidence that has evidence of fakery?

On the contrary to what you claim, there is mountains of evidence that hasn't been logically refuted and conclusively disproven contradicting what you and planers claim.

So where have you been throughout many of the threads that have addressed what you claim hasn't been?

Originally posted by Seiko
There are too many eye witnesses, too much film, too much evidence that indeed two planes did hit two towers.

If thats true, then why are there just as many eye witnesses and mountains of evidence contradicting the OS and what you claim?

bottom line.... your claim is based on nothing more than your OPINION, not the facts.

Originally posted by curiousindian
Hahaha no plane hit twin tower, so what was that we saw on 100s of videos ? An alien ship? These theorists should see a mental doctor i guess.

anyone that actually believes and implies there are 100's of unique videos in the way you claim, is way beyond help from a mental doctor.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by ugie1028
As a member here for a very long time, i like the people here, ive seen a lot of crazy things but...

The NPT (no plane theory) in the 9/11 forum has gone a bit too far!

why?

Because i was in jersey city, NJ across the Hudson, I saw everything from when the first plane hit to the second plane hitting.

How can they say there were no planes when i saw WITH MY OWN DAMN EYES that PLANES hit the towers?

As much as it bewilders me, I fully agree with you, ugie, and it's the entire point I've been tryign to make since I started posting here.

The idea that the planes were all holograms is about as goofy an idea as it gets, but people aren't stopping to think these conspiracy theories through critically. For one thing, why the flip would the conspirators waste so many years planning for, and risk getting so many people involved in, this disinformation campaign (planted witnesses, faked video, planting fake aircraft wreckage, etc), not to mention inventing some wholly brand new hologram technology noone has ever seen before, when they can take a real plane and make a real airplane crash in five minutesl? Geez, it's one thing to theorize a conspiracy but the conspiracy should at least make *some* lick of sense, rather than doing it just for the sake of doing it.

this link and page ALONE destroys your argument:
www.911closeup.com...

funny how I've never seen anyone anywhere offer any logical counter-argument to the points and context of what that article discusses.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
People will believe what they want to believe. If they want to believe the Bible says the world is only 10,000 years old then that's what they're going to believe, regardless of what anyone tells them. Along those lines, if someone wants to believe there were no planes, the crash site in Shanksville is all fake, or that there were controlled demolitions in an occupied building, that's what they're going to believe, regardless of what anyone tells them. They're not believing it becuase of any review of the facts, as there's no flipping way that anyoen can look at the facts objectively and come up with the idea that the planes were all holograms. They're believing it becuase it fulfulls some inner need they have to believe it, and there ain't anythign that you, I, or colonel sanders could ever tell them that will make them believe otherwise.

It isn't any desire to learn the truth.It's religious zealotry.

do the words POT KETTLE BLACK mean anything to you?


[edit on 23-10-2009 by Orion7911]

Originally posted by ugie1028
files.abovetopsecret.com...
the view i had of the first plane hitting.
one image is from the street view, and the other is the main google earth view.

Sorry, but from the distance you were at, its highly unlikely you'd be able to conclusively determine WHAT the object was... as was the case for MOST who either deduced the objects and impact or were victims of the deception and black psyop.

reply to post by Orion7911


I have invited in my earlier posts in this thread anyone to show me evidence that the numerous eyewitnesses and the film documenting that two planes hit the wtc was entirely faked.

I'd like to point out again that certainty is a fine line for me. I am open to see evidence that would support a no plane theory, but I've seen nothing substantial. Until that evidence is brought forth i will continue in my belief that two planes hit the wtc.

I do not fully comprehend what happened on 9/11 and I admit this freely. I am for many lines of investigation to delve further into the details.

But my opinion as you call it is indeed based on factual evidence that I have yet to see dis proven. I have stated what evidence I based this on. Instead of stating I'm wrong, show me why. Show me proof there was no plane, and that the op here is flat out lying, that he and thousands of other people all miss-saw two planes. Prove every video taken of those two planes was fake.

start here if you like


[edit on 23-10-2009 by Seiko]

Originally posted by ugie1028
reply to post by ATH911

 

really what are you trying to get out of this? an honest answer?

ive been honest, and ill stick by my statements, PLANES hit the Twin Towers.

take it as you want, im sticking by it. i saw what i saw, and im 100% certain W/O a doubt that PLANES hit the towers. i saw them hit.

there is a difference between the pentagon and the WTC, i saw the ones hit the WTC. i didint see a plane hit the pentagon because i was not THERE.

Lets try to stay on topic here. this was about the NPT with the WTC, and not the pentagon.

no more pentagon questions please.

you're lying.... I saw what really happened...

what are you trying to get out of this? an honest answer?

ive been honest, and ill stick by my statements, PLANES did not hit the Twin Towers.

take it as you want, im sticking by it. i saw what i saw, and im 100% certain W/O a doubt that NO REAL PLANES hit the towers. i never saw anything hit, just explosions.

there is a difference between the pentagon and the WTC, but i never saw the ones hit the WTC. i als didnt t see a plane hit the pentagon because i was not THERE.

Lets try to stay on topic here. this was about the NPT with the WTC, and not the pentagon.

no more pentagon questions please

Originally posted by thesneakiod
reply to post by ugie1028

 

No offence but being here for just over a year is not a very long time at all.

And just who are you anyway? Some anonymous person off the Internet who "claims" to have seen the towers being struck, who only has their testimony as proof? Join the queue.

The hypocrites here are amazing. I'm guessing you think that no plane hit the pentagon? Well seeing as that's the general consensus round here, how about creating a thread ranting about the absurdity of the people who believe a plane did infact hit the pentagon? I bet you don't.

Most who post regarding the NPT don't have a agenda or are part of a disinfo campaign, they just see it like it is. Which is highly dubious video footage.

Just a question, but do you have any proof you were even there that day?

finally someone with some real common sense. Thank you!

most that attack NPRTrs are little more than hypocrites with double standards who show no critical thinking skills or evidence they've done any real research.

Originally posted by ugie1028
www.abovetopsecret.com...]post by thesneakiod

yea, but do you have anything to add to this thread besides opinion? do you have any contributions that would validate my story or invalidate it?

how can you ask your STORY to be challenged or validated, when its ALSO nothing more than your OPINION and hearsay?? do you hear yourself? Can you not see your hypocrisy and double standards?

you give a new meaning to the words POT KETTLE BLACK

Originally posted by ugie1028
go and believe your NPT. the worst kind of disinfo out there...

except the facts PROVE otherwise. The NRPT has NEVER been disproven and in fact continues to grow because of that FACT.

Originally posted by ugie1028
ruin any kind of truth movement by supporting a lie.

and your hypocrisy and double standards are a far worse detriment to the truth movement or any concept of being a rational intelligent person.

[edit on 23-10-2009 by Orion7911]

NPT stuff belongs in skunkworks.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

What I find ironic is that there are about four NPT threads on the go at the moment, all made by plane huggers trying their best to descredit a theory whilst ignoring their own.

Jeez just go and make another "why the towers collapsed" thread.

Here's one for the disinfo clowns....If you have an answer for this, i'll be amazed.....I think this may be the straw that breaks the camels back.

There are like 43 different videos of the plane strikes that hit the twin towers.
How come not one single one...NOT ONE, is obstructed and fails to actually show the airplane hit???

It's like every video was aimed at the tower for one reason...
to catch something about to happen!!!

I would certainly think that out of 43 different videos that survived, at least one would have been shot from the ground near the building instead of from so far away, where all details are blurred, and that at least one would have been so close as to have been obscured by huge high rise buildings to have been seen as it approaches, but no, not a single one. That in itself is HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS!

Why is there not a single video that shows the tower burning from the first strike, but is completely obscured for the second strike?

This, I contend leads more credence to the theory that ALL THE VIDEOS ARE FAKED!!!

Like I said.


[edit on 23-10-2009 by nwodeath]

reply to post by nwodeath


How many videos should we show you that were filmed at that time, that have an obstructed view, not a full view, or no view of the plane to disprove this hypothesis?

It would seem to me that the majority of videos known would be ones showing the planes as that is what people wish to see, but I can assure you I have seen others that are not direct line of sight videos.

Originally posted by Seiko
reply to post by nwodeath

 

How many videos should we show you that were filmed at that time, that have an obstructed view, not a full view, or no view of the plane to disprove this hypothesis?

It would seem to me that the majority of videos known would be ones showing the planes as that is what people wish to see, but I can assure you I have seen others that are not direct line of sight videos.

Shoe me JUST ONE video that shows the burning building, WHILE the plane strikes it, that does not show the plane at all. JUST ONE!

reply to post by nwodeath

Shoe me JUST ONE video that shows the burning building, WHILE the plane strikes it, that does not show the plane at all. JUST ONE!

You don't see the plane from that Angle and they had the camera off at that moment.

They thought it was a "Military Plane" Which is what some thought.

So there you go. The burning plane from an angle that people could miss, yet obvioiusly they saw this happen.


AGAIN with so many VANTAGE POINTS IN NEW YORK.....

How could the Military prevent people from capturing "NO PLANES???"

Its an impossible plan.

If you have tv fakery, that is all you have if you want to believe that.

But it certainly doens't mean "NO PLANES"

[edit on 23-10-2009 by talisman]

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by nwodeath

 

Shoe me JUST ONE video that shows the burning building, WHILE the plane strikes it, that does not show the plane at all. JUST ONE!

You don't see the plane from that Angle and they had the camera off at that moment.

They thought it was a "Military Plane" Which is what some thought.

So there you go. The burning plane from an angle that people could miss, yet obvioiusly they saw this happen.


AGAIN with so many VANTAGE POINTS IN NEW YORK.....

How could the Military prevent people from capturing "NO PLANES???"

Its an impossible plan.

If you have tv fakery, that is all you have if you want to believe that.

But it certainly doens't mean "NO PLANES"

[edit on 23-10-2009 by talisman]

Perfect example, indeed. Just when they were supposed to have caught it, blacked out, then picked up again, right after the second plane hit. YOU PROVED WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING, THANKS!!!

Not a single video exists, for some odd reason, of the burning building, but with the crashing plane obstructed. YET THERE SHOULD BE AT LEAST 1 OR 2 OF THEM!!!

reply to post by nwodeath


Even when logic and reason stares people in the face...illogic reigns.

Just when they were supposed to have caught it, blacked out, then picked up again, right after the second plane hit.

It is quite obvious, as you watch the video, that from the videographers perspective the event had ALREADY happened. He (they) did not anticipate another impact. They had videoed the burning Tower.

AFTER the sound of the approaching second airplane (or AFTER the impact) it's obvious someone grabbed the camera and resumed shooting!

Anyone who's ever used a videocamera, and panned away or turned it off at the wrong time, and MISSED something that they wanted to film knows how it works.

Perfect example: I was on an Alaskan cruise, and the Captain stopped the ship early one morning to tell us that humpback whales were feeding. They are protected, so you cannot approach them...but, THEY were following the fish, so we were lucky to be right place, right time.

Now....we KNEW the whales were there, but couldn't see them. When they 'fish', they blow bubbles in a rising curtain to herd the fish to the surface...they breech for a VERY brief moment. The trick is to point the camera at the exact spot...you have to be quick, and know ahead of time...that is the trick.

IF you didn't know that it would happen again and again, you might give up, and turn off the camera...not expecting another "hit".

Not a single video exists, for some odd reason, of the burning building, but with the crashing plane obstructed.

There are plenty. You haven't (or won't) looked hard enough......

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by nwodeath

 

Even when logic and reason stares people in the face...illogic reigns.

Just when they were supposed to have caught it, blacked out, then picked up again, right after the second plane hit.

It is quite obvious, as you watch the video, that from the videographers perspective the event had ALREADY happened. He (they) did not anticipate another impact. They had videoed the burning Tower.

AFTER the sound of the approaching second airplane (or AFTER the impact) it's obvious someone grabbed the camera and resumed shooting!

Anyone who's ever used a videocamera, and panned away or turned it off at the wrong time, and MISSED something that they wanted to film knows how it works.

Perfect example: I was on an Alaskan cruise, and the Captain stopped the ship early one morning to tell us that humpback whales were feeding. They are protected, so you cannot approach them...but, THEY were following the fish, so we were lucky to be right place, right time.

Now....we KNEW the whales were there, but couldn't see them. When they 'fish', they blow bubbles in a rising curtain to herd the fish to the surface...they breech for a VERY brief moment. The trick is to point the camera at the exact spot...you have to be quick, and know ahead of time...that is the trick.

IF you didn't know that it would happen again and again, you might give up, and turn off the camera...not expecting another "hit".

Not a single video exists, for some odd reason, of the burning building, but with the crashing plane obstructed.

There are plenty. You haven't (or won't) looked hard enough......

Yet, FUNNY how they seem to have caught it as the explosions are ripping the building apart right after the second strike. And it took no further adjustment to aim the camera or to focus. That's AMAZING!!! How DID they do it?

reply to post by nwodeath

Yet, FUNNY how they seem to have caught it as the explosions are ripping the building apart right after the second strike. And it took no further adjustment to aim the camera or to focus. That's AMAZING!!! How DID they do it?

Oh, I see now your confusion.

That particular snippet was posted by "Bob and Bri" as a tribute on the fifth aniversary....it is NOT the full video from the original day. They edited it....if you look for the FULL version you can see the part where someone turns off the camera, as it's being set down.

In the SHORTENED clip above, they edited out all of that...the edit point is right where the window frame suddenly appears in the left of the shot...and just as a woman's voice is caught at the end of some word...sounds like "uuuhhh..."

In any event, you missed the point....FROM THEIR POV the could not even SEE the other Tower, could they??? United 175 would have likely not shown up, if they had been continuously filming...or from that distance and angle it would have been very quick, hardly discernible.
___________________________________________________

ADD: Watch that particular video from the 00:57 point...at about 00:59 is where I see the jump-cut. Look around, there is a longer version out there.....

Really, I'd suggest a course or book on filmmaking, videography/photography techniques, perspective, etc....


[edit on 23 October 2009 by weedwhacker]

Well you are the second person that saw the North Tower hit.
The first was interviewed on TV and said it flew by the Empire State building.
A victim holds someone accountable:

9/11 Wrongful-Death Suit Receives April Trial Date
www.abovetopsecret.com...
ED:
This was for the OP


[edit on 10/23/2009 by TeslaandLyne]

[edit on 10/23/2009 by TeslaandLyne]