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 theory is a Hoax!!!

page: 8
11
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Orion7911


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


How about THIS for a counter argument? The guy who started this thread was physically there on 9/11, saw the plane with his own eyes, and even posted the location where he saw it. The guy who wrote that blurb wasn't.



I really like that logic, and I would follow it if it weren't for the fact that one of out own members right here claims to have seen flight 77's right wing fall off when it struck a light pole, and then proceed to hit the pentagon. If its wing was clipped it would not have been able to hit the pentagon while remaining nearly parallel to the ground.




posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

I really like that logic, and I would follow it if it weren't for the fact that one of out own members right here claims to have seen flight 77's right wing fall off when it struck a light pole, and then proceed to hit the pentagon. If its wing was clipped it would not have been able to hit the pentagon while remaining nearly parallel to the ground.


I haven't encountered any of those witnesses so I cannot comment one way or the other. All I know is, in addition to claiming that he specifically saw the planes, Ugie posted supporting photos of where he was at the time that showed his line of sight, which gives his claim much more credibility than just heresay.

It also goes without saying that Ugie's account corresponds to what hordes of *other* people claim to have seen, so he isn't standing by himself with his testimony, as the "wing fell of flight 77" people are. How many other people claim to have seen the wing of flight 77 fall off other than the one or two people you encountered here, anyway?



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
When Barack Obama outright ignores the subject of 9/11 and the official stand, you know the government has a hand in it all.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Whether there were planes or not is arguable but being a graduate and creator of CG computer graphics, composting, and visual effects for 6 years now. It is very very obvious to anyone with knowledge in these areas that the shot where the Verrazano bridge floating in the background is an obvious half ass composting job. Cause by not tracking the shot correctly. There was surely some composite shop or TV fakery going on that morning. It obvious to anyone with basic knowledge of video composting

1:40 into this video below is what I speak of.


[edit on 2-11-2009 by ascisco]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
It's only a matter of time before the world knows about the TV fakery. If they could put it on the news the morning of 9-11, the media is definitely in on it and that means the pentagon as well.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by nwodeath
It's only a matter of time before the world knows about the TV fakery. If they could put it on the news the morning of 9-11, the media is definitely in on it and that means the pentagon as well.


Yeah, right. I'm stil looking for the guy who posted it was only a matter of time before Bush started a war with China over the spy plane affair. He said to "check back with him in a few years, and see if he wasn't right". Anyone know where THAT guy is?



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   
I hate to re-ignite this thread, but i had to get away from it because of all the credibility attacks, and the likes.

I knew i would be under fire, but i didint think i would be insulted, for sharing my story. yea i was a member of this ATS community for a bit before i shared this story, hell, if i shared my story the first day i came to ATS, would i still get the same treatment? i would believe so!

I saw the planes hit, so therefore i witnessed people die... from afar, but i still saw people die! can you imagine a 16 year old, witnessing something of this magnitude with his own eyes, not want to share such a traumatizing incident? Yea, it took me a while, a LONG WHILE to give a statement, but thats it, its just a witness testimonial, for you ATS'ers to digest. if you think im lying, or telling the truth, or making it up as i go, i dont care anymore, i shared my story, so thats that. i gave reference points, i gave my descriptions, i did everything a witness would be called to do, unless im missing something.

Mentioning the pentagon when i was stating the WTC attacks, is just idiotic, why would you ask me if i thought a plane hit the pentagon, when i was in jersey city, NJ? its just stupid IMO. trying to gut my credibility with a horribly placed question. who in their right mind who is trying to find truth, try to distort someones story? i know, to fullfill their reality, and beleif of what they THINK happened.

I saw what i saw, and thats that. i am sorry if i had not replied to this thread since page 3 or 4, but im just amazed at the dung flinging that went on. take it for what it is, thats it. make up your mind at the end of the day. its your life, do as you please, but DONT impose your beliefs on others, when you were not even there.

i said my peice. ill let this thread die now. i regret sharing my story with immature brats.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ascisco
Cause by not tracking the shot correctly. There was surely some composite shop or TV fakery going on that morning. It obvious to anyone with basic knowledge of video composting


[edit on 2-11-2009 by ascisco]



Well seeing that I worked for a major studio and did film editing and compositing (and have been doing computer animation for almost 20 years), what you are claiming is absolutely wrong.


also, you are using highly compressed video to do your analysis (flaw number 1) and there was no technology that existed in 2001 that did what you are claiming its doing (flaw 2). And if you had ANY idea of how this type of shot can be done, you would know why you are wrong.

Nice that you throw out your "expertise" but, in this instance, it doesn't provide any help to you at all.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028


i said my peice. ill let this thread die now. i regret sharing my story with immature brats.



thank you for sharing your story. My aunt and uncle were on their way to the WTC complex the morning of 9/11/2001 and were only a block away when they saw the first tower get hit.

While being evacuated, they saw the second plane hit.

For a time, they couldn't get themselves to fly on a plane because of what they witnessed (they took a train back to their home state four days later).

Your personal experience and story, only serves to put a face of the actual witnesses and victims of 9/11/2001



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 


Don't let the very small minority of no-plane disinfo artists upset you or get you down. Their opinions don't mean a single thing in the real world, or the internet world.

The majority of the people who have read your story appreciate you sharing it with us. Thank you.







[edit on 1-12-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


thanks,

I appreciate it.




posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
"My aunt and uncle were on their way to the WTC complex the morning of 9/11/2001 and were only a block away when they saw the first tower get hit. While being evacuated, they saw the second plane hit."

So they were a block away and just happened to look up and see the first plane hit. Were they walking with their heads up in the air looking at the exact spot where the first plane, traveling at 550 mph, hit?

While being evacuated from the area (I assume walking away from the Towers), they again managed to see an airplane traveling at over 500 mph hit the second building? Again, were they looking backwards with their head looking up in the air at the exact spot on the building where the aircraft made contact? That's quite a story.

"also, you are using highly compressed video to do your analysis (flaw number 1) and there was no technology that existed in 2001 that did what you are claiming its doing (flaw 2)."

#1 It appears the quality of the original TV video was purposefully low resolution in order to hide certain details. Even a novice digital video editor knows the lower quality of the video, the easier it is to mask the digitally altered or inserted images.

#2 Digital imaging technology existed long before 2001 - there were plenty of movies made in the '90s which used it. Here is a list of them

en.wikipedia.org...

Somebody who "worked for a major studio" should be aware of this information.

The problem with the TV footage on 9/11, as mentioned, is that it was horribly created. The background layer with the Narrows Bridge in the background is absolutely awful. The person who created it is trying to give the impression of the helicopter moving laterally at a rapid pace, which it is not, if you take a good look at the Towers.

The amateur digital video editor who created this scene obviously over compensated and screwed up the entire shot. Let's just say, he would have a difficult time getting a job in Hollywood with those crappy skills.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   

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?

May i also add description of the planes... since im here...

the planes were all silver, solid silver. if anything, the planes were no American airliners, but planes DID IN FACT hit the towers!

[edit on 10/19/2009 by ugie1028]

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 19 Oct 09 by Gools]


Look, the no plane "theory" is not about the twin towers, it is about the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon. The blatant lack of evididence is what people are talking about. There were no bodies to be found, no pieces of the "plane" actually IN the building, hell, there was only one wing on the plane, according to the explosion. Not to mention that the security footage is missing from right before the "plane" supposedly hit the pentagon. So yeah, nobody is saying that planes did not hit the world trade center, they're saying no plane hit the pentagon. Nobody ever even brings up building 7! What about that? No plane even scraped that building, yet it collapsed! It collpased in the same fashion that the twin towers collapsed, mind you; in the way a building falls from a controlled demolition.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Unleashed68
 


or perhaps he ignores it because its been brought up multiple times, knows people will most probably twist his words regardless of what he says and/or is just a very troubling thing to think about



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl

Originally posted by ascisco
Cause by not tracking the shot correctly. There was surely some composite shop or TV fakery going on that morning. It obvious to anyone with basic knowledge of video composting


[edit on 2-11-2009 by ascisco]



Well seeing that I worked for a major studio and did film editing and compositing (and have been doing computer animation for almost 20 years), what you are claiming is absolutely wrong.


also, you are using highly compressed video to do your analysis (flaw number 1) and there was no technology that existed in 2001 that did what you are claiming its doing (flaw 2). And if you had ANY idea of how this type of shot can be done, you would know why you are wrong.

Nice that you throw out your "expertise" but, in this instance, it doesn't provide any help to you at all.


So composting wasnt invented until after 2001? Are you #ing kidding me?!
Also you dont need HD footage to see a #ty tracking job.
Do something truthful and honest with your life you disinfo agent.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   

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?

May i also add description of the planes... since im here...

the planes were all silver, solid silver. if anything, the planes were no American airliners, but planes DID IN FACT hit the towers!

[edit on 10/19/2009 by ugie1028]

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 19 Oct 09 by Gools]



You like MOST, criticize the NPT because not only have you failed to do any real indepth and understand what the true NPT is really about, but you're suffering being a victim of the biggest psyop ever perpetrated.

If anything did hit the first tower, it was a missle/drone.

If anything hit the 2nd tower, it was a military aircraft or more specifically, a missle/drone as well that may have appeared to look like what most perceive the definition of a "plane" to be.

Before you can claim it was a "plane", you need to clarify what TYPE of PLANE you're talking about since a DRONE or military aircraft or such can appear to look like a plane from a distance and is in essence, a TYPE OF PLANE.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by nwodeath
My little sister saw the twin towers on 9-11. She was standing right there before the first plane strike. She claims no planes hit the towers, and she claims she never saw anything but explosions.

Now how do you explain that?

Her friend works around the corner from the twin towers and was having coffee that morning across the street but she was on the opposite side. She claims she saw nothing either, but heard explosions. So there! What do you have to say to that?
[edit on 19-10-2009 by nwodeath]


of course, nothing but silence from those calling nptr's crazy.

typical, predictable, sad.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   

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.


BS.

You expect us to believe your POV enabled you to clearly see and track WHAT hit the first tower? You expect us to believe that you happen to notice/spot THEE plane in question (ie the FIRST "PLANE"), heading for the WTC and watched it without any problem, track all the way into the tower?



sorry, but with all due respect, I smell bs.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Whatever whatever whatever, Look at the video of the second plane enter the south tower , apply the laws of physics and then explain it to me..

Hint. enter.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by tomfrusso
Actually, I have found the No Plane Theory to be one of the most Laughable of the 911 trueth movement - right next to super thermite, holographic planes, alien involvement......


The only ones who find the NRPT to laughable along with super/nano thermite, holographic planes or alien involvement, are those who haven't done any real research or looked at the evidence properly if at all, are in denial, or connected to the perps and media propoganda cover-up machine.

People like you always claim over and over how these theories are absurd, but NEVER EVER offer any real counter-arguments or evidence to support and disprove what you call laughable.

If anythings laughable, its the ignorance and disinfo that exists and is perpetuated to confuse, obfuscate and derail those seeking truth.

do you get paid to do that?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join