It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 9
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:14 AM

Originally posted by Seiko

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 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 have yet to see you or anyone offer any evidence that the NRPT and its evidence has all been debunked, disproven and answered.

If I'm missing something, please direct me to a specific post or evidence that you believe does that.

You offer no specifics on what you've researched or believe is specifically not substantial.

Originally posted by Seiko
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]

what FACTUAL EVIDENCE are you talking about?

SHOW ME concrete PROOF there WAS a plane.

Prove the OP ISN'T LYING.

Prove there were THOUSANDS of people who actually SAW planes.

Prove EVERY video taken WAS NOT FAKE and all anomalies can be explained.

Obviously you've done little or no research on NRPT... so really its not worth engaging you further in discussion or intelligent discourse on this subject due to that fact.

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:18 AM

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.


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]

Just as NWO stated, YOU PROVED his point.

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

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:34 AM

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Please show a scientific or professional analysis of an original video you've obtained, proving video fakery once and for all, or what you're peddling is disinfo.

as I and others have argued, thats not even necessary to show fakery.

aside from that, you have yet to show a single video used as proof of planes, is even REAL or evidence and PROOF to begin with by the same standards.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The 300,000 pound aircraft traveling circa 500mph didn't break or sever any steel columns. The aircraft broke the bolts and welds holding the columns together. Bolts and welds are no match for a 300,000 pound object. I go into more detail about this in my post below:

to imply that this alleged aircraft (which hasn't even been proven to be a PLANE let alone 11 or 175), only broke bolts and welds and hit no BEAMS or encountered no resistance from the steel or concrete, is inofitself ABSURD if not pure disinfo.

nice try as usual.

the visual evidence clearly shows NO CRUMPLING or damage that should have resulted upon impact... But then this is an old argument that already been proven beyond a doubt to those in the real world where physical laws govern this planet every day since the beginning of time except on 9/11.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Yeah, except that doesn't explain how the 17 second delay was able to add a CGI plane into private citizens' home video cameras. Good luck explaining that one.

Please prove and present empirical evidence all the known footage was unedited and raw footage from independent private citizens.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
There was no nose cone coming out the other side. That is explained and debunked in my post below:
[edit on 23-10-2009 by _BoneZ_]

an argument that has also been repeatedly answered and debunked many times.

oh well.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by Orion7911]

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 02:01 AM

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.

and my grandma, grandpa, friend, friend of a friend, uncle, brothers wife, police friend, and next door neighbor all told me and tons of others a totally different story that contradicts the OP.



PROVE the WITNESSES who "HAVE" contradicted the OP, are lying.

see........................ this GAME you play, works both ways.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by Orion7911]

<< 6  7  8   >>

log in