Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ultimate 911 No Planer PROOF Page - Help Debunk

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Seriously, how does NPT explain the thousands of eyewitnesses?


They THOUGHT they saw an airplane. They could have seen a missile. There is NO proof for airplanes on 9-11, period.




posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   





"Could have" is not proof of anything, merely an opinion based on how you see things.

There is NO proof for missiles on 9-11, period.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by Soloist]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   




There is much less proof of airplanes though.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by nwodeath
 


I check out the link and when i click on another link to you tube to view the video, it came up as You tube deleted the video
Very interesting to say the least. I always had a suspicion about the actual video's...after all most everyone that day said it was like watching a movie. Maybe we all picked up on it, but our mind could not accept it.
More homework to do......this site has seriously affected my productivity at work



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by nwodeath
There is much less proof of airplanes though.


Eyewitnesses to planes, several video of planes, plane parts, missing passengers, etc, etc, etc...

Eyewitnesses to missiles? Video or pictures of missiles? Parts of missiles?


Sorry bud, there is not just "much less proof" of missiles, there is NO proof of missiles.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ufoptics
reply to post by nwodeath
 


I check out the link and when i click on another link to you tube to view the video, it came up as You tube deleted the video
Very interesting to say the least. I always had a suspicion about the actual video's...after all most everyone that day said it was like watching a movie. Maybe we all picked up on it, but our mind could not accept it.
More homework to do......this site has seriously affected my productivity at work


It's unfortunate that videos constantly get removed. I would recommend watching which ever ones still work though. If one does not work, you may be able to do a utube search and find the same one hosted by someone else.
This page I referenced helped me see a lot of things I previously thought were already debated and put to rest, but apparently, people are ignoring the truth in some cases.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by nwodeath
 


No, thats incorrect. There is more evidence of planes than anything else.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by nwodeath
 



Your standard of "proof" has to be pretty high to say there's none of it available to support the theory that planes hit the WTC. You also have to have a naive idea of how the media works.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by nwodeath
 


Yes, my standard of proof is very high, you are correct!

I do not take anything for granted, I trust nobody, and I believe nothing!
I do research for myself.

When you can tell me where the plane wing disappeared to, i'll start to listen.
When you can tell me how a bridge floats backwards, i'll start to listen.
When you can explain to me how a nose of an airplane can exit the rear of a tower before the front of the building explodes, i'll start to listen.
When you can explain to me how 3 different videos can have 3 different flight trajectories, then i'll start to listen

Until then, I'll trust my own eyes and ears, instead of the media or the disinfo agents.




[edit on 21-10-2009 by nwodeath]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by nwodeath
 



When you can tell me where the plane wing disappeared to, i'll start to listen.

Artifacting. Its blatantly obvious and any video expert will tell you.

When you can tell me how a bridge floats backwards, i'll start to listen.

Its already been explained to you so you obviously wont.

When you can explain to me how a nose of an airplane can exit the rear of a tower before the front of the building explodes, i'll start to listen.

When you get off your lazy ass and look at the news archives at the top of the page like I've asked you to do nicely twice now I'll start to consider you serious about truth rather than my current view.

When you can explain to me how 3 different videos can have 3 different flight trajectories, then i'll start to listen

See my last response as it applies here also.

Yes, my standard of proof is very high, you are correct!
I do not take anything for granted, I trust nobody, and I believe nothing!
I do research for myself.

High standard indeed.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Dude, you are wasting space. You said nothing. You refuted nothing. You list red herring arguments and fake strawmen.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
But if you only trust what you can see or hear for yourself then your research is largely worthless. The videos that you see on your computer could be different to the ones everyone else sees because they are intentionally altered for you by a secret entity who hates you. There could be no such place as South Africa, no such thing as an Ostrich, no President of the United States. All of these things could be cooked up to deceive you.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
But if you only trust what you can see or hear for yourself then your research is largely worthless. The videos that you see on your computer could be different to the ones everyone else sees because they are intentionally altered for you by a secret entity who hates you. There could be no such place as South Africa, no such thing as an Ostrich, no President of the United States. All of these things could be cooked up to deceive you.


Yes, i'm most suspicious of the idea of sharks. They only appear on film but if you look at the ocean, you'll never see them.


I already believe the US government is an illusion, a corporation, a fiction, a cartoon, even, like Disneyland or something, it doesn't really exist, so it is rather fitting, what you say.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by nwodeath]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by nwodeath
 


Actually I refuted each point you made. If you choose not to research for yourself and continue to post here you will continue to fail to rally any support whatsoever.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by nwodeath
 


Actually I refuted each point you made. If you choose not to research for yourself and continue to post here you will continue to fail to rally any support whatsoever.


Those are all fake refutations.

They are not worth entertaining because they are not actual refutations. Video glitches cannot explain a disappearing wing on several videos.

There ARE different flight angles.

The Bridge DOES float backwards, due to a rendering problem in the CGI animation creating the scene.

Not only the nose sticks out in a few frames right before a black out of the screen, and a new screen replaces it, but explosions and cracks starting in the sides of the building, from the inside expanding outward,before actual impact explosions occurs, as it appears in other videos.

Obviously, you never took a look at the website I mentioned. Everything you are claiming is a red herring and disinfo meant to mislead the public.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Those are all fake refutations.
grow up.

Video glitches cannot explain a disappearing wing on several videos.
Of course it can. All of the videos cited are low quality. On the high quality videos of the same shot it doesn't happen. You had the audacity to tell me my counterpoints were fake; I said ask any video expert. You didn't even have the courtesy to look it up online let alone ask one.

The Bridge DOES float backwards, due to a rendering problem in the CGI animation creating the scene.
Every similar shot ever taken produces the same effect. I dare you to find one that doesn't.

Not only the nose sticks out in a few frames right before a black out of the screen, and a new screen replaces it, but explosions and cracks starting in the sides of the building, from the inside expanding outward,before actual impact explosions occurs, as it appears in other videos.
Not in the live videos that were aired on 911 on msnbc.com, nor in the archives.

Obviously, you never took a look at the website I mentioned.
Of course I have. And you did not look at my source even after asking nicely twice and beyond



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by nwodeath
They THOUGHT they saw an airplane. They could have seen a missile. There is NO proof for airplanes on 9-11, period.

It couldn't have been a missile because there's no missile in existence that has a 150+ -foot wingspan, nor do missiles travel as slowly as a plane. But you don't care about real facts in the real world. You just care about your disinfo and peddling it no matter how wrong you are. So sad...




Originally posted by nwodeath
There is much less proof of airplanes though.

Yes, you keep saying over and over like a broken record, but you don't ever show any actual scientific or professional analyses.

You just keep typing meaningless text onto your screen, wasting space and bandwidth. Do you honestly think the people are going to believe there were no planes just because you keep saying so over and over? Show some proof or show yourself the door.



Originally posted by nwodeath
When you can tell me where the plane wing disappeared to, i'll start to listen.

Go get you an old VHS camcorder and use an old VHS tape that's been recorded and deleted a couple hundred times. Let's see if anything disappears on it when you're recording. You haven't the slightest clue how cameras or camera angles work.



Originally posted by nwodeath
When you can tell me how a bridge floats backwards, i'll start to listen.

Oh, you mean like this?





What that is is a helicopter flying around the Statue of Liberty with the camera focused on the statue. When a camera focuses on an object nearby, the background will appear to move faster than the foreground. On the opposite hand, if the camera were to focus on that bridge in the background, the bridge would be nearly stationary and the statue would be flying by very fast.

You can try the same test at home with a video camera. Walk slowly around a tree near you while focusing on the tree and watch the background move by quickly. Wow, that tree must be CGI!!!

This is simple camera 101 knowlege that I learned in middle school. Why didn't you? Why didn't you or any of the other no-plane disinfo artists try these camera tests before peddling disinfo?



Originally posted by nwodeath
When you can explain to me how a nose of an airplane can exit the rear of a tower before the front of the building explodes, i'll start to listen.

There was no nose. There was no fake CGI nose because the pixels would have to match precisely:





And there was no real nose because: 1.) the nose wouldn't have stayed together to penetrate a second steel wall; and 2.) there was no exit hole:





Now, here's how the disinfo artist known as Simon Shack/socialservice actually created the disinfo known as the nose-in/nose-out:


"The great nose-in/nose-out hoax":




So there you have it. There was no real nose or fake CGI nose and the disinfo artist known as Simon Shack/socialservice actually faded out one nose so that they would appear to match each other exactly. That's disinfo artistry and he created it and you believed it.



Originally posted by nwodeath
When you can explain to me how 3 different videos can have 3 different flight trajectories, then i'll start to listen

That's called 40+ different camera angles of the same plane. They may appear to have different flight trajectories, but it's the same trajectory.

You should do a simple Google search on "camera angles" and learn about how the different camera angles caused an uneducated person to think there were many different flight paths of the same plane.

But I know you won't. You continue to ignore my posts and everyone elses posts. I think you're lying out of your ass when you say you'll "start to listen". You won't listen. You don't care what we have to say and you don't care about showing any professional proof of your claims. All you care about is spreading your disinfo and you don't care whether it's correct or not.

Your agenda is clear and you and the other few no-planers will never fool anybody. Nobody is falling for the NPT disinfo anymore.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


People will not put up with your planehugging propaganda. The truth is out. All you have to do is look at the research on the page i listed. Your being exposed as part of that disinfo agenda.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by nwodeath
 


While you continue to waste space and bandwidth with your meaningless words, and while you continue to do everything but show us some kind of scientific or professional analysis of the videos proving CGI, you are caught in a direct and blatant lie.

You said to explain to you certain things and then you'll start to listen. Those things were explained to you multiple times in multiple threads by multiple people. Not only are you not starting to listen, you're purposely ignoring what was explained to you.

Your agenda has been exposed. You blatantly lied about "starting to listen" and went back to spreading your disinformation like nobody said anything to you. Only disinfo artists with agendas ignore the facts and spread false information regardless of other peoples' input.

You're not looking for truth. You're looking to disrupt and troll, nothing more. Game over.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Lichter daraus
 


********** The white dot is the smoking gun. *****************

The man filming the street construction turned his camera up to film the first plane hitting. This video is still on the net. It can be found
Your view is from the rear of the plane. You therefore can not determine the distance between the plane and the tower.
Zoom in and freeze when the first fireball appears in front of the plane, directly in front of the cockpit where you would expect it.
Note that the shadow of the plane is still off to the far right.
It is impossible for the plane to reach the tower before the shadow reached the plane.
Raise your foot up in the sun. Note it's shadow move away from you. It is impossible to put your foot on the ground before it's shadow reaches it. No matter how fast you move when your foot hits the ground the shadow will have connected.
The fireball begins when the shadow is still some distance to the right
The fireball begins BEFORE the plane reached the tower
If the plane has not reached the tower WHY IS IT EXPLODING?

Come on guys, how much more do you need?

Stop arguing the melting/softening temperatures of steel or the rate of fall of the tower compared to what it should be. The common man is not an engineer.
The picture you are asking about is a still showing the event in profile. If you get the video you will see a smaller dot (the beginning of the explosion) when the plane is still twenty feet away!
Let the mathematicians work out the EXACT distance and then plaster that picture and question everywhere. The layman will get it.
WHY DID THE TOWER EXPLODE WHEN THE PLANE WAS STILL TWENTY FEET AWAY AND NOTHING HAD HIT IT?

Here is the smoking gun you have been looking for. I can not understand why this point is being ignored in favor of things the average man in the street will not grasp. Do you really believe the lady who spends most of her time watching the home shopping network is going to learn about nanothermite to understand you point?

A series of pictures showing the explosion beginning when the plane is twenty feet away and the simple question "Why is it exploding if nothing has touch it?" Even granny will get it.









 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join