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.

 

Ultimate 911 No Planer PROOF Page - Help Debunk

page: 9
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
OK

The School Yard is closed.

There have been numerous In Thread Advisories to Stay On Topic, members have been advised to stop posting about other Members and the juvenile antics continue.

From here on out, if your post contains any "Snide" remarks about any other member, it will be removed and you may be warned.

If you post anything not related to the topic, it will be removed and you may be warned.

This includes, but is not limited to, commentary on any other members posting style.

Semper




posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Robin Goodfellow
"If you post that video, I'll post the original showing that there are no smoke loops. Then it will make the no-plane disinfo artists look more foolish than they already make themselves."

Wow! Is that a threat? Gosh golly gee. One problem though. I am not a no-planer. Feel free to make them look as foolish as you like. I most definitely believe planes hit the tower. I am also, unlike many here it appears, interested only in getting at the truth. I have no agenda. If the video which impressed me is false I want you to post the original and expose it. I do not wish to keep believing false information.
If anything I say or suggest is not correct I encourage you, I want you, I will ask as nice as I know how, to demonstrate this to me. I want the truth. If new information comes to me discrediting everything I believe so much the worse for what I believed. I will go wherever the evidence leads. Weird huh? So why don't you save me the time and and trouble and tell me where I can find the 'undoctored film'?


thats an impossible task since anyone with a brain thats done the most basic investigation into all the known footage will find that the all the footage is the same as was broadcast. Iow, the same anomalies aka fakery, are from what was broadcasted.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by nwodeath
 


Okay, now, it is up to you to explain HOW the images of the planes got onto all the cameras that captured them that werent part of the media that day. How did your "CGI" get onto all the still cameras that took pictures of the second plane hitting the Towers?

ALL the footage allegedly from amateurs are either edited or fake... and NOT a single one conclusively shows any real plane. Nor have they all been independently verified. Nor can any be found from someone NOT linked to the MEDIA, Govt officials and video PROFESSIONALS.

wheres all the unedited and untampered footage from all real amateurs?

How did your CGI get onto the Naudet's camera? Why were the firefighters on their video reacting to something that is CGI?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by nwodeath
 


Okay, now, it is up to you to explain HOW the images of the planes got onto all the cameras that captured them that werent part of the media that day. How did your "CGI" get onto all the still cameras that took pictures of the second plane hitting the Towers?


ALL the footage allegedly from amateurs are either edited or contain fakery... NOT a single one conclusively shows any real plane. Nor have they all been independently verified. Nor can any be found from someone NOT linked to the MEDIA, Govt officials and video PROFESSIONALS.

So where's all the unedited and untampered footage from all real amateurs?


Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
How did your CGI get onto the Naudet's camera? Why were the firefighters on their video reacting to something that is CGI?


the NAUDET footage contains clear evidence of fakery and tampering.

what are the firefighters reacting to? If anything,,, the MISSLE/drone of course... but then anyone who understands the real NRPT would know that.



[edit on 23-10-2009 by Orion7911]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
nwo:
The FBI confiscated the amateur videos that were done by people. ALL OF THEM
Impossibility. There is NO WAY THEY WOULD NO WHERE ALL THE FOOTAGE WAS.


conjecture, speculation and an assumption lacking any context.


Originally posted by talisman
Also, why on earth would the Military plan such a thing, because there is always that chance in a populated City like New York that One Person would film and reveal the whole thing!!


argument destroyed here : www.911closeup.com...


Originally posted by talisman
I mean, come on this isn't serious is it? You know full well with that many people there is NO WAY TO STOP the ODD PERSON HAVING THE "TRUTH" on VIDEO.
And with such a huge population YOU KNOW FULL WELL THAT THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVING THAT "TRUTH" ON VIDEO.


so where is ALL THIS VIDEO?? The lack of this "video" that should be there alone debunks your logic.


Originally posted by talisman
And what of the Middle Eastern Arab's who live in New York with their eyes on the event?

Do you think all those people would just lie about what they saw? After being accused of hijacking planes, do you think they would be part of this as well??


again, addressed and debunked right here www.911closeup.com...


Originally posted by talisman
I mean, come on get real. This is not some fantasy, this is serious business and all your peddling is stuff that is disgraceful.
[edit on 22-10-2009 by talisman]


*Snip*

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 10/23/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911
what are the firefighters reacting to? If anything,,, the MISSLE/drone of course... but then anyone who understands the real NRPT would know that.

Anyone that understands anything in the real universe knows that missiles don't have 160-foot wingspans, nor do they travel as slow as a jetliner. Why do you keep saying this missile BS over and over when you can't find a missile that large and that slow?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
If everyone is talking about this flash:



and the similar one at the north tower, that flash is caused from the oxygen in the forward oxygen tank being ignited.


BEFORE THE ALLEGED PLANE IMPACTS THE TOWER?

excuse me for a minute...



Originally posted by _BoneZ_
That is even more proof of planes as why would they add such a tiny detail like an oxygen tank exploding on both planes into the CGI?


whatever you claim that flash is, is nothing more than speculation.

Even if that were remotely possible, it would have to exist and be consistent in all the footage out there. Its not.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I'll be standing by to see what kind of disinfo the no-planers will make up to explain away this fact.


fact???
excuse me again...



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Again, what are you talking about?

I usually prefer not to attack the people I am debating with but I do feel the need to point out that it appears that you are trying to derail the discussion to avoid answering the questions.

Your behavior that I find questionable?

One of the points in my original post dealt with the black-outs. You posted a video to explain it which, as it turned out, had nothing to do with the subject of black-outs.
You then said 'Ooops, my bad and posted two more videos. Again the first having absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing. May I therefore ask your reason for having included it? Do you wish me to go over the errors of the debunker in that show? Of course, what a lovely way to derail the conversation and lose the point I have been trying to make.
So I ask again. What was the purpose of your posting Part I of that video in you last post? It was relevant how?

You have also said:
As for the birds I see no issue really. I would venture to guess that the "compression" on the first one created that "mirror"

The question as pertains to the birds was simply whether or not the film had been sped up. What mirror due to compression are you talking about? What has this got to do with the speed of the birds?

And now you say:
As for your birds I am not sure what you want me to say? I have seen good quality shots of this (not youtube) and those are birds not fighter jets and during compression depending on how, you can get mirrored effects etc.

Again we get compression induced mirrors (?) but more importantly you are acting as though I have attempted to claim those birds were fighter jets. I have nowhere said, suggested, or hinted at that in any way.
Are you truly misunderstanding everything I say to you or is this a deliberate attempt to confuse the question? If so, let me put an end to that hope for you by once again explaining what I am suggesting.

PaxTV shows a video with a black streak in it which when slowed down appears to be two military fighter jets

see them here:
www.youtube.com...

I am suggesting media complicity by speeding up the film to turn two military fighter jets into one unrecognizable black streak.
Is there any other evidence of this? Well a large bell tower with clock in the background which we could observe to see if it begins to move a little faster would be nice but we do not have one.
We do, however, have a clip of a flight of birds (birds, not jets, two different things, no one suggesting otherwise, got it?) that appear to be moving 4x their natural speed. Relevance? Proof the film was sped up!

see them here:
www.youtube.com...

They are included in the argument to lend credence to the argument that the media deliberately sped up their film to avoid allowing viewers at home to see military jets which could not be later accounted for and which did not fit into the Arab terrorist scenario. It also raises the question of "I thought there were no jets available to shoot these suckers down"
Note then when I refer to the film being sped up I am not discussing the 44% increase in their speed between the right and left hands of the frame. I am discussing the 400% increase in their speed which appears to have already been implemented by the time the film begins.

So....If you have watched these birds over and over but can not see the jets, do you suppose that could have something to do with the fact that you are watching the wrong film?
Have you watched the other film? I already know the answer but I am socially obligated to ask "Do you see the jets in that film?"

I expect, of course, that you will say these delta-winged objects flying at such a fantastic rate of speed that they appear as only a single black streak unless they are drastically slowed down are obviously birds or some such nonsense (yes, of course, supersonic birds. Why didn't I realize that)

Now you may do what you wish insofar as attempting to confuse the issue here but I have now posted the PaxTV link twice in this thread. Say what you will, others will see it. Others will accept them as jets.
Others will have a whole new batch of questions.

Why do none of the official accounts mention military jets at the scene?
Why are we told no military jets were within hundreds of miles of the tower?
Why would the media speed up the film to hide the jets?
If there was no complicity, why would the media believe the jets needed to hidden in the first place?
How did the Arab terrorist manage to get the media to speed up their film?

Myself, I personally believe it is the point of media complicity that you are trying to avoid. Once this can be established in any way shape of form the terrorist with box cutters theory goes right in the trash heap.

As for the black-outs. Again, let the readers examine the debate in part two and decide for themselves if they believe the beginnings of the explosions were bright enough not only to cause the gains (?) in the cameras to dim themselves, but to dim themselves to the point of a total blackout or if they think it more likely that since the blackout occurred exactly when the Pax film shows the fighters passing that it is reasonable to conclude this was an attempt to keep the fighter's presence from being broadcast to the world.

So either I am totally wrong, the birds have not been sped up and the black streak on the PaxTV video is not a sped up video of two fighter jets passing by OR Somehow those terrorist in an Afghan cave managed to manipulate the American media OR The official story is a load of BS. Let the readers examine the links and decide for themselves.

But if they go for media complicity then the implications are...............?
Interesting, yes?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
Here is another amateur shot of the Plane coming in. You can hear the people's reactions.



[edit on 22-10-2009 by talisman]


THAT is one of the best examples of video fakery and CGI out there...

and since you're attempting to use it as PROOF of real planes when in actuality it only proves the opposite, so be it... glad you're uneducated enough on the video fakery subject to use this FAKE and Tampered CGI footage.

If you actually believe that CARTOON plane is real and can't see whats wrong with the AUDIO, then you've been watching way too many cartoons and need to take a basic audio production course.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Just a question.

Is it going to take the removal of posting privileges here?

Because that's what is coming next

Semper



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911
THAT is one of the best examples of video fakery and CGI out there...

Just because you say it is fake doesn't make it so. I assume you've obtained a copy of the original and had a scientific or professional analysis done so that you can show us all the proof? Oh you didn't obtain an original to have it analyzed? Then you're just expressing your opinion.

No facts here. No videos have been professionally analyzed to prove fakery. Move along...



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
Here is MORE.
People, talking on that day about seeing the PLANE FLY. Common folks, talking about what happened.But ask yourselves this question.


MORE WHAT??? more hearsay, speculation and shill plants sent in to confuse and perpetutate false info and propoganda?

9/11 was nothing more than a hollywood type film complete with a script, actors and special effects that ignorant and uneducated americans bought hook line and sinker.

the problem is that most people are in denial and refuse to accept they've been so easily deceived.

I'm sure YOU know the feeling dontcha talis?


Originally posted by talisman
How would the miltary stop people from talking about "WHAT THEY SAW?"
I would imagine that is all what people would be talking about!!

[edit on 23-10-2009 by talisman]


answered and debunked here... www.911closeup.com...

and are you actually telling me you think these "witnesses" were able to FOLLOW whatever they claim to have seen ALL THE WAY to the towers from their POV? are you kidding me?


yet another example of the type of absurd logic and evidence NPRTrs are up against... No wonder no has ever been able to disprove NRPT.


[edit on 23-10-2009 by Orion7911]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
If everyone is talking about this flash:

and the similar one at the north tower, that flash is caused from the oxygen in the forward oxygen tank being ignited.

So an oxygen tank explodes and pierces the plane's skin before it enters the building, but the fuel in the wings doesn't explode until it's in the middle of the building?



Wow! Where do they get this stuff from?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by iamsupermanv2
 


i do not believe they have the cojones to CGI planes, when there were people walking the streets at the time of both impacts. that leaves waaaay to much room for them to be caught.

TPTB do things out in the open everyday, and they never have to answer for it. Example, "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01 lie about WMD, and now we have the "Patriot Act." Swear to get Osama Bin Laden and then say a year later "I am not focusing on Osama ."I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
Then there is www.buzzflash.com...
Condoleeza Rice saying" On May 16th, 2002, Rice said �I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon. [No one predicted] that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile,"[CBS News, 5/17/02]. But according to the bipartisan 9/11 commission report, �intelligence reports from December 1998 until the attacks said followers of bin Laden were planning to strike U.S. targets, hijack U.S. planes, and two individuals had successfully evaded checkpoints in a dry run at a New York airport,� [Reuters, 7/24/03]. More specifically, �White House officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network at the 9/11 Commission
investigation.
This is only a very small example of the lies and actions of those who do not care about anyone or anything except themselves. Believe me... they do not lose any sleep about the tragedy and sufferings of others.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   
After carefully analyzing this thread and its contents, I can firmly come to the conclusion that everyone who believed no planes hit the WTC aren't real and their posts were edited in by the moderators of this forum in order to conceal the real truth, Oh, and nothing you say will convince me otherwise.


[edit on 23-10-2009 by hippomchippo]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Robin Goodfellow
 





Again, what are you talking about?



I am trying to gauge where you are coming from.




I usually prefer not to attack the people I am debating with but I do feel the need to point out that it appears that you are trying to derail the discussion to avoid answering the questions.


A completely wrong assesment of the situation.





Your behavior that I find questionable?



Okay, but perhaps you could be a bit more clear with less verbage? I think that will help facilitate the conversation. I find a few of your posts almost "rambling" like and its hard to follow what your thought is. It could just be I haven't had my coffee or am busy, but lets try and break this down step by step.





One of the points in my original post dealt with the black-outs. You posted a video to explain it which, as it turned out, had nothing to do with the subject of black-outs. You then said 'Ooops, my bad and posted two more videos. Again the first having absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing. May I therefore ask your reason for having included it?



I said in my post its in the Second Part. Did you watch the second part?





Do you wish me to go over the errors of the debunker in that show?



Your not a professional with his credentials so unless you are and work for Industrial Light and Magic I would think you should be more modest in your claims.

Armchair accusations are useless. Ace Baker said all kinds of things, but most admit he didn't do that well.

Key point is when ACE -- changed his argument-- regarding the plane that had its "nose" as he claimed--pop out of the other side, he went from a backdrop that showed a constant velocity to saying he woudn't have a constant velocity which is garbage and everyone knew it.





What was the purpose of your posting Part I of that video in you last post? It was relevant how?



For reference sake and giving context.




The question as pertains to the birds was simply whether or not the film had been sped up. What mirror due to compression are you talking about? What has this got to do with the speed of the birds?



I answered this my first post. Do you ever watch Hockey? Camera's at ice level? Sometimes you will see players fly by in the background if they are closer to the lense then objects further away. They will look sped up. The birds are closer then appear in the shot, it is an illusion that they are moving at high speed. I explained this.






(?) but more importantly you are acting as though I have attempted to claim those birds were fighter jets. I have nowhere said, suggested, or hinted at that in any way.



You said the following previous and its difficult to tell what you were getting at, but it seems you definitely implied and or "hinted" at fighter jets....




It appears to be two military jets. Forgive me but I, even at this late date, had never heard anything about military fighter jets following the second plane right down to the tower. It continued. Two more jets passed. Then I thought, why had I confused these two jets with a single rod?







I am suggesting media complicity by speeding up the film to turn two military fighter jets into one unrecognizable black streak. Is there any other evidence of this? Well a large bell tower with clock in the background which we could observe to see if it begins to move a little faster would be nice but we do not have one. We do, however, have a clip of a flight of birds (birds, not jets, two different things, no one suggesting otherwise, got it?) that appear to be moving 4x their natural speed. Relevance? Proof the film was sped up!



You said a lot there that didn't really need to be said. I explained the "speeding" up and the events are live. Birds can appear that way, and those rods are birds etc.

Also, you just said you didn't "HINT" at fighers jets but now you are "hinting" at it.

I honestly don't know what your trying to say?

Can you break it down in a few lines of logical premises with a conclusion?

You said a lot after and its seems like your rambling, at least to me. So its best we take "one brick" at a time and build from there.



[edit on 23-10-2009 by talisman]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join