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.


DEW/Energy Weapons? Holograms? TV Fakery? No Planes at the WTC? -- A 9/11 Disinfo Campaign

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+14 more 
posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 07:06 PM
Many people associate these fringe, crackpot theories with the 9/11 truth movement. These "theories" remain a persistent problem within the 9/11 Truth movement. But anyone who has done any kind of research into 9/11 or the 9/11 truth movement knows that these "theories" are not supported by the 9/11 truth movement and those who peddle them are not 9/11 truthers. For example:

9/11 Blogger:

So those who propose that the 9/11 planes were video forgeries or "holographs" are either seriously confused, or they are purposefully promoting disinformation.

This site will not defend, support, or promote the instigators of these lies, or those who give them a platform. They are not friends of the truth.

As far as the DEW/Energy weapon theory, 9/11 Blogger had this to say:

There are many problems with the DEW idea... it shouldn't actually be called a scientific hypothesis or theory. You have to be able to TEST a scientific hypothesis or theory, but you cannot test a system that you cannot even properly identify.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice:

STJ does not support theories of exotic weaponry or similar (DEW, nukes, TV Fakery, no planes at the WTC) and will remove from it's membership any who make public assertions about such theories. That is not a personal decision but a scientific, strategic and common sense one -- those theories have no scientific evidence to support them and serve to undermine what our own published researchers are moving forward with by making us appear nonsensical, and cannot be supported by STJ.

Loose Change forums:

NPT theories (no-plane theories), and support of movies like September Clues, is not allowed in any way. Planes hit the WTC. We refuse to allow that to be disputed on this forum.

Other organizations that do not support DEW/energy weapon or the no-plane/tv fakery "theories" also include:

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Pilots for 9/11 Truth
Lawyers for 9/11 Truth
Firefighters for 9/11 Truth

These, with the aforementioned, make up the bulk of the research organizations within the 9/11 truth movement. Following is some further reading on the above theories:

An article about why these theories are not wanted nor allowed in the 9/11 truth movement:
On Disinformation and Damaging Associations

DEW/Energy Weapons debunked:
Solving The Great Steel Caper: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence

Supplemental: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence

The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center

A study of some issues raised in a paper by Wood & Reynolds


TV fakery debunked:
A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories

September Clues, TV Fakery Debunked

Debunking September Clues - A point-by-point analysis

Those who support or peddle the above theories are not 9/11 truthers and are not seeking truth. They are seeking to deface and destroy the 9/11 truth movement with their ridiculous "theories" that have no scientific, verifiable, or truthful basis.

posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 07:13 PM

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Those who support or peddle the above theories are not 9/11 truthers and are not seeking truth. They are seeking to deface and destroy the 9/11 truth movement with their ridiculous "theories" that have no scientific, verifiable, or truthful basis.

They probably think exactly the same about you and the "truthers" you approve of, with your silly theories on explosives, pod carrying aircraft, missile firing aircraft, steel weakening chemicals etc etc.

This is the reason the whole "truther" movement is getting nowhere, you argue amongst yourself about who has the silliest conspiracy theory, not realising that they are all just as silly and none of them have any evidence to back up their particular theory.

[edit on 8/3/10 by dereks]

posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 07:14 PM
reply to post by _BoneZ_

Good thread, _BoneZ_, nice to complie it all.

I must be a pest, though, and point something out, for full disclosure:

Other organizations that do not support DEW/energy weapon or the no-plane/tv fakery "theories" also include:

Pilots for 9/11 Truth...

I just checked, to be certain, and 'Pilots for 9/11 Truth' still list Capt. John Lear as one of their 'core' members. Rather proudly, it would seem.

Yet, as most of us know, when Capt. Lear was actively posting here on ATS, he was a strong proponent of both "holograms" in reference to the WTC airplanes, and DEW as well.

While it certainly may be the case that the Pilot's board no longer entertains, nor allows, such specualtion on its message boards, perhaps they are unaware of Capt. Lear's views and are unwitttingly promoting him, by 'using' him for status purposes?

posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 07:44 PM
the live catch video looks like a missile. i'm a pilot, and that's no 767

posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 07:51 PM
reply to post by GBP/JPY

Please be more specific. Which is "live catch"???

You see, I'm a pilot. I'd like to see what you're seeing, see if we agree.

posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 08:06 PM
reply to post by _BoneZ_

What is the official 911 truth movement and who owns it? The shaped charge nuke guy thinks all of you are completely wrong.

posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 08:18 PM
reply to post by _BoneZ_

Good compilation BoneZ. Weedwhacker beat me to it..... I remember all of us pondering over the NPT stuff, and John Lear kept coming up time and time again.

I think the ........ what to call it, as I dislike the term "truther"... NON-OS camp would do well to disassociate with John Lear. I think he's a charismatic speaker, and certainly creative and inventive, but he's sorta to 9/11 truth as Hoagland is to Lunar studies (Moon theory?) -- they both present unmeasurable information, and detracts as a whole from the true investigation of the phenomenon.

Shorter story -- I think much of the "fringe" of 9/11 truth is judged by the masses as representing the whole.

Lemmee take this moment to give you kudos also for your even way of presenting information. Kudos. There.

posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 08:21 PM
I'm not trying to hype up any hologram theory, but I just wanted to comment on the video that was put up by the OP of the now closed "there was no plane" thread. At about 1:02 theres a POV from below looking up (pretty close to tower) and it looks just like the plane "dissappears" into the building, and THEN it explodes. I'm just sayin, it was probably cuz the plane was moving so fast and from the angle you can't really see the plane causing damage as it "dissappears" into the tower... I really don't wan't to hype these incredibly unpopular "hologram theories". In fact, I have't even read up on any of the articles or threads talking about it. Just heard about it from the titles of such threads and articles,and it wasn't too hard to figure out what they were trying to imply. But while I'm here, here's another thing I just thought of.

Imagine this: Yes. We, the gov., DID cause 911, either that or we knew it would happen and let it. We received some intelligence using technology that the disclosure of such to the world would in itself be a threat to national security. So we couldn't exactly SAY what we knew. Nor could we prove it. At least not without further endangering national security. So we choose to kill 3000 in order to save millions. Keep in mind, we still cannot say who or where the threat really was. Maybe it was Saddam or someone related, maybe not. But what exactly would you, the citizens,like to do about it? We, the people in power, will not agree to give up our power or admit we were wrong. Because we know we did the right thing. Furthurmore, we would rather destroy the entire world rather than give up our power as we know it. You could start a revolution. But you do know that it would become a civil war, as there are many who would still stand behind us knowing what we did. We can convince many people that we either did what we had to do, or that we didn't do it at all. But as I was saying, you could start a civil war... and give many other powers (Russia, China, Iran, N. Korea, etc., etc., etc.) the opportunity they've been waiting for? They would have an easy time at picking at us as we bicker amongst eachother.

So, you see people? No matter what the government is guilty of (I personally do not know, I used extremes to make the point that it doesn't matter how bad it actually got), if there is to be a revolution, it would HAVE to be by peaceful (and if possible, democratic) means. Otherwise, we risk our country being attacked by better-organized forces (there may be forces out there right now HOPING, even PLANNING for a US CIVIL WAR part 2) while we are in a state of chaos. Anyone who thinks the Capitol can be taken by force, has no idea what they are up against. The battle has moved past the physical realm, that's what most people don't realize. The battle they are fighting right now is for the hearts and minds of the American people. If they can make you do nothing, they are winning. So keep watching TV, keeping up with fashions, pay attention to celebrity gossip, etc. There are so many ways to keep entertained and pass time. I guess the best thing you can do FOR NOW is try to wake up others and eventually when theres enough of us, we might get someone in office who isn't crazy...Crazy? I was crazy once, they put me in a padded cell. It was cold. I died. They buried me. The worms kept tickling my feet! IT ALMOST DROVE ME CRAZY... Crazy? I was crazy once, they put me in a padded cell. It was cold. I died. They buried me. The worms kept tickling my feet! IT ALMOST DROVE ME CRAZY... Crazy? I was crazy once...

posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 08:22 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

You're correct. Pilots has the only discussion forum in the 9/11 truth movement that still allows the debate and discussion of "alternative" theories such as "exotic weapons" and "tv fakery". And while Pilots allows their members to have their own opinions, their "official" stance (last I knew) is that they do not support those alternative theories.

Hope that is a sufficient-enough answer to your questions.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by _BoneZ_]

posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 08:24 PM
reply to post by _BoneZ_

Yes, thank you very much.

This thread has long been needed.

posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 08:32 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
This thread has long been needed.

That's exactly why I made it. I've been meaning to make this thread for a while, but with work and school, busy busy. But, with recent events and the DEW threads popping up here, I thought I'd get it done.

posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 08:48 PM
reply to post by _BoneZ_

Great thread Bones
it seem to me there are those in here on ATS who troll the 911 threads 24/7 trying their best to destroy the Truth movement.

I don’t care what credible websites we give to our readers that back our claims because it is these very same individuals who will created fault reason why every website including Pilots for 911 Truth are all lies.
Sure, there might have been a government operative who infiltrated Pilots for 911 Truth website who did spread lies.
I can assure most casual ATS readers that most Pilots, on “Pilots for 911 Truth” do not believe in the disinformation that John Lear was spreading period.

There are disinformationists on ATS who enjoy using these ridiculous, insane, outlandish statements from crackpots that have posted on well-known disinformation websites to only to discredit the truth movement.

We see them in here time after time posting the same old tired nonsense, against people who even question the truth of 911.
A typical trademark of a disinformationist is to always insult the messenger and ridicule the topic or message.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by impressme]

posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 09:00 PM
The pod people are connected to Popular science and vanity fair. Loose Change is connected to and funded by the pod people, they are connected to jack blood and the in plain site people, who is connected to the WEB Fairy, who is connected to the no planers, who is connected to Nico Haupt, who are connected to several popular 911 sites, who are connected to stanley hilton who is connected to Jim fetzer..etc, etc

These people are come from a very vile place. They goal is to discredit and smear any 911 investigation or researcher with outlandish theories in the name of 911 truth.

Just like Dereks reply was classic and is also proof as to why these people do what they do so people like weed and dereks can almost autonomously categorize a 911 researcher as a crack pot loon.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]

posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 09:23 PM
Attack me call me crazy, call me what you like.

But i find this theory of Tv fakery more believe then the planes hit the towers.

I guess i will banned for speaking my mind here eh?

The media can indeed fake the news, remember the first iraq war?

I will speak on what i believe.

Also remember the first tower of the firfighters in the 9/11 video? how can you say that's a Boeing plane? by such low quality flim back then?

and other thing, why only one footage? the firefighters came there as if they knew something will occur at there correct location.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]

[edit on 8-3-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]

[edit on 8-3-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]

posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 10:00 PM
reply to post by Shadow Herder

....people like weed and dereks can almost autonomously categorize a 911 researcher as a crack pot loon.

Whoa, buddy.

You are mixing it up here.

Oh, and I seriously doubt that 'Popular Science' promotes any sort of no-plane theory!!!

If they do, I'd like to see examples.

But, if they don't, then I think I make a point about BAD information coming from some in the 'truth movement' camp.

I have repeatedly and ardently said that all I want are the facts. That would also be called 'truth'. What we who question many TM tactics despair at is, well....those dishonest tactics. Soemtimes the dishonesty is started elsewhere, and simply repeated innocently here on these boards.

Also, when I see blatantly false (or charitably, incorrect) information in a field that I am familar with, then it should be pointed out, and corrected.

I simply wish people would take a more critical view, and question the "conspiracy sites" with the same fervor they question what they call the "Official Story".

(PS....where did that silly term come from, anyway??? I heard Alex Jones use it --- did he make it up?)

posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 10:03 PM
reply to post by impressme

I don’t care what credible websites we give to our readers that back our claims...

Refresh my memory....who was it again who started a thread about the possibility of Boeing 767 fuel tankers being used, and NOT AAL 11 and UAL 175 passenger jets???

Who valiantly defended that postion, despite all evidence presented to the contrary?

Even though the Boeing 767 tankers were still on the drawing board, in 2001???

posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 10:07 PM
So you think there was no "TV fakery" at all?

That could range from false statements or deceivingly bad camera angles or "Harley Man".

IMO there was (potentially) a lot of fakery. Although I am not here to promote a disinfo campaign, pinky swear.

posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 10:09 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Again my post speaks for itself, and you just demonstrated it, the Topic is not about me or what I have posted in prier 911 threads.

posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 10:22 PM
Lets look at the facts:

  1. The entire contingency plan required 100% penetration of both planes.
  2. Planes are made of flimsy composite materials and brittle aluminum.
  3. The WTC was made of a complex grid of massive steel girders.
  4. If even one plane didn't FULLY penetrate, their plan would have been completely BLOWN.
  5. They wouldn't risk the entire operation on a "guess" that the planes would fully penetrate the towers. In reality, it's quite unlikely that BOTH planes would completely penetrate the towers.
  6. The media had the motive and the opportunity to play a part in this conspiracy.

Looking at that list, you can't completely write off no-planes. It seems quite reasonable that TV fakery would have been used, along with explosives to make it look like planes hit.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by seattletruth]

[edit on 8-3-2010 by seattletruth]

posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 10:24 PM
reply to post by seattletruth

I have to agree.

There is nothing in my mind that is completely ruled out. Or at least it wouldn't surprise me one bit if "x" was actually "y".

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in