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 Hit The World Trade Center On 9/11

page: 14
19
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Oh come on guys, no plane? Really?

Aside from the fact that there are loads of media and amateur videos showing the plane(s) (plus a real life friend of mine was there and saw the planes hit with his own eyes)... the video from the OP doesn't discuss the angle the woman was looking at the building from - it's perfectly feasible that the plane hit the opposite side of the building, and she just saw the fireball.

I hope all you 'no planers' realise how much damage you do to the truth movement. From my perspective and that of many others you look very very silly.

It's all well and good debating Flight 93 and the Pentagon... there's no actual evidence of any planes at either of those sites.... but the WTC planes are impossible to argue with imo. If there were no planes how do you explain all the witnesses and videos that show planes?




posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by eightfold
 


To the no-planers, it doesn't matter what you say. They claim all videos are fake, all witnesses are liars. Oh, and with zero proof, I might add.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by eightfold
 


To the no-planers, it doesn't matter what you say. They claim all videos are fake, all witnesses are liars. Oh, and with zero proof, I might add.



Bonez, I have faith that you will figure this out one day




Speaking of fake video, can you believe this video was shown on msm on 9/11


[edit on 18-4-2010 by warisover]



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by warisover
Speaking of fake video, can you believe this video was shown on msm on 9/11

I've already debunked that here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What you're doing right now is spamming the same debunked videos over and over without regard for what any person in this thread has told you.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

I've already debunked that here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I'm sorry but I must have missed the links to source that debunk what the msm broadcast that morning. Oh, wait a minute, NO SOURCES, just you saying, "debunked" again
Like I said before, just because you say "debunked" does not make it so.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by warisover
 


Interesting video, but it doesn't prove the 'no plane' theory - it looks like the images were taken from slightly different angles with different cameras/zooms. I've just had a bit of a play with my camera on my warehouse roof (which looks out over the city) and it's quite easy to create similar effects. The only bit that makes me go 'hmmmmmmm?' is the 'moving' building towards the end.

The problem with the 'no planes' theory (from my point of view) is that I personally know someone who was there (a really really really good friend) and saw the planes hit. He (and thousands of others), saw and/or filmed the planes hit the buildings.

How do the no-planers explain all the amateur videos that clearly show planes?



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by warisover
 


Actually, I did post links. You should go look at my post again.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by eightfold
 


Whilst (correctly) pointing out the "no plane" ideas as foolish, in regards to NYC and the WTC attacks, you made an error in judgment by saying:


It's all well and good debating Flight 93 and the Pentagon... there's no actual evidence of any planes at either of those sites....


IF your only 'sources' to base those claims regarding AAL 77 and UAL 93 are the totally incorrect and inept 'conspiracy' sites that abound on the Web, then you haven't done due diligence in your research.

I suggest, upon deeper un-biased searches, you will find far more evidence than you have been told by those 'conspiracy' sites.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by eightfold
reply to post by warisover
 


How do the no-planers explain all the amateur videos that clearly show planes?


That question has already been answered several times on this thread. page 7 & 13. Please look over the entire thread, view the video evidence with an open mind and it will become clear that there were no planes that hit the towers on 9/11.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by eightfold
 

IF your only 'sources' to base those claims regarding AAL 77 and UAL 93 are the totally incorrect and inept 'conspiracy' sites that abound on the Web, then you haven't done due diligence in your research.


I've seen a lot of info that suggests there might have been a plane involved at the Pentagon, but nothing concrete. There's a very simple question that has never been answered (not well enough to satisfy me in any case) - given the epic amount of CCTV cameras around that building, why haven't we seen a video of the plane hitting the Pentagon? The video they released to supposedly 'settle the issue' had no plane in it at any point - in reality all we've got are a few eyewitnesses, a whole load of withheld video and a radar track that shows the plane performing impossible maneuvers. If you've got die-hard evidence that a plane hit the pentagon please point me at it.

As for Flight 93, who knows? All I know is that after looking at LOADS of other crash sites I didn't see a single one that looked even remotely like that one. The only evidence comes from TPTB and some photo's of an implausibly small hole in the ground. Where is the plane? Where are the 4t engines? Completely vapourised? I don't think so.

My issue with the WTC no-planers is that there are so many independently made videos of the planes hitting it's seems implausible to me that they were all faked. That and someone I've known for years actually saw it happen.

[edit on 18-4-2010 by eightfold]



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by warisover
view the video evidence with an open mind

Uh, hate to rain on your parade, but someone posting their opinions in some videos is not evidence. You should go look up the definition of "evidence". Here, I'll do it for you:

evidence -

1. ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood
2. a mark or sign that makes evident
3. a matter produced before a court of law in an attempt to prove or disprove a point in issue, such as the statements of witnesses, documents, material objects, etc.


1. Because you haven't had the videos professionally analyzed, you have no data with which to base proof or establish truth on.

2. Because you haven't had the videos professionally analyzed, there are no marks or signs that makes CGI evident.

3. Because you haven't had the videos professionally analyzed, you have no professional studios to give statements as witnesses, nor documents or material objects to prove CGI.

Posting videos of someone giving their opinions is not evidence. If you want real evidence, you must obtain copies of the original videos and have them analyzed by professional studios for evidence of fakery to prove CGI. If you do not do this, you have no evidence and will only continue to be peddling disinformation, period.






[edit on 18-4-2010 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
The no plane theory makes completely 0 sense.
Is it easier to fake every single piece of footage and eyewitness evidence, or is it easier to actually get two planes to crash into the towers?



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

3. Because you haven't had the videos professionally analyzed, you have no professional studios to give statements as witnesses, nor documents or material objects to prove CGI.

Posting videos of someone giving their opinions is not evidence. If you want real evidence, you must obtain copies of the original videos and have them analyzed by professional studios for evidence of fakery to prove CGI. If you do not do this, you have no evidence and will only continue to be peddling disinformation, period.


I could say the same exact thing right back at you. Because you haven't had the videos professionally analyzed, you have absolutely no proof that they were real planes in those videos. Please stop buying into the OS, you're making us truthers look bad.





[edit on 18-4-2010 by warisover]



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by warisover
 


I've read the entire thread, I always do before I post.

Nothing that's been said here proves there were no planes. None of it explains the amateur videos or the eyewitnesses either. The videos posted don't prove anything, and the whole idea strikes me as ridiculous.

I'm only posting here because I'm new to ATS, but I researched 9/11 for YEARS and concluded the no-plane idea was bunk a long long time ago. I've not seen anything convincing regarding 77/93, but the WTC planes are clearly there. There's no merit to it at all, and nothing posted here has changed my mind so far. I felt compelled to debate this with you lot because it's unbelievable to me that people still think it's possible.

Are you seriously suggesting that ALL the amateur videos of the planes hitting are faked, and ALL the eyewitness testimony (bearing in mind that thousands of people saw the planes hit with their own eyes, not via a TV screen) is all lies?

I'd accept that the planes didn't cause the towers to collapse, but to argue there were no planes there at all is plain (plane? pardon the pun) mad to me. Prove it sensibly and I'll listen.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by hippomchippo
The no plane theory makes completely 0 sense.
Is it easier to fake every single piece of footage and eyewitness evidence, or is it easier to actually get two planes to crash into the towers?


Real planes would not have done that much damage, anyway, flying real planes into a building that is rigged with timed explosives would mess up the plan. They couldn't use real planes, not with a building full of explosives.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by eightfold
reply to post by warisover
 


I've read the entire thread, I always do before I post.

I'm only posting here because I'm new to ATS, but I researched 9/11 for YEARS and concluded the no-plane idea was bunk a long long time ago. I've not seen anything convincing regarding 77/93, but the WTC planes are clearly there. There's no merit to it at all, and nothing posted here has changed my mind so far. I felt compelled to debate this with you lot because it's unbelievable to me that people still think it's possible.


So it seem you have come to the conclusion that there was not a plane at the Pentagon correct?

Well this eyewitness saw a plane. CASE CLOSED



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by warisover
I could say the same exact thing right back at you. Because you haven't had the videos professionally analyzed, you have absolutely no proof that they were real planes in those videos.

I'll give you yet another definition:


burden of proof -

If in some situation there is a proper presumption that something is true, anyone seeking to prove its opposite is said to bear the burden of proof.


The proper presumption is that jetliners hit the towers on 9/11. All videos and images show jetliners hitting the towers. Most all witnesses that had a view of the towers also concur that planes hit the towers. All news organizations concur that planes hit the towers.

Since you and the rest of the no-planers are seeking to prove the opposite, then you bear the burden of proof to provide evidence to support your claim. And I already gave you the definition for "evidence".

You're in a no-win battle here.



Originally posted by warisover
Please stop buying into the OS, you're making us truthers look bad.

Anyone who peddles the "no planes at the WTC" disinfo are not truthers, and not supported by the 9/11 truth movement. Please don't insult the rest of us by claiming you're a truther, thanks.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by warisover
Real planes would not have done that much damage

You, yet again, keep posting the same debunked claims over and over again, which equates to spamming, yet again.

Your claim has already been debunked the last time you made this claim:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by warisover
 


Ahhhh...now I see the disconnect here, in your thinking.


...flying real planes into a building that is rigged with timed explosives would mess up the plan. They couldn't use real planes, not with a building full of explosives.


There's the problem!

The buildings were NOT "rigged with timed explosives".

There, problem solved. A Boeing 767 hit each Twin Tower, at separate times, as SHOWN beyond any doubt whatsoever, both by the myriad of cameras that were focused on the buildings after American Airlines 11 hit, and the hundreds of eyewitnesses to the events.

There also is the shot of American Airlines 11 hitting, filmed by the Naudet brothers, by pure coincidence. Right place, right time.


There is incontrovertible proof of the radar tracking of both airliners, as they approached NYC. AND the loss of the radar targets, at impact.

Every air traffic controller on duty in the Towers at both Newark and La Guardia airports saw this event, with own eyes. These are trained professionals who know what they're lookig at.

And if a person cannot comprehend the amount of kinetic energy involved with a large airliner, moving at over 450 knots speed, will have upon impact (just the sheer force of that alone is devastating to the building's structural components), combined with the effects of the burning fuel (a lot of it), then that person obviously has no basic understanding of real-world physics.

This is precisely why the terrorists hatched this plan, using the jets they did, at the speeds they did. Because, unlike so many of these "armchair theorists" sitting behind the safety of their keyboards, those guys were able to understand the amount of devastation they could inflict.

And, this is exactly WHY any future plots, or attempts, by others to hijack and use the airplane as a suicidal weapon of destruction must NEVER be allowed to occur, again.

(A plot was just recently foiled, in the Middle East. Plans uncovered that showed terrorists planned to use airplanes as 'guided missiles' against certain religious shrines in Iraq. I'll see if I can find the story, it got little coverage...)



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by warisover
 

(A plot was just recently foiled, in the Middle East. Plans uncovered that showed terrorists planned to use airplanes as 'guided missiles' against certain religious shrines in Iraq. I'll see if I can find the story, it got little coverage...)


Ahhh, sounds like the CIA are keeping themselves very busy, so many false flags, so little time.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join