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: 23
19
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by gamma 49
John lear say's there is no way those men flying had the experience to pull this off, even as many years flying experience john has he said there is no way he could pull it off. I think you give these people way to much credit.


Lear is ex-CIA.

Ask yourself why a man who claims there were no planes on 9/11 said this in an interview...


J - This had to be accomplished by pilots who got instruction - were taken to 'honest-to-God' Boeing 757 simulators which is - you know - the 757 and 767 the same cockpit essentially and you get the same rating and whoever concocted this whole thing knew that on a particular day that airplanes themselves could be switched because of maintenance problems and by selecting airlines that had that airplane, they had everything covered.

Art Bell Interview of John Lear - 2003

Odd, isn't it?




posted on May, 26 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Actually....even back then, on the Art Bell show, he was extemporalizing...this, for example:



...whoever concocted this whole thing knew that on a particular day that airplanes themselves could be switched because of maintenance problems...


There is no basis in fact to support his assertion, there. It's ludicrous, too.

He MAY have been setting up his later claims of fantastic 'space weapons' and such.

Airplanes weren't "switched for maintenance"...

The terrorists had scouted their targets, by doing research...actually flying the routes, observing typical pasenger load trends, and watching for other crew patterns, habits, procedures....

[edit on 26 May 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by kybertech
reply to post by iamcpc
 


Ok, I should have made it clearer: wtc7.net for ex. provides screenshots of a flash animation with a united airlines logo based on the original passenger list containing the names and the stamps & signatures of the airport and flight personel.
I want to see a copy of that document.


Me too! The question is does seeing a copy of that document answer the question:

Which of the three options is the most plausible explination for the NPT.

Option A:

- Fake videos of planes on multiple broadcasts in real time
- Fake videos of planes on multiple videos obtained by civillians
- Fool thousands of eye witnesses that they are seeing planes
- Create false identities for all of the plane victims
- Create false flight logs and flight info for the planes
- Bribe the airlines into confirming the fake flight logs and flight info
- Create fake family members who have confirmed the takeoff of the airplane and the death of faimly members
- Create fake phone calls from people on the planes to their family
- Create fake DNA and dental records used to identify some of the people who were on the planes
- Keep everyone involved in all of the above silent about the murder of thousands of innocent civillians


Option B:

-someone put some videos on youtube explaining why the planes were not real

Option C:

-superman (LOOK! up in the sky it's a bird! It's a PLANE! No it's superman!) is real and he moved so fast he looked just like an airplane.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

If you truly wish to stand behind a statement such as this:

..once again, nothing you've said and rambled on about addresses the actual evidence or scenario, nor does it answer, debunk, disprove or prove anything and one doesn't have to have any knowledge in aviation to see why your argument fails.

....then it shows that you have no intellectual response, or counter-argument.


if what you said was anything but intellectual and isn't arguing against any of the actual evidence or arguments i and others have presented supporting our position, then there's no reason to respond or present any counter-argument.



Originally posted by weedwhacker
Anyone who is able to read what I wrote, and not comprehend it (or pretend not to, and then make such a statement as I quoted above) is either unable to understand plain English, and visualize what I described (that would apply to the non-comprehension component) OR, is deliberately resorting to obfuscation and denial tactics. (That would be where I suggest someone may pretend to not understand).


and thats nothing more than your Opinion.

oh well... i guess we're done here


Originally posted by weedwhacker
I see, BTW, no mention of my reference to the AAL 77 NTSB video recreation, in your responses.

Why?
[edit on 26 May 2010 by weedwhacker]


read the name of this THREAD.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


orion is there a reason why you have yet to cite a source or pick an option? I'm guessing you ignored me because I kept asking the questions that you either refused to answer or just simply were not able to.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
Me too! The question is does seeing a copy of that document answer the question:

Which of the three options is the most plausible explination for the NPT.

Ok you really begging for me to wildly speculate so herye you have it...
If it is the only real evidence available, it probably would be C.
Having every evidence there is in Form of a jpeg file probably B
Every Evidence in original physical Form A

Keep in mind however that is still a theory which I just consider possible not mandatory.
It is just that i do not have any "real" evidence at all so I guess everything here is speculation. Now it's getting obscure, i think. But I am not in a Jury so I can use my own logic and my mind and come to a conclusion anyways. Everybody here does that otherwise this discussion wouldn't be the way it is


PS: Everybody who considers any theory on the attacks at all regadless of which one (incl. the OT ) thinks that some sensory input is "fake". It may be what someone tells you, you read, you see etc...

[edit on 26-5-2010 by kybertech]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Originally posted by Orion7911
The only response and evidence i need to link to is this source that effectively explains, answers and further disproves your argument is this...

www.youtube.com...

The video starts off quoting the NTSB report and then goes on to apply its own conclusion that EA990 broke up in flight. That conclusion is not that of the NTSB report.


and they explain why with a valid in-depth argument from what i can see.


Originally posted by neformore
I think that says alot about the video, don't you?


not really tbh.


Originally posted by neformore
You asked for a link to Rob Balsamo's comments

Here they are on the pilots for 9/11 truth forum

You'll note he says this
He was merely pointing out that when an aircraft exceeds such limitations, it does not immediately fall out of the sky and he is correct. Vne/Vmo/Mmo are limitations set by the manufacturer with a safety margin built in.


except in this case, the speeds were far outside and above the Vne/Vmo/Mmo not to mention it was claimed to have been ASL, which alone reasonably supports the argument about not being possible. Further, the aspect about being impossible, doesn't mean it would have immediately fallen out of the sky... its also an issue about whether it could have even reached 590mph ASL.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by kybertech

Originally posted by iamcpc
Me too! The question is does seeing a copy of that document answer the question:

Which of the three options is the most plausible explination for the NPT.

Ok you really begging for me to wildly speculate so herye you have it...
If it is the only real evidence available, it probably would be C.
Having every evidence there is in Form of a jpeg file probably B
Every Evidence in original physical Form A

Keep in mind however that is still a theory which I just consider possible not mandatory.
It is just that i do not have any "real" evidence at all so I guess everything here is speculation. Now it's getting obscure, i think. But I am not in a Jury so I can use my own logic and my mind and come to a conclusion anyways. Everybody here does that otherwise this discussion wouldn't be the way it is


[edit on 26-5-2010 by kybertech]


Really! You would concider option C! That was like my last resort! Thank you so much for answering the question! It indicates that you understand the difference between theories and facts and are smarter than a decent percent of the people who post here!



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911
not really tbh.


OK.

So... according to you some guy on Youtube making conclusions not born out by the official NTSB report into a crash is not a problem?

Please explain why. Please give us the credentials of the Youtube poster and explain how they are superior to those of the people at the NTSB that made the report on the crash of EA990.

Convince us why we should trust a guy on youtube over the officially sanctioned body that investigated the crash data.

After all, your argument hinges on his claims.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911

Originally posted by neformore
Originally posted by Orion7911

except in this case, the speeds were far outside and above the Vne/Vmo/Mmo



I love it when you post! It makes me smile! Let me cite some sources here.

John E. Fernandez
Assistant professor of archiecture building tech program MIT

Eduardo Kausel
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

Tomasz Wierzbicki
professor of applied mechanics MIT

Liang Xue
Ph.D. Candidate of Ocean Engineering MIT

Meg Hendry-Brogan
Undergraduate stuid of ocean engineering MIT

Ahmed Ghoniem
professor of mechanical engineering MIT

Oral Buyukozturk
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

franz-josef ulm, esther and harold edgerton
associate professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

Yossi sheffi
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

SOURCE web.mit.edu...

Notice the chapter labled "Speed of Aircraft"? I did!


"North Tower plane is on the order of v=192 m/s = 691 km/hr = 429
mph"


"we conclude that a best estimate for the speed of approach is 225 m/s (i.e. 810 km/hr, or 503 mph)."

A team of MIT experts figured out the North tower plane was going 429 MPH and the south tower plane was going 503 MPH

Well I guess all those experts were duped and failed to notice they were analyzing fake data.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc

First off i'm not arguing. I'm asking a question. A question that you still have yet to answer. You also have yet to cite a source. Again, I will refuse to argue and just ask one question.

Which of these following options which offer an explination for the NPT are most likely to be true?

Option A:

- Fake videos of planes on multiple broadcasts in real time
- Fake videos of planes on multiple videos obtained by civillians
- Fool thousands of eye witnesses that they are seeing planes
- Create false identities for all of the plane victims
- Create false flight logs and flight info for the planes
- Bribe the airlines into confirming the fake flight logs and flight info
- Create fake family members who have confirmed the takeoff of the airplane and the death of faimly members
- Create fake phone calls from people on the planes to their family
- Create fake DNA and dental records used to identify some of the people who were on the planes
- Keep everyone involved in all of the above silent about the murder of thousands of innocent civillians

Option B:

-someone put some videos on youtube explaining why the planes were not real

Option C:

-superman (LOOK! up in the sky it's a bird! It's a PLANE! No it's superman!) is real and he moved so fast he looked just like an airplane.

I know you're going to respond. I'm betting you won't cite a source that says that option A is more likely than option B or option C. I'm also betting that you won't pick which one is most likely. I'll even give you a hint. It's not option C.
[edit on 26-5-2010 by iamcpc]


based on all the evidence you obviously haven't researched, refuse to consider, or are in denial of, the short answer is A.

The longer answer is contained in the following links just for starters... feel free to refute these line by line and prove they're absurd and not plausible or logical:


www.911closeup.com...

killtown.blogspot.com...



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by Orion7911
not really tbh.


OK.

So... according to you some guy on Youtube making conclusions not born out by the official NTSB report into a crash is not a problem?

Please explain why. Please give us the credentials of the Youtube poster and explain how they are superior to those of the people at the NTSB that made the report on the crash of EA990.

Convince us why we should trust a guy on youtube over the officially sanctioned body that investigated the crash data.

After all, your argument hinges on his claims.



Better yet! Cite a source that is not youtube.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 


Youre welcome.
The problem is that the thing I would consider the most likely to be evidence is the live footage I saw of the second attack. (CNN on all the National Televison Channels in my County). This memory is quite vivid for obvious reasons. I did see a explosion and heard the commentary who mentioned that the plane wasn't visible and they would "rewind the tape". I checked this several times on downloaded archived footage with timestaps in the codecs.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by kybertech]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

So... according to you some guy on Youtube making conclusions not born out by the official NTSB report into a crash is not a problem?

Please explain why. Please give us the credentials of the Youtube poster and explain how they are superior to those of the people at the NTSB that made the report on the crash of EA990.

Convince us why we should trust a guy on youtube over the officially sanctioned body that investigated the crash data.

After all, your argument hinges on his claims.


no, my argument hinges on more than ample evidence i've presented throughout this thread that supports my claims. If you want to narrow it down to being only on some guys claims, then i guess we'll have to agree to disagree and we're back to square one as far as you and i are concerned.

oh, the "pft guy" on youtube isn't some "guy" without credentials.

and if the data and evidence and argument is wrong, please show exactly how and where it is.

if not, i guess we're done then eh?



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911
no, my argument hinges on more than ample evidence i've presented throughout this thread that supports my claims.


Yeah. Right. Heres all your posts in this thread

98% of what you've posted is your opinion and rhetoric, claiming other people are wrong and that you are right - with no real backup as the other 2% of your replies rely on youtube clips and links to forums that, on closer inspection are either blog or forum opinions making spurious claims or regurgitating the same old ones based on youtube videos that contradict the NTSB's findings on EA990

Thats not ample evidence I'm afraid.



If you want to narrow it down to being only on some guys claims, then i guess we'll have to agree to disagree and we're back to square one as far as you and i are concerned.

oh, the "pft guy" on youtube isn't some "guy" without credentials.


Then tell us who he is, and what they are, and how those credentials make his call superior to those of the NTSB board that reviewed EA 990.

Can't be that hard can it?



and if the data and evidence and argument is wrong, please show exactly how and where it is.
if not, i guess we're done then eh?


The NTSB report on EA990 proves the evidence and argument put forward by the video is wrong. You only have to read the conclusion of the report to understand that.

So yes, I think we're done. You have no actual evidence at all. This theory is junk.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   



based on all the evidence you obviously haven't researched, refuse to consider, or are in denial of, the short answer is A.

The longer answer is contained in the following links just for starters... feel free to refute these line by line and prove they're absurd and not plausible or logical:


www.911closeup.com...

killtown.blogspot.com...




Well I was asking you about which of the options was more plausible based on the evidence that you obviously have researched, considered and are not in denial of.

www.911closeup.com...
(gerard holmgren un-expert)

" Witnesses might see that they were not planes and report it."

FAKE THE EVIDENCE:
"whole world sees a big jet live on TV - using commercially available real time animation technology"

EVIDENCE BRAINWASHES THE PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY SAW A MISSLE
"Some might have lingering doubts or suspicions, but would be quickly silenced by ridicule and denial from the overwhelming pressure of the TV footage"

I love how that website does not even consider that terrorists crashed the planes into the WTC towers.

I also notice how they don't mention the fact that the airlines said yep that's our flight.

I also notice how this source does not mention the families of those who died.

I also notice how this source does not mention the DNA and bone fragments recovered from the WTC.

but whatever that guy offers a theory that refutes two of my points.

Now onto
killtown.blogspot.com...
(unnamed internet blogger and I assume un-expert)

He refutes the live video points by saying we have been editing live vidoes for years. If this is true then several news companies were also part of the no plane conspiracy so they could all offer different footage.

If this is true then not only do you have to get multiple news stations involved in the bribing and lying now you have to get a team of experts involved. So that when the fake live plane crash footage is shown the experts who analyze it to determine the speed of the crafts won't be fooled!

I also notice how they don't mention the fact that the airlines said yep that's our flight.

I also notice how this source does not mention the families of those who died.

I also notice how this source does not mention the DNA and bone fragments recovered from the WTC.

These options are not getting much simpler. Do you have any expert sources or just an internet blogger with a name and an internet blogger without a name? Do you have any internet blogger sources who refute the airlines claiming the flights, the face pasinger lists, the family members, and the DNA?



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by Orion7911
no, my argument hinges on more than ample evidence i've presented throughout this thread that supports my claims.


Yeah. Right. Heres all your posts in this thread

98% of what you've posted is your opinion and rhetoric, claiming other people are wrong and that you are right - with no real backup as the other 2% of your replies rely on youtube clips and links to forums that, on closer inspection are either blog or forum opinions making spurious claims or regurgitating the same old ones based on youtube videos that contradict the NTSB's findings on EA990

Thats not ample evidence I'm afraid.






He just cited two internet bloggers as sources. One had a name and the other one didn't. See it in my above post.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by kybertech
reply to post by iamcpc
 


Youre welcome.
The problem is that the thing I would consider the most likely to be evidence is the live footage I saw of the second attack. (CNN on all the National Televison Channels in my County). This memory is quite vivid for obvious reasons. I did see a explosion and heard the commentary who mentioned that the plane wasn't visible and they would "rewind the tape". I checked this several times on downloaded archived footage with timestaps in the codecs.



Yeah. I would be suspicious of that too. But that just means that on option A you have pay off or trick the the news companies to air fake footage. Also pay off the camera men who are "recording" the missles and passing them off as airplanes. And no one is going to be able to tell me that the biggest news story ever didn't have several professional cameramen there.

Just know that the more people that must be involved in a conspiracy the less likely the conspiracy is. It would take 20,938,054 people to hide the "theory" that the earth is flat and people who believe that it was round were fooled by the government. Thus conspiracies like that one involving millions of people are 99.99999% likely to be false.


Then option B stays the exact same.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911

i have addressed and answered it as far as i remember... perhaps you didn't read everything i've posted in this thread that also addressed it, or maybe its because you just didn't like the answers and didn't conform to your fallacious perception of reality.



You haven't answered it. I've reread the thread - which, as I suspected, was a waste of time - and you waffled on a bit but you never gave an answer as to how you thought the conspirators would be confident of controlling all the amateur footage.

As far as I can discern from your tortured logic, your answer amounted to a combination of "there wasn't any amateur footage" and "you wouldn't expect people to be filming the WTC anyway." Both conclusions are self-evidently ridiculous.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by kybertech
You've got it all wrong...
media.abovetopsecret.com...
....too bad its the other way around.


Think of it this way: You all remember what you have done the moment you recived the information of the attack. On that basis it would be possible to extract quite a substantial chunk of information from the real world.



Sorry, I don't really get what you're trying to say.

I'm pointing out that a mass conspiracy of thousands and thousands of people - which is what you seem to be talking about above - is nigh on impossible. Having a whole section of the population keep truths from the rest just doesn't seem at all likely given the way humans interact.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join