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: 24
19
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
At first I do not think that is nessecarily the case. From the popular theories the OT involves the least amount of people. So anyone doubting that would have to disagree with you as well.
Imho the thermate demolition theory would require more people involved. There would have to be a massive amount (several tons) of this stuff brought in, it would have to be placed and so on. It would involve logistics, machinery, workers, engineers, scientists, etc...
Everybody would have do actively be involved, not nessecerly have the big picture but know something.

If you follow the cnn transmisson for ex. you will notice that until the cnn ceo called in saying he was there an saw the plane everything was speculation.
With this logic all people thos would require is the ceos of the networks, someone doing the editing, and some people pulling the strings.
Everyone else would just do as been told and shut up. (Fear is very powerful...)

PS: I realise that everything from flight records and passenger lists would have do been made up. I would like to explore the possibilty that there was no conspiracy outside the people who blew it up and everything was made up ad hoc. (Only fear as motivation)

What do you think?

[edit on 27-5-2010 by kybertech]




posted on May, 27 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by kybertech
At first I do not think that is nessecarily the case. From the popular theories the OT involves the least amount of people. So anyone doubting that would have to disagree with you as well.
Imho the thermate demolition theory would require more people involved. There would have to be a massive amount (several tons) of this stuff brought in, it would have to be placed and so on. It would involve logistics, machinery, workers, engineers, scientists, etc...
Everybody would have do actively be involved, not nessecerly have the big picture but know something.

If you follow the cnn transmisson for ex. you will notice that until the cnn ceo called in saying he was there an saw the plane everything was speculation.
With this logic all people thos would require is the ceos of the networks, someone doing the editing, and some people pulling the strings.
Everyone else would just do as been told and shut up. (Fear is very powerful...)

PS: I realise that everything from flight records and passenger lists would have do been made up. I would like to explore the possibilty that there was no conspiracy outside the people who blew it up and everything was made up ad hoc. (Only fear as motivation)

What do you think?

[edit on 27-5-2010 by kybertech]


I think it would be alot easier to fake youtube videos and cover up the intentional spread of disinformation online sparking 298 different theories about the 9/11 attacks and spinning 300 million americans is a bunch of different directions than to cover up some of the thoeries that explain the 9/11 attacks.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 


You know what? I'm sick of being acused of spreading disinformation, all these paranoid delusions propably started these whole "conspiracy" to begin with.

So consider this: Someone blew it up, the news agencies called the FBI and they said "We know, and don't give a #" So everyone paniced and made stuff up. After eveybody watched tv the fear spread around the globe and nobody had the guts to ask questions instead everybody went along because "it is so unlikely"...

Really?



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by kybertech
reply to post by iamcpc
 


You know what? I'm sick of being acused of spreading disinformation, all these paranoid delusions propably started these whole "conspiracy" to begin with.

So consider this: Someone blew it up, the news agencies called the FBI and they said "We know, and don't give a #" So everyone paniced and made stuff up. After eveybody watched tv the fear spread around the globe and nobody had the guts to ask questions instead everybody went along because "it is so unlikely"...

Really?


It's possible. I've come to terms with the fact that I will never know what really happen on 9/11/2001. I can only theorize.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   
I know thers alot of no-planers out there.

Cant see how they think a plane DIDNT hit the WTC


But from what ive researched on my own, it dosnt look like a plane hit the pentagon, or crashed near Camp David.

But I Was not there, and so I can only speculate soo much-

I DO KNOW THAT!



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Hi all, I'm new here, really interesting site! I've been reading through a few of your threads on the 9/11 situation and have also been interested in this topic for sometime. I saw a few videos a while ago that clearly show some sort of explosion just before both planes make impact on the WTC buildings. These videos may be here somewhere but I've not come across them as yet and I've been reading on your site for literally hours, so sorry if my videos are repeated. Also apologies if the videos do not display correctly.


www.youtube.com...



www.youtube.com...


The theory goes that the 2nd plane looked more like a military plane, with something similar to a misile underneath. You clearly see flashes just before impact. Hopefully this will help you in your explosion and no planes argument. I definitely think there were planes, but also explosions to assist bringing down the towers..

I hope these videos are useful? Cheers


PS: I just remembered something so I want to add that I do personally think that it's very strange that 4 planes were apparently hijacked! One at a stretch but 4?! I'm not trying to say no planes hit, I agree with that, well maybe not for the other 2 (non WTC) but I really do not believe that security failed to stop 4 different planes being hijacked! Very strange!

[edit on 2-6-2010 by tuffvibes]



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by tuffvibes
 


Hi, tuffvibes, and welcome.

Now....this isn't exacty the best thread to go over this in great detail, so I won't belabor it. However, what you bring up HAS been responded to, and explained at great length already.

Unfortunately, in today's world of constant Internet 'information', even when something is posted and later proven to be completely without merit, nothing ever goes away after being shown to be wrong.

Hence, we have the constant influx of genuinely interested people, like yourself, who become cofused.


Originally posted by tuffvibes
The theory goes that the 2nd plane looked more like a military plane, with something similar to a misile underneath. You clearly see flashes just before impact. Hopefully this will help you in your explosion and no planes argument. I definitely think there were planes, but also explosions to assist bringing down the towers..



NO, United 175 didn't look like a 'military plane'....that is the airplane seen in the first YT video you posted. That is the paint scheme (one of them) at the time for United Airlines, as can be confirmed by a simple web search.


AND, no....NO 'missile' underneath....again, in yourfirst video, NO evidence of any 'missile'...please feel free to review the numerous ATS threads, and there you will see the explanation for the 'bulges' on the fuselage, under the wings....that is where the landing gear retracts, and the gear doors are "faired in" to the rest of the airframe.

The "flashes" are a combination of either (glass, or other materials, reflecting sunlight, and 'flashing' in the camera) and/or as I (and others) have posited, the Crew O2 bottle exploding just at impact. Visit the other threads for diagrams and discussions.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by tuffvibes
 


Also, this discussion is covered in another recent thread:


PS: I just remembered something so I want to add that I do personally think that it's very strange that 4 planes were apparently hijacked!


I will find the link.....

....Here's one of my recent posts, there:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And here's the link to page 1:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

(Note the thread is over two years old, and the OP is subsequently banned....not that there is ANY connection; just a casual mention of the fact...)



[edit on 2 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Hi weedwhacker, thanks for your response. Sorry if I went over stuff already posted, I did try and search for this info to see if it had been discussed elsewhere here but there's so much info to read through, and I've spent many continuous hours reading this today and had not yet come across it so I thought I'd mention it just in case. I'm pleased it has been discussed and that you have been able to explain this to me because it had baffled me for some time! Yours is the first forum like this I've joined so haven't had chance to seek answers until now.

I noticed on page 21 (I think) that one member was questioning the fact the first plane was filmed, as if it was a coincidence, I was under the impression that they were filming a documentary for the fire department, hence the firemen being the first people on camera when the first plane hit. I also saw a follow up documentary on TV about the fire department. I'm sure you guys all know this anyway, but the person saying there was no planes didn't mention this fact.

I definitely think it was a set-up, but no planes, that's stretching it a bit! I think they need to bring their eye-witnesses here to back up their claim of no planes because it seems nigh on impossible to fake something like that!



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by tuffvibes
 


Hello...

Yes, the subject of, and continued persistence of, "no planes" is one of the most confusing, and baffling.... because it's the easiest to dispute --- ample evidence exists.


I tend to recoil from the notion of it being a 'set-up', as regards the Naudet Brothers' filming. Pure coincidence. The many, many disparate 'factions' of these fragmented "conspiracy theories" nevertheless will sometimes stoop to the most outrageous, and unverifiable assertions, which are what make it to the Internet.

A little bit of due diligence on the part of people interested will dispel a ot of the myths, and point out many logical fallacies (and in certain cases, outright intentional dissembling).

Tragically, it is human nature (for some) to wish to profit on the misfortunes of others, and this is but one of the many sorts of events that lends itself to such abuse.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Again, cheers for replying weedwacker..

Like I said before, I'm quite new on these types of forums so forgive my noob termology when I say 'set-up', I'm convinced all isn't right with the 9/11 situation but you have changed my thinking already by the way you discounted the flashes of light prior to impact. I think I'm going to start a fresh analysis of all the evidence (not the no planes theory!) and then see what I think because I've learnt a lot today, and I think I've been a bit misled by some of the videos I've seen and so need to make a fresh assessment.

It's great to be able to see all this technical data from people that really know what they're talking about because some of the info that has been investigated here I would have never thought of due to lack of technical experience in those fields. I can see from your writing you are a pilot, and having such expertise here really helps when trying to piece everything together..

Thanks for all the info.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by tuffvibes
 





I noticed on page 21 (I think) that one member was questioning the fact the first plane was filmed, as if it was a coincidence, I was under the impression that they were filming a documentary for the fire department, hence the firemen being the first people on camera when the first plane hit. I also saw a follow up documentary on TV about the fire department. I'm sure you guys all know this anyway, but the person saying there was no planes didn't mention this fact.


One of 3 photos of WTC 1 (North Tower) being hit.

The Naudet brothers had been filming a documentary of a rookie fireman
for WEEKS! So were they in on the plot?

Just coindence that one of the brothers was riding with them as checked
out a routine "odor of gas" call - FD get them every day, its routine and often nothing is found.

Naudet brothers film




But nothing is routine or coidence to conspiracy loons.....



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Hi thedman, I've been following the story since it happened and have seen the video you posted, and only in the last few months have I discovered all the possible theories, and only today have I learnt about the no planes theory. It doesn't seem plausible to me, although some of the evidence presented on that angle is interesting. I'm probably not a typical conspiracy theorist type, but I am suspicious of the government's version of events. I cannot really begin to challenge anyone's thoughts on this subject as I've learnt a lot of new info today, so I'm just going to go back to the start and go over everything again, and then try and piece it all together once more.

It's capitvating stuff but I like to base my thoughts on scientific facts and real evidence, so with all the new info I've discovered on this site today I will have more to go at now, and will hopefully be able to come back with some questions that haven't been discussed yet..



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
OK, so I've spent a bit more time analysing the situation and I have to say the 'September Clues' videos (A-G) are very interesting indeed.

www.youtube.com...

Initially I thought there was something suspicious with the whole 9/11 thing due to the way the buildings collapsed, including Tower 7, and it did all look too good to be true, like something out of a film. I'd never given it a thought that the film had been doctored, and even when I joined earlier and made comments I dismissed this as a possible theory. But after watching all the videos listed above I'm actually leaning towards the theory of it all being staged.

Now I am not a video editor, so I'm not expert on video editing, but I am a sound engineer and the sound effects do seem suspicious in a few places based on these videos. The data was presented well and the theory does seem more plausible after watching them.

The Pentagon footage available and the suspicions surrounding that has always had alarm bells ringing, as had the remaining flight. Overall there are too many inconsistencies presented by the media etc, and I'm now thinking that the person who believes there was no plane might be onto something. The only way to discredit this theory would be for more evidence to be presented in the form of videos, photo's, and eye witness accounts from the general public who captured something different to what the media supposedly broadcasted 'live'.

My mind is still open on this one and hopefully some more evidence will come to light to prove that this was staged because I definitely think all is not what they want us to believe.... Very interesting indeed!

PS: I thought I'd also add the link to the www.septemberclues.info...
which is a site connected to these videos. I'm sure you've all probably seen these videos and this site but just in case. Also, one interesting thing I noticed in the videos was the video footage they broadcasted in Iraq, which showed no plane. Now, why would they do that? Why not show everyone the same supposedly 'live' footage?! Strange!

[edit on 2-6-2010 by tuffvibes]



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by tuffvibes
 


Oh dear....another one is about to get lost, and fooled by that junk "mockumentary" September Clues. (Say it ain't so, Shane!)

Sad that this is going to be continuing to happen....it's as if somebody wrote a book, or made a video claliming the earth was flat, and people bought into it, thinking they'd stumbled upon some revelation! ( Oh wait...somebody has, somebody did, and some people DO! :shk: )

Here, 'tuff'...."SC" has been well torn apart, by now, it is garbage:

www.truthaction.org...

Oh, and everybody loves YouTube (
), so here:



AND...



Oh, this YT poster adds this note:

"I didn't get around to making Part 2 for YouTube, but there is a 28 minute version on Google video, with the same name."

SO, it is on Google, in full length...hang on....


Let's see if I can do a Google link:


Google Video Link


Well...not sure which code to input....but I found it easily on Google, with the search of title: "September Clues Busted"

[edit on 2 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
weedwacker, I respect you're a knowledgable person because you are a pilot and some of your information could be accurate in the right context and I'm not challenging anything I've read of yours thus far, but those 'busted' videos just add even more weight to my feelings on this because for someone to goto those lengths to disprove a fairly decent argument obviously proves someone is trying to cover something up.

I'm not easily led, I am open minded, and I was a little unsure of some of the other videos that said it was a airforce plane, but the September videos do seem to show (in my eyes) that something very fishy went on. Nothing is completely conclusive but it's more plausible than what they want us to believe. I'm actually quite skeptical normally but I have a feeling about this and for now, until someone else proves otherwise I'm going to stick by what I believe.

alawson911, who did those videos made a poor attempt at a counter-argument. Not one person in his videos was certain what they saw, the woman in Chelsea said it looked like a small plane and the person who did the September videos did clearly state that a missile could be mistaken for a small plane. It's an unconvincing attempt to try and make the creator of the September videos look like they're making it all up, they need to try a bit harder than that because they're not going to change my current thoughts with those response videos!

The Pentagon footage and all that surrounds that, plus the use of thermite coupled with buildings coming straight down is enough for me to see that all is not what they want us to think..

weedwacker, what do you believe? Obviously you doubt those videos and that is your choice, but do you think there was any foul play going on at all?



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   
One additional thing that springs to mind....

I have just read a thread on another site and someone said mentioned about the audio from the woman saying 'oh my god' etc was the same, as mentioned the the Spetember videos, and a poster on that thread dismissed it saying that many people say the same thing.

Now I agree, American people use that phrase a lot, but I have sound engineer's ears and I matched the tones quite easily, and I could potentially do a phase-cancellation test on the audio samples by lining up both phrases of audio and inverting one of them, this should produce silence as they would cancel each other out. Unfortunately though this does not work so well on compressed audio, it will work to an extent but as well as having the source files.

If I get some time this week I'll analyse the audio, just out of curiosity but this is just one small thing amongst far too many anomalies...



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

These personal attacks are just ridiculous 'meth addict' etc...

But these videos make a good point, namely that there should be a video without a plane visible, and as I previously stated that is in fact the case. The live shot don't show one. That could be explained away if you say that you couldn't see it because it was below the resolution of the camera or something, but I don't think that should be the case.


Don't want to go into different angles and so on or the "nose out" etc.. That proves or disproves nothing. Just explain the live shot, it is the _only_ evidence NPT has.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   
That video debunks itself when it does the superimposing after the "one more time" bit. They're clearly not the same angles, because in the superimposition you can't see the tops of the building that are clear on the background shot!



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Hey, what did I just write? I don't want to go into this. But you are right.. again:

Different angles, flight paths proves nothing...

If you think NPT has no ground explain why there is no plane visible on the live shot.
This is my only point and the only real evidence. If you can debunk it you've won, if you don't you'll have to at least consider NPT.

911 Truth 101: Avoid discussion about the fact that there was no plane visible on live shots at all costs!


A view more times:
Why was there no plane visible on the live shots?
Why was there no plane visible on the live shots?
Why was there no plane visible on the live shots?
Why was there no plane visible on the live shots?
Why was there no plane visible on the live shots?

[edit on 3-6-2010 by kybertech]



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join