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.

 

VIDEO: Large Airliners Did NOT Hit the Twin Towers on 9/11!

page: 14
74
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
You know what guys as truthers "United we stand divided we fall" should be considered at this point.
I would suggest we focus on WTC7 as a gateway to the truth of that day.
Just saying this debate makes us all get painted with the same crazy brush, by people that are learning about this for the first time.


An excellent point. I have said in earlier posts (if they are still in existence) that I believe that this is the real intention of this thread. To start a 'discussion' on something so utterly false and sinister in its lack of sense as to taint by association. This is the real intention behind this type of thread. It is a forum and therefore discussion can be used as a weapon in a wider context. This thread skillfully does this, that I accept. I can not believe that I would have ever been censored for making a valid point on this forum though, not of all places here on ATS.





edit on 20-9-2010 by Pentothal because: Typo error.




posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


My point is that there are enough people that do not believe that planes were used and that it was a case of media manipulation, suggestion, missiles, holograms, whatever.

Because you do not agree with this theory, then it is wrong?

If planes were used on that day then it is not impossible to consider that those that were in the immediate vicinity but had their back turned / were looking down changed their story to seeing the planes before the explosion and those that happened to be looking up at the time and saw no plane before the explosion do not wish to come forward as they do not want to look like idiots when MSM (the authority we all trust in) have footage of the planes.

Also, how many of these 'amateur' clips are there?
Certainly not hundreds, more like tens and because they are labelled as 'amateur' that makes them so?

Why did most of these amateur shots come out long after the events of that day, some many years later?
Yet this is not at all suspicious? It's a shakey home video, so it has to be genuine? Right?

I am still on the fence on this issue but it greaves me to see people ignoring points of interest that do not support what they believe.

As for the truth movement, by excluding theories, like that of Dr Judy Wood, they are showing that they are not entirely genuine. The ring leaders/ organisers of these movements may well be batting for the other team.

Is it not suspicious that Dr Judy Wood's theory is being silenced on so many forums, that PookztA himself has been 'silenced' for mentioning it at various sites and boards.

PookztA sent me a U2U earlier today claiming he had been 'silenced' on ATS aswell and has had his posts edited.

None of you find this at all strange?



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
Beware of the OP in this thread. He/she believes in "dr." Judy Wood's work. If people actually believe the OP there is no hope for you in your critical thinking skills. I also believe the OP is a disinfo agent. I noticed also that since the movement has increased so has the disinfo.

I thought ATS was closely monitoring these threads?


edit on 18-9-2010 by dragnet53 because: (no reason given)



HUH? PROOF please Proof! Accusing people of disinfo agent is ingenuous to begin with. This is not an argument but a dismissal which is what people in authority do. Hint hint.
BTW to the OP and those reading this thread - have you seen 9/11 New 3D Analysis by Disclosure TV?
www.disclose.tv...
They show two things that I found fascinating and it all makes perfect sense.
At 3:25 in this video it shows a channel 4 live shot which btw, shows the water, boats, all kinds of back ground stuff then something smaller than a plane comes in and hits the tower. Funny because it is later on evening news is when you do see the planes and you don't see any background anymore.
Also what the heck are the chances that every news camera was all lined up in a row so only one shot was available to all of them? And that blue sky was turned gray every time a larger plane was in it. Now to say there was nothing but explosions? I'd say nope, people on the ground did see something but how many regular people can distinguish between large, medium and commuter planes?
And last one shot starts wide as heck, then zooms into the building and then bam a plane. Why was the plane not in the wide shot?
This is not disinformation. This is unfortunately the truth. Also go back over any footage that the media lays claim to. The footage that was shown was edited: To remove sound is an edit people - editors get paid starting $35 per hour just to rip sound.
Oh, and my disclaimer - I'm not sure about this 'ball' theory in the video link I provided. I've seen designs such as this - what ever you wish to call it - there is a patent on it - but I'm of the mindset that people would have said they saw something round and not a plane. Sorry....
What I like best about this video is it is the only one that shows the live shot from a station, and the evening news shot from the same station with obvious edit.
Oh and to those who saw the Fox footage where the nose goes through the tower, ask yourself - where is the nose? It obviously made it through the building. hehe



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skellon
reply to post by dragnet53
 


My point is that there are enough people that do not believe that planes were used and that it was a case of media manipulation, suggestion, missiles, holograms, whatever.

Because you do not agree with this theory, then it is wrong?

If planes were used on that day then it is not impossible to consider that those that were in the immediate vicinity but had their back turned / were looking down changed their story to seeing the planes before the explosion and those that happened to be looking up at the time and saw no plane before the explosion do not wish to come forward as they do not want to look like idiots when MSM (the authority we all trust in) have footage of the planes.

Also, how many of these 'amateur' clips are there?
Certainly not hundreds, more like tens and because they are labelled as 'amateur' that makes them so?

Why did most of these amateur shots come out long after the events of that day, some many years later?
Yet this is not at all suspicious? It's a shakey home video, so it has to be genuine? Right?

I am still on the fence on this issue but it greaves me to see people ignoring points of interest that do not support what they believe.

As for the truth movement, by excluding theories, like that of Dr Judy Wood, they are showing that they are not entirely genuine. The ring leaders/ organisers of these movements may well be batting for the other team.

Is it not suspicious that Dr Judy Wood's theory is being silenced on so many forums, that PookztA himself has been 'silenced' for mentioning it at various sites and boards.

PookztA sent me a U2U earlier today claiming he had been 'silenced' on ATS aswell and has had his posts edited.

None of you find this at all strange?

Copy your posts to your own computer. Aside from that PookztA has to live in the real world like the rest of us. He can always make the point, that something other than aircraft actually brought down the towers, and he has done so in other threads. What I think is wrong, is to say that there were no airplanes involved, since they are the only mundane explanation De Facto, and there is no doubt in my mind that aircraft were in collision wth the towers. In fact you need the aircraft to be there no matter what to make up your own mind as to how all three buildings fell in such a similar manner is your only way forward, and in that regard, PookztA's ideas in other threads need consideration, but not here, it's as simple as that.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by DaWhiz
 


on your video on disclose tv
the smoke bilowing out of the first tower hit has a pattern to it
just before fade to black copy or memorize what the smoke pattern looks like,
then notice how different the smoke from the first tower is just after fade to black is over compared to what it looked like just before fade to black.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Skellon
 


She is being silenced because she is a disinformation agent. Okay if you believe then in her theories then PROVE it. Where did these laser weapons come from or show me which company invented this advanced hologram. Did you know that Japan has a basic form of holographic technology? They were the first to invent this device. It ain't even powerful enough to create a plane and pretend to fly into the towers. They invented this technology a few years back way after 2001.

use your critical thinking skills god gave you.






edit on 21-9-2010 by dragnet53 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 06:05 AM
link   
I remember watching 9/11 Director's Cut, or whatever its title was, and the documentary showed that a plane resembling an E-8 Joint STARS battlefield reconnaissance aircraft was used to hit the South Tower, judging by its lack of windows and an underfuselage pod, only seen on E-8 JSTARS.





Flight 175 was an E-8, not a 747 or 767 (it's 2 engined).



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ironfalcon
 

I have a couple of issues with that theory, especially with the provided pictures. You can relatively clearly see the underside of the fuselage and its shadow but the object doesn't appear to be under the fuselage, but rather beside it. This doesn't resemble that aircraft in my opinion. I don't even care to speculate on what it is with one low resolution frame. I also have to question the circled pixelation in the close up because when I take the wide angle picture and zoom in I don't see similar pixelation. Oddities like that just makes me question things.





posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 07:09 AM
link   
I've checked that website you've liked, an can honestly say that I've never seen someone put as much effort into making a page that doesn't seem to make any point at all.

I'm confused, you seem to say that there were no jets, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence to the contrary.


Just stupid sections like "Dirt" and "Windows", this is a real WTF situation for me.

I smell disinfo, I detest the smell of disinfo.

I mean missing toilets? Is this for real?



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   
I love this at the end:


9/11 new world order thermite demolition


Trying to lump all us crazies together!!

Gimme a D

Gimme a I

Gimme a S

Gimme a I..................................



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 

Don't you just love the missing toilet part?


From another thread I mentioned this regarding the toilets.

I haven't heard about this one yet. I'm still on the same page that was talking about dusification, right? If dustification actually happened why would one be looking for toilets that would have been dustified in the first place? Taking dustification out of the equation, let's look at this from a more realistic point of view, if that's even possible. Maybe everyone doesn't know that toilets are made of porcelain, that's fine. I guess that's why they discussed tank performance but not the material they're made of. What do you think happens when porcelain is dropped, hit or crushed? Go take a hammer to your toilet repeatedly and let me know what you're left with. After doing so, come back here and tell me why it's not surprising that toilets weren't found in the rubble pile.




posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   
And the remaining 20% of eyewitnesses?

Say no to drugs.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
What a load of nonsense, thousands of people in New York was watching the towers because, oh I don't know, one of them was a raging inferno already.
There are plenty of people with their own video evidence, there own set of eyes and to be honest I don't even know why I am posting in a thread with impossible people, absolute rubbish and simply insulting thousands of eyewitnesses and everybody who was watching live' intelligence.
You need to use a little common sense and stop believing some video knocked together by somebody with an agenda to 'rebel against everything and everyone' living hundreds of miles away from the event no doubt.
Rename the topic, "Hey New Yorkers, you are stupid!"



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


This is my point, you are demanding for proof of technology that is classified!

Strategic Defence Initiative was cancelled in the 80's or was it?

DEW technology was able to aquire and destroy multiple artillery shells in tests that were made public in the early 2000's.

Military technology is usually 15-20 years ahead of the public sector. For example, the F-117A Nighthawk 'Stealth Fighter'. This aircraft was revealed to the public in the early 90's after being operational in the late 70's.

You cannot sit back and just demand conclusive evidence of such projects as we, the public, do not know how advanced these projects are now. But we do have evidence that they existed in some capacity decades ago.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by PookztA
 


you're just another one in a sudden wave of ridiculous, trolling OPs about 9/11.

your statement 80% of people didn't see the airplanes crash into a building.... what about the other 20% who did???

Using your logic...

50% of people are male, therefore females don't exist.

Are you doing a study or are you getting paid for this joke?



edit on 21-9-2010 by Thermo Klein because: forgot the % sign



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ironfalcon
I remember watching 9/11 Director's Cut, or whatever its title was, and the documentary showed that a plane resembling an E-8 Joint STARS battlefield reconnaissance aircraft was used to hit the South Tower, judging by its lack of windows and an underfuselage pod, only seen on E-8 JSTARS.





Flight 175 was an E-8, not a 747 or 767 (it's 2 engined).


Boeing 767s have 2 engines.... one per wing.

I agree that something was odd about it though, 767s don't normally have any sort of attachment under the fuselage. One thing we can tell, as fact, is that the plane that hit the South Tower WAS NOT a 767 operating as a normal flight that day. It was not seen in FAA airport videos, no staff or crew was knwon to work that flight that day, and no way people on the ground crew could have missed a giant attachment.

I used to work the ground crew at SFO. I walked under 757s hundreds of times (a very similar body shape to a 767, except it's a narrow body, not a widebody). Something like that added on would have been the talk of the ground crew - people would have made their way over to see it with much speculation and pics.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Skellon
 


classified? LMAO

This is the best they got. They have a chemical laser weapon. it is ground base.

www.cbsnews.com...

Northrup Grumman is trying to reduce the size of one laser to fit in a single C-130 cargo plane.

But once the technical problems are solved, strategic issues will loom large, posing questions that, so far, the Pentagon has not answered.


It seems they are having a tough time to attach it to some cargo plane. The laser weapon theory just failed.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 



I give up with you drag, you seem to think that you have access to the world's classified technology through google.....

If it ain't on google, it doesn't exist?

I gave good reason in the above post to entertain such technology but you seem to be from that gaming culture of "screenshot or it didn't happen".

I understand the potential of such technology, so do many others on this board, it is known as common sense or logical.

If someone rumoured about the US having operational stealth technology in the early 80's, I am quite sure that someone like you wuld have been there to say, "hey, it ain't in the magazines I just read, I call BS".

How can bloggers, youtube video creators or members of the 9/11 truth movement debunk a technology they have little to no information on?

This is why instead of "LOL" this theory caannot be ruled out, at all!

It seems to escape you or not suit you're hard line case.

Whichever, I am now past caring.



edit on 21-9-2010 by Skellon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Skellon
 


But I was just starting to have fun!


2nd line was here but it vanished!!!!


edit on 21-9-2010 by dragnet53 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skellon
For example, the F-117A Nighthawk 'Stealth Fighter'. This aircraft was revealed to the public in the early 90's after being operational in the late 70's


Very wrong, actually. "The F-117A's first flight was in 1981, and it achieved initial operating capability status in October 1983. The F-117A was "acknowledged" and revealed to the world in November 1988."
www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...
www.nationalmuseum.af.mil...



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join