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.


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

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 08:50 PM
reply to post by polarwarrior

So you're saying steel can just break into dust and float away in the wind...?

Please explain to me how that would happen.

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 08:50 PM
In hindsight, that all sounds so fake. "Ah, another one just hit! Oh my gosh!" Sounds so unrealistic. I remember watching the coverage of the OKC blast- it was so hectic, and a lot of female reporters were crying. Then now we have a reporter live on the scene who doesn't see a plane, and the one in the studio is kind of like, "yep, there was, everyone saw it right now, on the right of the screen." So many people are going to burn for this on judgment day. So many people were knowingly involved. I am disgusted.

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 08:53 PM

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by LifENcircleS

The reality here is mate, we only have your word for that don't we.

You joined ATS in 2009, over 8 years after the event...8 years is plenty of time for the ptb to position agent bloggers all over the web to add a tidbit here and there, a conversation steer or misdirection here and there, and a fair amount of "I was there, i saw it with my own eyes gov'nor, honest" here and there.

Unless you're prepared to step out of your anonymity bubble, and go publicly on record so you and your history, can be thoroughly checked out and researched, your statement about seeing an aircraft hit the tower, is worth less than a bag of peanuts mate.

Wanna let us all know who you are, so the 9/11 researchers can dig about for any connections you might have to tptb?

While I applaud your attempt to point out the inconsistencies found in the OP's argument, I must say that your thread is nothing but a straight up argument ad hominem.

Facts should be judged and decided upon by just that, facts.

Westers dictionary defines facts as:

: a thing done: as a obsolete : feat b : crime c archaic : action 2 archaic : performance, doing 3 : the quality of being actual : actuality 4 a : something that has actual existence b : an actual occurrence 5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality — in fact : in truth

Your attempt to debunk the OP by merely asking questions in a Socratic manner does absolutely nothing to forge ahead in an attempt to uncover the truth of the matter, no matter the relativity of the truth at hand.

Learn logical fallacies before engaging someone in such a manner.

It will lend more credence to your argument and it will add respect to you from other members, respect earned as a thorough and unbiased researcher.

Good Luck.

Edit to add:

You present an argument based solely on the flaws of another. While this has its place in debate and hegelian truth, it does nothing to further the cause of the case of 9/11.

The vast majority of "official information" used to support the official storyline is definitely disinformation that is used to discredit those who doubt the official storyline of 9/11, me for one.

But REGARDLESS of any of what I just typed.

Your argument must be presented in a coherent and logical manner and it cannot be rife with logical fallacies.
My point in posting was merely to show that a rational well thought response should be what one would post, not conjecture based upon emotion and attacking the character of the messengers.

Here is a good place to start for logical fallacies

Not statements entirely based upon emotion and containing little, if any, empirical validity.

As I said before, this is for your benefit. I am not trying to call you out, or start an argument, but merely help you in the process of discerning truth from fiction.


edit on 9/18/2010 by Josephus23 because: (no reason given)

reason: grammatical mistakes

edit on 9/18/2010 by Josephus23 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 09:15 PM
"Too many eyewitness accounts...Too many amateur videos..."

The key word being amateur. The Evan Fairbanks video you posted shows the "plane" impacting well above the lower smoke line on the first tower. The other videos show the "plane" impacting well below the lower smoke line on the first tower. How can both these scenarios be true if this is the same impact? It's a good thing we have these amateur videos to clarify the story.

As for the "eyewitness" accounts, that and $7.50 will buy you a cup of coffee at a certain overpriced low quality coffee chain. Since these witnesses were not properly, nor thoroughly interviewed and never gave testimony in a court of law, their accounts are about as effective as a one legged man in an butt kicking contest. But quick, let's all jump to conclusions because we are being pressured into doing so. Let's ignore the complete garbage video and explanation which was presented by the media because it's the popular thing to do.

And did you notice that all these reporters at the WTC prior to the second hit did not have a camera? They were all just using the audio feed. You have one of the biggest stories of the century unfolding and the media leaves its cameras home. Not suspicious at all.

Getting a reporter to the scene in no time was easy, but getting someone there with a camera was impossible. Maybe the cameras were on strike that day.

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 09:21 PM
"In hindsight, that all sounds so fake. "Ah, another one just hit! Oh my gosh!"

Well, what do you expect? They had to use real reporters because using actors would have raised too much suspicion. They saved the actors for the street footage, like Harley guy (obviously both towers collapsed because of the overwhelming heat) and telephone operator guy (while the place is being bombed to hell he asks, wanna call your mother?).

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 09:30 PM

Originally posted by polarwarrior
I think some sort of weapon apart from conventional explosives were probably used.

I find this sort of phenomena interetsing...

It's not a phenomena. Look at the third picture in that collage. The spire is going down. Once the spire goes down, the dust from it hangs in the air for a few minutes. Of course, you would know that from watching the video that those images are from. Never believe the disinformation that disinfo artists put out without looking into their claims.

Originally posted by polarwarrior
As an engineer, yes I do believe its possible.

As an "engineer"? Kinda like the "engineer" that Judy Wood is supposed to be? The only things that turn steel to dust is a plasma cutter or a torch cutter. If you have any other means to turn steel to dust, I'm sure we all would like to know, including Judy since she can't even comment on what type of equipment could cause such a phenomenon.

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 09:31 PM
It has been proven that september clues and all this tv fakery theories were started and promoted by the very people covering up the facts that 911 was caused and planned within its borders using help from other countries.

These silly theories are meant to discredit the 911 truther and their research. No serious investigator/truther has ever embraced such drivel. This has been proven that debunkers and the people involved in the cover up started and promoted these theories.

To the author..... Are you connected to the JREF and Debunker crew?

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 09:38 PM

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by PookztA
I cannot believe people still even debate this issue...

I, too, can't believe that people still even debate the issue of if planes hit the towers or not.


Then perhaps you can explain how it is that a 767-200 was able to fly at 510 knots at sea level when the ea990 broke up at at an equivalent air speed of 420 knots. Boeing themselves state that a 767-200 will break apart at 410 knots at sea level!

Also explain how commercial pilots with over 20,000 hours on 757 and 767 were unable to hit the trade towers unless they reduced their speed to 120 knots! in a Boeing simulator.

Also explain how it is that these commercial planes were flown by people with little if any flight experience of commercial airlines with the only known pilot in the hijackers group being refused permission to hire a single engined plane because he was unable to maintain control of it a 65 knots flying in a straight line.

Then explain how it is that this hijackers with no experience were able to perform turns so tight and fast that air traffic controllers believed they were military fighter jets!!

Also explain how Hani Hanjour the incompetent pilot got onto the plane without a ticket and of which there is no surveillance taps of him getting on the plane!

Planes might have hit the towers, but they were not 767-200 with passengers on them! and they most definitely did NOT have a pilots at the stick. A computer flying it, maybe!

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 09:59 PM
No not impossible...but neither are terrorists being able to hijack fact, it would be much easier to let the criminals commit the crime instead of orchestrate this grand scale "hoax" that requires teams of specialized people needed in order to execute the demolitions, make 3d composites and what have you.

It will take a lot less energy, time, money and effort to just let the attack happen. These terrorists are people who've been wanting to attack America for years...and the government knows this better than anybody. To lure somebody else you KNOW will commit the crime is much more effective and easy to do than to execute this kind of grand scale hoax you are all obsessed with. Not to mention how it's much easier it is on their conscious...from a psychological point of would be like, "Well THEY committed the crime THEY are the ones that made that decision that shouldn't have done it but did anyway" Under rug swept. Meanwhile the government cashes in on it. (or so they say)

Does this sound familiar? Crooked cops do this in the form of entrapment. Cops will lure people to commit a crime that otherwise would not have happened.

The government didn't perpetrate the attack...your giving them way too much credit. They #ing exploited the hell out of it.

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:13 PM
Has anyone ever done an analysis on the plane nose entering the building and leaving the building. It seems in the video that the plane loses very little momentum while taring through the WTC. Just saying if those that believe there was no plane could do the math of the plane entering and exiting, if no loss of momentum exists, then I might entertain the idea a bit further. Otherwise, it is just another theory.

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:23 PM
reply to post by SphinxMontreal

It isn't unbelievable that news crews didn't bring cameras with them. It isn't unbelievable
that CGI was used to fake planes impacting buildings. It isn't unbelievable that the entire
catalog of news footage and amateur footage of planes striking the buildings was
edited and faked.

What is unbelievable to the point of absolute ABSURDITY, and worthy of ANY SENTIENT

......and you somehow are right.........because you say so...


The no plane theory and this thread isn't worthy of one more word, or post.

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:29 PM
Excellent video of how this can easily be duplicated and fabricated by CGI/video editing, that alone should raise some eyebrows. You have to acknowledge the possibility.

I'm still concerned that the 9-11 movement is being tossed around in so many new theoretical directions its becoming more confusing than helpful to convince the populace something is funky with the OS.

The movement really is making backward progress, as forward progress would be the unanimous agreement that at the very least the OS is a cover and the truth is being suppressed. This is not the case though, its almost as if the multitude of differing alternative conspiracy theories are driving people to just accept the OS because its simply easier is every aspect.

The OS works because anything other than the OS would imply a revolution by morning and Americans like to sleep in.

edit on 18-9-2010 by Sly1one because: sentence construction

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:39 PM

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
Has anyone ever done an analysis on the plane nose entering the building and leaving the building.

Oh come on, you can't possibly be serious. Did you even read this whole thread? The nose-out disinformation is debunked in this very thread right here:

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:44 PM
This is lunacy - it is the same as arguing that they built planes on those floors in the 1970s, had the elevators skip those floors for 30 years and then had the explosions on those floors send the nose of the plane out the side of the building to make it appear as though a plane had hit it - because 'clearly planes hitting building is impossible'.

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:49 PM
reply to post by PookztA

So are you saying all the eyewitnesses were hallucinating? What world do you live in? Are you insane? Please feel free to answer none of these questions, because I am pretty sure I know the answer.

edit on 18-9-2010 by rand27 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:59 PM

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
Has anyone ever done an analysis on the plane nose entering the building and leaving the building.

Oh come on, you can't possibly be serious. Did you even read this whole thread? The nose-out disinformation is debunked in this very thread right here:

Actually that debunking link is rather naive in pretending to know that if it was a CGI plane the nose-out would and should look exactly the same without any distortion. If you watched the videos explaining how to do the layering needed, you can see the layer masks are drawn mostly by freehand or in a rough outline type of manner. If the editor was masking a layer for the plane to "reappear" back into the image as if the plane flew through the building movie style. I'm not saying the CGI nose out thing holds water as much as I am saying the rebuttal of it in your link is pretty flimsy.

However what I do find increasingly funny from the link you posted is that it is quite apparent and obvious in the images used in that debunking that "something" came through and out the other side, you can see it, and the arrows even point it out to you. However you give no alternative information,theory,evidence of exactly what the hell it is if it isn't the nose of the plane...

Anyway the debunking then goes on do draw lines and arrows again which can easily be done by anyone, I can just as easily take the picture you used and do this:

except this one doesn't work too well with the "debunking"

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 11:02 PM
reply to post by _BoneZ_

With all due respect, How can you say the DEW theory has been debunked?

DEW is classified technology, people who work on those projects will not identify themselves and come forward with the only authority to debunk this theory.

The thought that 'exotic weapons' may have been used, obviously represents the most 'far fetched' theory of all, however, when many have stopped laughing about such a theory, maybe they will sit back and acknowledge that IF the Twin Towers were brought down by TPTB, then they would have planned this atleast a decade before hand and considered anything at their disposal, including 'exotic weapons'.

Also, with the whole controlled demolition theory, that would involve explaining how the hell so many charges were put in place on at least 80 floors of the twin towers, unless we look at some thermate compound being mixed in with pait when decorating, but you get the point.

The CD theory fits, however explaining how it occured, is very difficult. The use of an 'exotic weapon' or DEW is far more deniable, it's invisible!!

Any clandestine operation considers 'plausible deniability' as being a priority in making the operation viable, if this was an operation then it took years to plan, involved premier intelligence / military resources and a black project blank cheque.

Why the hell not use 'exotic weapons' ?

It makes perfect sense to me, just doesn't make sense to many as it is something they know little about and therefore cannot stamp their authority and 'facts' on.

They just 'lol' it up....

You know who else is 'loling' ? The ones responsible.

Is it not strange that we went from CD to other explanations and then back to CD?

CD being the first theory that just burst on the scene almost out of nowhere...

When a 'movement' has nothing near 'all the facts' it is stupid to dismiss any theory.

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

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 11:08 PM
In flying, there's something called a "Never Exceed Speed" or Vne where you exceed the aerodynamic capabilities of the wings. This is the speed in the air, not relative to the ground, like determined by one of those wind speed instruments.

from the boeing 747 to the 777, the Vne is approximately 910 km/h = 565.447785 mph at cruising altitude 30k-40k ft. At this altitude, the atmospheric pressure is roughly 0.25 atm or 1/4 of the pressure being considered in the 9/11 case.

I highly doubt that it's possible for a plane to fly that accurately at that speed. In fact, I don't think a plane can even go that fast even if it wanted to due to physical limitations.

I believe the question here is, did some one pull the 550mph out of their ass or do we really not know the real speed of the planes?

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 11:09 PM
reply to post by Skellon

the explosives could have been strung together like,
and timed like christmas tree lights, and lowered
down the inside of the hollow central core columns.

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 11:13 PM
reply to post by spikey

Wow for a moment you had me convinced I was an agent of tptb
What you have said is so very true thou. No words on any boards can be taken for truth unless one were to step outside of their bubble of anonymity and I for one am not
However the events of 9/11 changed my life forever and what I saw will forever be imprinted in my mind!


new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in