Ace Baker proves No Planes at WTC., page 3


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 22-5-2012 @ 12:45 PM by waveydavey
reply to post by tothetenthpower


Ok.
Whatever the outcome of the 9/11 story happens to be, I hope one day become public knowledge.
I'm not saying that I support the 'no planes' theory at all, truth is I don't know enough on the subject to comment. I can however comment on the treatment of this thread as it affects all members.

You are correct in your assessment that Nibiru is not relevant to this thread, very astute. It is relevant in so much as it is given an outlet on this site whilst other subjects such as the OP which you have to agree has much more tangibility than Nibiru are tossed aside.

To quote you:
"People state they saw "no Planes", yet can't prove. When peopel say, I saw Nibiru, we can actually scientifically explain to them why that's impossible. It's not a HOAX!, it's just bad science. "

Who are you to call someone a liar or hoaxer just because they did not see the plane? They may simply have not seen the plane! It doesn't make them a liar or a hoaxer and it certainly does not make them wrong in their statement. There are plenty of people who claim to have seen demo charges going off before the collapse, there will be an equal amount of people who did not.

Following YOUR logic then.

When people state that they saw a UFO yet can't prove it, are they hoaxers? How many threads are shot down with the line "pics or it didn't happen"?
That statement pops up time and time again but the threads are not deleted and discussion still continues.

Again your words:
"No planes, is a HOAX, it's perpetuated with the sole goal of making people who believe that 9/11 did not happen as stated by the OS to look very crazy and delusional. "

Does this mean that every theory around 9/11 that is not in line with the OS needs to be put into the hoax bin? How many threads on here claim that the US government ordered 9/11 or turned a blind eye or used demo charges?? All speculation yet it is given a voice and therefore an element of credibility on these very pages!

I dont think that it is healthy for a site such as ATS to give voice to one subject matter and not to another, it is a form of censorship. And before anybody chimes in and says that topics in hoax can still be discussed, who actually really visits them? The threads are literally condemned the minute that they hit that forum.

Dave


reply posted on 22-5-2012 @ 12:53 PM by Crakeur
reply to post by waveydavey


look at it this way. thousands of people were standing on the street that day, looking up. thousands more were standing at their windows and on terraces watching. there were even more standing on the other side of the river, watching from Jersey.

When the second plane hit and everyone went "holy crap" or "was that another plane" or whatever, there wasn't one voice saying "you all are crazy, nothing happened, there was no plane"


reply posted on 22-5-2012 @ 01:18 PM by waveydavey
reply to post by Crakeur


?????

I think your missing the point of what I'm getting at.

A thread has been binned based on what you have just said basically, because its 9/11? Who knows. What I'm saying is that it is unfair and it is censorship to apply that logic and screening to that subject when all of the other non-sense topics get a fair crack of the whip!

Be honest, there will be threads on here that you have literally laughed out loud about yet they still reside in the forum that they had been published in.

If I was a mod who was an atheist would it be right for me to move all Jesus threads into the hoax bin?

That is all I'm trying to say.


reply posted on 22-5-2012 @ 01:26 PM by Crakeur
reply to post by waveydavey


I thought we were talking about this thread and the move to the hoax section.

I didn't realize we were talking about a trashed thread.


reply posted on 22-5-2012 @ 01:55 PM by waveydavey
reply to post by Crakeur


You know what I'm talking about, I used the term binned to refer to being moved to hoax, which may aswell be a thread deletion.


reply posted on 22-5-2012 @ 02:16 PM by Crakeur
reply to post by waveydavey


this thread is in a forum that allows the topic to be discussed. It's not trashed and, if you look around, you'll see many threads live long lives here. probably longer than if they were in another section.


reply posted on 22-5-2012 @ 02:49 PM by Soylent Green Is People
Originally posted by waveydavey
reply to post by Crakeur


Ughhhh

Your missing the point completely.

I think Crakeur's and SO's point is this:

These "investigators" seem to insist on using low-res videos (sometimes it seems intentionally in order to obfuscate) in an attempt to prove their contentions, and they often omit vital parts of those videos that go against their contentions. As SO stated, until these "investigators" use better quality video (which are available) and show more of the video, rather than just the parts that support their contentions, then, as a rule-of-thumb, these low-quality no-plane video investigations will be put in the Hoax bin.

They can still be discussed and rediscussed in the Hoax Bin.

edit on 5/22/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)




reply posted on 22-5-2012 @ 03:24 PM by Crakeur
reply to post by H1ght3chHippie


actually, two admins who saw it.

I will say this, the no plane guys are persistent. I had one member, a while back, question my ability to recognize a plane in the sky.

the concept of eye witnesses, not tv but live, is where this "theory" dies and the folks pushing the theory need only to come to NYC and ask around, they'll find plenty of us. of course, they'd also then find, at the very least, one truth and that one truth would destroy the nonsense they've been peddling so they don't bother with it.

the no plane theory is, as I said, nothing more than a ruse meant to destroy the entire 9/11 research and investigation population by making them all look crazy.


reply posted on 22-5-2012 @ 03:35 PM by H1ght3chHippie
reply to post by Crakeur


I appreciate you coming forward and sharing your story. Maybe you did before but I read the first time about it.

Frankly, I found said theory always quite ridiculous, but I have to admit that the video in the OP was well made and did raise some interesting questions. The most interesting being the claim that the only live aired videos all had a couple black frames at the same mark.

My video editing skills consist of converting my camcorder videos to MP4 lol, but maybe someone else who is a bit more knowledgeable can shed some light upon this issue ?


reply posted on 22-5-2012 @ 03:55 PM by SimontheMagus
The video was straightforward and indisputable up until the end. I'm not understanding exactly why they deemed it impossible for missiles to be cloaked inside the holograms of airplanes. I have personally witnessed a hologram demonstration and the objects generated by a little projector thing inside a guy's sleeve looked as real as anything else in the room. If the cameras deliberately zoomed in to hide that there was no plane, they could just as easily done so to hide a missile/hologram.

Another problem is that they could have made a better hologram instead of one that looked like a military plane with no windows and a missile pod under the right side of the fuselage that appeared to fire into the tower just before the nose impact. It's very confusing when there are eyewitnesses who say they saw a plane and others who are adamant that they saw no plane. I can only go with who has a better reason to lie or to be deluded by the subconscious mind that won't allow them to accept something they can't mentally face up to.

I don't think it's insignificant, to say the least, that the according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Flight 11 never got off the ground in Boston. Someone needs to explain this... and please don't tell me that they took the day off too or were so traumatized that they forgot to post it.... they seem to have gotten the other flights' information on there with no problem....

Here is the website....

www.bts.gov...

Here is the actual chart.....

letsrollforums.com...


reply posted on 22-5-2012 @ 04:05 PM by 4hero
Originally posted by Djarums
I'm not going to comment on this topic itself for personal reasons.

I recused myself from any "moderating" actions regarding this topic long ago because of the fact that I live in downtown Manhattan and personally eyewitnessed the second plane smashing into the tower. So, in light of that, I have always refused to take any staff action on these threads.

I have to say though, to state that 70 staff members from around the world and from all walks of life subscribe to any one particular theory is laughable. To state that labeling the "no planes" theory as a hoax means that ATS has somehow gotten behind one theory is laughable. There is more to 9/11 investigation than "no planes."

On a separate note, regarding this member being banned and the demands for an explanation from staff, I find it somewhat peculiar because anyone who follows the 9/11 forum closely would know exactly who this member is. They would also know that this person has already been through somewhere between 12-20 accounts on here, has deliberately hoaxed our membership before, and has threatened and harassed many members of our volunteer moderating team. Such a person is not welcome on ATS and I will apologize in advance if that upsets anyone.



I don't think anyone has claimed that 70 mods from around the world subscribe to the same theory, just that some mods/admin are OS'ers, not all.

It seems that a lot of mods and some admin apparently saw the second 'plane' and all their extended family also saw it, this I find a bit strange. What colour/size was the plane you say you saw?

There's a video of a fireman saying black plane, there's eyewitnesses that say they saw no plane, some say they saw what looked like a military plane, some say a small plane, some say a big plane, but I don't recall anyone confirming it was an AA plane.

There are eye witnesses that say they heard what sounded like a missile noise, so with all these mixed reports, and no reports of it being an AA plane, who are we to actually believe? Someone isn't telling the truth, and this is hat we are trying to fathom.

As we already know, it seems that a missile hit the pentagon, and it's plausible that a missile disguised as a plane could have been used on the towers, so the no actual planes theory could very well be true, especially as this video and september clues present very good arguments.


reply posted on 22-5-2012 @ 04:12 PM by 4hero
Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


I'll believe djarums, myself, my father, mother, the folks across the office hall, my uncle, my friends etc who all saw, with their own eyes, the second plane hit over the video put out by the groups behind these coordinate attempts to destroy the entire research pool.



What colour and size plane did you all see? Any other family members you forgot to mention?
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



Curiosity rover has photographed a new UFO
  Posted 13 days ago with 10 member flags
Criticism of Israel now a crime in California.
  Posted 2 days ago with 9 member flags
The power of greed can make you misspell even your own name...
  Posted 11 days ago with 7 member flags
Research into the Prophecies & Predictions of Billy Meier
  Posted 10 days ago with 5 member flags
Sky Portal Appears Over Arctic Facility
  Posted 4 days ago with 5 member flags
Strange Wormhole Portal Appears Over Arctic Facility?
  Posted 4 days ago with 2 member flags
The nuclear attack on the moon-did it REALLY happen?
  Posted 3 days ago with 2 member flags

ATS Live North America is broadcasting in 51 minutes.
Today's Show: ATS Live:161:Trees,Ghosts,Phantom 'Copters,Pshop,Teaching,Jail,Violence,MajorTom,Animals,