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.

 

Hotel CCTV Video of 9/11 Pentagon Explosion... And NO Plane!

page: 14
90
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by WoodSpirit
 


If all the plane footage is fake then what conclusions have you reached?

Are you one of those that believes in the hologram theory? I am not making fun of you, I just think it is really far fetched and there is no credible evidence for that.

The demolitions theory by itself does not mean anything unless combined with something else.




posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


The conclusion is off course that there were no planes, that the media was in on it, and that the 911 truth movement has failed and actually gone out its way to avoid this subject.

No, no holograms, just bombs in the buildings and no projectiles at all, at the WTC.

There's also witnesses saying it just exploded.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by WoodSpirit
 


You don't make any sense at all! Everyone saw planes hitting the buidings! Either they were commercial planes, cargo/military planes or holograms. And I already stated what is more likely.

Unfortunately people like you are keeping the truth movement behind. It is absolutely obvious to everyone!



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Who is everyone? How many documented cases can you find?

A few pages back I gave an example of how people lie about witnessing a plane hit the WTC, right here on ATS.

And why would they fake the footage, if the planes were real?




Unfortunately people like you are keeping the truth movement behind. It is absolutely obvious to everyone!


Ah, the ten year old excuse.

I don't know how to put it any clearer.....the footage is fake, undeniably, you can choose to ignore this because it doesn't make sense in your preconceived picture, but it is the only thing about 911 that can, and has been proven directly.

I am keeping the truth moment behind, lol. you're right, I am way ahead of them.




edit on 27-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by WoodSpirit
 



So are you seriously proposing that nothing even hit the world trade centre it was just blown up and then the media created the images of the planes using CGI to trick the entire world into believing that the buildings collapsed as a result of the impact of planes hitting them?



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by WoodSpirit
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


You've spent 10 years wasting your time on the exact stuff they want you to research.

All the plane footage is faked. A proven fact, all the footage is faked, and cannot be real.

If you have looked at the footage for ten years and still don't see the blatant mistakes, glitches and inconsistenties, then what can I say.

The plane footage is fake and from there a lot more conclusions can be made.
edit on 27-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)


And this is exactly why the no plane theory is complete bunk. If there were only bombs in the buildings, then why even bother with the added steps of creating video footage of planes? Answer: they wouldn't! They would have just said terrorists bombed the buildings. All of the added, intricate steps are completely unnecessary under the no plane theory.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by WoodSpirit

And why would they fake the footage, if the planes were real?


Because if people knew they were cargo/military planes hitting the twin towers in nyc, and a missile fired from some drone hitting the pentagon, OBVIOUSLY it would prove 911 was an inside job and their holy crusades in the middle east WOULD STOP!

It also means people would be prosecuted for genocide and treachery. That means death penalty for high ranking government employees.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by WoodSpirit
 



So are you seriously proposing that nothing even hit the world trade centre it was just blown up and then the media created the images of the planes using CGI to trick the entire world into believing that the buildings collapsed as a result of the impact of planes hitting them?


Apparently so. Can you imagine any scenario where such a ridiculously complex plan would be put into place for no reason? I can't.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07



Unfortunately people like you are keeping the truth movement behind. It is absolutely obvious to everyone!


Nonesense. It is the lack of evidence in general that is keeping the truth movement behind. Just because someone is believing an even more far fetched story than you do does not mean it is any more harmful to your cause. Your error isn't that much different:



You don't make any sense at all! Everyone saw planes hitting the buidings! Either they were commercial planes, cargo/military planes or holograms. And I already stated what is more likely.


Everyone saw a plane hitting the pentagon. Why is this argument valid for the towers but not for the pentagon?



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 





And this is exactly why the no plane theory is complete bunk. If there were only bombs in the buildings, then why even bother with the added steps of creating video footage of planes? Answer: they wouldn't! They would have just said terrorists bombed the buildings. All of the added, intricate steps are completely unnecessary under the no plane theory.


Great thinking!

You think they could sell the story that a team of Jihadi demolition experts had been planting explosives to take down the building, or just a bombing on the upper floors? Then how would they explain the collapse, no one would've bought that.

But the planes were so epic that everybody had to believe it and it was epic enough to go to war. How would they do a Pentagon attack without planes?

Again, it doesn't even matter, the footage is fake, that is a simple and undeniable fact.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by WoodSpirit
 




Again, it doesn't even matter, the footage is fake, that is a simple and undeniable fact.

Please elaborate on that statement and show us some irrefutable proof that the all the footage of the planes was faked.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I have never heard anyone from Boeing say they couldn't identify what they were, except on one page where someone claimed to have asked, and were told that. That page was subsequently picked up by just about every other page and quoted as gospel.

Let's find out for ourselves. I'm on the Boeing page right now. I will email them and ask them myself, and will quote the exact email that I get in response back from them.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 





Because if people knew they were cargo/military planes hitting the twin towers in nyc, and a missile fired from some drone hitting the pentagon, OBVIOUSLY it would prove 911 was an inside job and their holy crusades in the middle east WOULD STOP!


OK, so now we are fighting about why they faked the footage, that is dumb.

So you believe they faked the footage, then what does it matter why they faked it?

Is the fact that it was faked not enough for you to recognise the importance of what I am saying?

Is the case of the tv fakery not the smoking gun of an inside job, that should get full attention?

It can and has been proven, it is the only direct proof there is, that is why it is shunned.

Wake up.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by WoodSpirit
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 





And this is exactly why the no plane theory is complete bunk. If there were only bombs in the buildings, then why even bother with the added steps of creating video footage of planes? Answer: they wouldn't! They would have just said terrorists bombed the buildings. All of the added, intricate steps are completely unnecessary under the no plane theory.


Great thinking!

You think they could sell the story that a team of Jihadi demolition experts had been planting explosives to take down the building, or just a bombing on the upper floors? Then how would they explain the collapse, no one would've bought that.

But the planes were so epic that everybody had to believe it and it was epic enough to go to war. How would they do a Pentagon attack without planes?

Again, it doesn't even matter, the footage is fake, that is a simple and undeniable fact.


If I told you many(or all) tall buildings are wired with explosives built-in to the structure would you believe me?

How do you think they pulled down WTC 7 so quickly after WTC1 and WTC2 were hit? Larry Silverstein said "pull it". There was not enough structural damage to bring down any building, but from an economic standpoint it was probably not worth saving either.

Explosives bringing down buildings is one thing, and what initially caused the explosions is another thing. Why do you confuse the two??



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


You can start by watching this vid, which I posted three times now.




All the live footage and the vids that showed up that day and the day after are proven fake, in this vid.

That is all the proof of an inside job you need.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by WoodSpirit
 


I am not going to spend almost a hour of my evening in with my beautiful girlfriend watching that video. I want you to simply explain why you believe the footage is faked, just summarise the video for me.

Can you also please tell me how my aunt and uncle who were in New York visiting that day actually saw one of the planes hit the tower, they have told the story about how they saw a plane hitting the tower, that is to say they have told me it was a plane that hit one of the towers and they saw this with their very own eyes.

For the record they have never been agents of the CIA or NWO nor are they reptilians

edit on 27-11-2012 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by WoodSpirit
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 





And this is exactly why the no plane theory is complete bunk. If there were only bombs in the buildings, then why even bother with the added steps of creating video footage of planes? Answer: they wouldn't! They would have just said terrorists bombed the buildings. All of the added, intricate steps are completely unnecessary under the no plane theory.


Great thinking!

You think they could sell the story that a team of Jihadi demolition experts had been planting explosives to take down the building, or just a bombing on the upper floors? Then how would they explain the collapse, no one would've bought that.

But the planes were so epic that everybody had to believe it and it was epic enough to go to war. How would they do a Pentagon attack without planes?

Again, it doesn't even matter, the footage is fake, that is a simple and undeniable fact.


If I told you many(or all) tall buildings are wired with explosives built-in to the structure would you believe me?

How do you think they pulled down WTC 7 so quickly after WTC1 and WTC2 were hit? Larry Silverstein said "pull it". There was not enough structural damage to bring down any building, but from an economic standpoint it was probably not worth saving either.

Explosives bringing down buildings is one thing, and what initially caused the explosions is another thing. Why do you confuse the two??


Please follow the rules of a logic debate and keep things in context.

The guy was asking why they didn't choose for a normal bombing, I explained that they couldn't sell that story for obvious reasons.

The fact that buildings might be prewired is not disputed by me, nor is it relevant in relation to my comment.

Don't waste my time with illogical, irrelevant remarks that are way out of context.




edit on 27-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Your anecdotes mean jack.

If your not willing to invest some time then that is your problem.

Send my regards to your girlfriend.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wide-Eyes
reply to post by mee30
 


The Pentagon is behind the overpass. That's why you don't see what causes the explosion. I'm not saying a plane hit the Pentagon, I'm just explaining why this video isn't evidence of anything other than an explosion at the Pentagon.


Why would you have a hard time saying that a plane hit the pentagon? A plane hit the pentagon. Two planes hit the twin towers and one plane destined for somewhere in Washington DC was put down hard in a field in Pennsylvania by very brave American citizens. Gee wonder what your feelings would be if you lost a loved one on Sept 11th 2001 ? Any of you who say that we did this to ourselves, how dare you tarnish the memories of those who died that day ! Stop with the stinking lies. Dont like this country try living in another one !



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


Enlarge the vid to full screen and you do see the plane.
Oh well another EPIC FAIL.




top topics



 
90
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join