Ultimate 911 No Planer PROOF Page - Help Debunk

reply to post by Robin Goodfellow


As for the birds I see no issue really. I would venture to guess that the "compression" on the first one created that "mirror" .

One has to look at how some of these were compressed and with what process etc.

The first video shows birds flying by. I am not sure of the difficulty there? Is it because it looks fast? Countless videos (misidentifications of ufos) have been shown to be birds and the speed is due to their distance to the camera. Similar thing happens in Hockey Games that have the players skate closer to the lense, they look like they are "zipping" by.


EDIT --speaking of hockey games, when one watches the game from different angles and so forth, you could almost swear there are differences and rink dimensions. Its all illusions and camera anamolies that happen even in live sporting events.

[edit on 23-10-2009 by talisman]

Originally posted by talismanSo what your saying is that they only had the need with New York?

According to NPT, yes. The govt needed to produce fake video as it happened and right afterward to sell the story that planes were responsible for collapsing the towers.

So the "leaked" footage that came out wasn't them?

I would think a very good motive for them "Faking it" would be to have a consistent narrative and to finally silence the "missile" theories on the net concerning the Pentagon.

But this was only after the Pentagon conspiracy theories started coming out. If the conspiracy theories didn't start coming out, I doubt they would have put out any fake Pentagon footage.

reply to post by ATH911

According to NPT, yes. The govt needed to produce fake video as it happened and right afterward to sell the story that planes were responsible for collapsing the towers.

There are the problems with that. They can't control or know how many people would be filming that day or taking pictures. All it would take is ONE REALLY GOOD VIDEO FROM THE RIGHT ANGLE TO BLOW THEIR PLAN.

Its an impossible plan. Right over New York in Broad daylight when everyone's attention would be toward the Towers after the First Plane Strike.

Moreover, they wouldn't need "fake" planes to sell a story that could easily be "debunked" with the correct footage.

Also, it is ludicrous to assume that the many New Yorkers who would be watching would remain silent after seeing something contradict what they saw on the News.

Yet on the talk radio programs that night, you are not going to hear caller after caller proclaiming that there were NO PLANES.

This is NEW YORK CITY. It is not a gullible place.

But this was only after the Pentagon conspiracy theories started coming out. If the conspiracy theories didn't start coming out, I doubt they would have put out any fake Pentagon footage.

But why not? Why aren't they selling the same story and poison? Why coudn't the produce a much better "FAKE" if that's what they were good at that day?


Do you not see that this type of Operation *can't* work. It is impossible. AFter the North Tower was struck, people from all walks of life were watching.

This includes many of the 600 thousand Muslims in New York. Do you not think they would have said something?

The plan just can't work. They can't control all the media on the day. They can't control that many people over that amount of space.

People have their free will to take pictures or film. There were so many vantage points. There are the nearby officies etc. There is just too many places to have filmed this.

So far the proof that they have come up with has been debunked. Just follow Occam's Razor and go with what is simple.

Watch Ace Baker struggle in his debate. He is clueless about things and he isn't a "crash" expert. The guy is a musician.

Here is MORE.

People, talking on that day about seeing the PLANE FLY. Common folks, talking about what happened.

Now I know our resident NO PLANER will cry "ACTORS" or whatever else he will come up with. Perhaps they are also "CGI?".

But ask yourselves this question.

How would the miltary stop people from talking about "WHAT THEY SAW?"

I would imagine that is all what people would be talking about!!



[edit on 23-10-2009 by talisman]

"Watch this Debate. It will explain the "BLACKED OUT" feed. In fact, it explains most of this nonsense."

What are you talking about?

Nowhere in this video did they even mention the black-out! They appeared to be arguing with a no-planer.
Did you miss the point where I said I was not a no-planer. That I do not support that theory. That I believe YES, THERE WERE REAL PLANES CRASHING INTO THE TOWERS.
Please point out one thing in this video that is relevant in any way to what I said.

So you have not touched on the black-out and you have chosen to not mention the attack jets. So all you are actually saying is that you do not believe the film of the flock of birds has been sped up.
That's it?
I have no problem with that. You are entitled to your opinion. I have provided the link so each person reading this thread can examine it themselves and decide if it is an illusion.
(speaking of which, those who do view it, note he says he has slowed it down to 1/4 speed to make them look natural which means if it is an optical illusion it is one that has increased their speed four fold. A fairly drastic illusion)
My problem though is you failed to address my question. Is there a flaw in my logic that invalidates my theory?
For example: Does someone know where the Pax-TV film is archived so I may check to verify that the broadcast in the video were not doctored? Can someone find a logical flaw such as 'the such and such in the lower left demonstrates that the film has not been sped up' or 'here is a source for the original Fox-5 broadcast and it does not show a blackout'.
While you are entitled to your opinion the fact that you believe the birds appear to be moving 4x normal speed due to an 'optical illusion' is not, to me personally, very convincing. I also must admit that I find your objectivity to be slightly questionable. You seem more interested in proving a point rather than discovering the truth.
I think I will wait for input from a different source.

Originally posted by nwodeath
How many people film a building that is burning? What is there to capture? NOTHING!

Originally posted by nwodeath
That's what i'm referring to, exactly. See, I know people CAN think for themelves.

Should probably have typed ISN'T instead of IS, then, champ.

You know... How many people film a building that ISN'T burning? What is there to capture? Probably not much if it ISN'T burning...

Before you comment on the thinking abilities of others, probably check what you're actually saying first... just an idea...

Rew

[edit on 23-10-2009 by Rewey]

reply to post by Robin Goodfellow


Yes me bad and sorry about thatl. The debate is in 2 parts: (first is part 1)

Google Video Link

second is part 2

Google Video Link

They will go over the "BLACK OUT" Its in part 2


As for your birds I am not sure what you want me to say? I have seen good quality shots of this (not youtube) and those are birds not fighter jets and during compression depending on how, you can get mirrored effects etc.

If you think they are fighter jets, perhaps get a very high quality shot.






[edit on 23-10-2009 by talisman]

Originally posted by jprophet420

Dude, let me break it to you easy. I watched the news live on 911. There was no cgi.

except the evidence you nor anyone else can disprove and refute PROVES otherwise.

Originally posted by jprophet420
theres no cgi on the news archives on the top of the page. So if theres any cgi done its post 911. September clues videos are edited.

so you claim without any PROOF whatsoever not to mention the evidence and facts prove otherwise.

oh well.

deal with it

Originally posted by trebor451
Take his comment:

Also, aluminum, does not penetrate steel. No matter what anyone says to mislead you. It's a lie. Steel would deflect aluminum upon impact no matter how fast the plane is traveling...Aluminum will not and cannot penetrate steel like it was shown to on the videos, and the government and 911 truthers claim. The law of the universe cannot be bent to suite this one occasion in history...

What did the plane have to penetrate? Well, first off, glass. A bunch of it. What was holding that glass?

you falsely give the impression the wtc was mostly made of and secured by GLASS. LOL

nice try.

Originally posted by jprophet420
A bunch of steel spandrels that were linked together to form the outer support structure of the building. How big or thick were these spandrels? Approximately 3/8” with a box depth of approximately 1’ 2” - forming a 14” square box. These outer wall spandrels were connected together with 4 bolts and welding. (both this data comes from FEMA’s WTC Steel Data Collection, page D-5).

which proves nothing and doesn't explain the absence of acceleration argument, the fakery evidence and anomalies nor what the WTC designer stated.

Originally posted by trebor451
What was slamming into those 14" square boxes and windows? A Boeing 767 weighing in at over 100 tons traveling at around 750 feet per second.
Anyone who says that a 14" square box-beam support structure with a 36" wide strengthened-glass window will stop - no, will deflect - a 100 ton body moving at 750 feet per second is without a brain.

trebor would have people believe the engineer/architect of the WTC is a liar and didn't contradict what trebor claims.

Originally posted by trebor451
The aforementioned facts render *anything* else in that webpage null and void...and debunked.

except the facts and evidence prove otherwise

oh well.

[edit on 23-10-2009 by Orion7911]

Here's one for the disinfo clowns....If you have an answer for this, i'll be amazed.....I think this may be the straw that breaks the camels back.

There are like 43 different videos of the plane strikes that hit the twin towers.
How come not one single one...NOT ONE, is obstructed and fails to actually show the airplane hit???

It's like every video was aimed at the tower for one reason...
to catch something about to happen!!!

I would certainly think that out of 43 different videos that survived, at least one would have been shot from the ground near the building instead of from so far away, where all details are blurred, and that at least one would have been so close as to have been obscured by huge high rise buildings to have been seen as it approaches, but no, not a single one. That in itself is HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS!

Why is there not a single video that shows the tower burning from the first strike, but is completely obscured for the second strike?

This, I contend leads more credence to the theory that ALL THE VIDEOS ARE FAKED!!!

Like I said.

[edit on 23-10-2009 by nwodeath]

Originally posted by Rewey
Originally posted by Lichter daraus
one question. What is the white dot on the building just in front of the airplane?

Holy mother of... How many times do we have to go over this??? Do you not know how to use a simple search function on ATS??? This has been covered over and over and over again...

........yes it has, and the evidence supporting the lazer/infared debate has NEVER been conclusively disproven.

Originally posted by Rewey
It's a piece of paper.

nothing more than your OPINION rewey... visual evidence exists that cannot be conclusively ruled out.. and imo, the evidence for lazer painting is stronger than the argument against.

show me a thread or post and argument that conclusively proves what you claim and hasn't been answered logically with a counter-argument.

Originally posted by Rewey
If you find the FULL length video, the camera operator keeps on it long enough that it all comes down and lands around them. They even grab some out of the air.

would love to see that video and argument showing what you're asserting... thanks.

not to say it doesn't, but i've seen one similar to what you're claiming and imo it didn't show what you're saying.

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by jprophet420
I already have refuted it. I said that I watched it live and there was no cgi then.

That's pretty funny.

actually, its absolutely hilarious... are these debunkers for real?

and people wonder why the NRPT keeps growing and has NEVER been disproven.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by nwodeath

 

No plane impact reaction on the face of the building......besides the aluminum penetrating steel, which is impossible.

So how do you explain this?

USS Hinsdale APA 120



USS Sterett DD 407



Empire State Building after B25 impact July 1945

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Seems back in WWII - 60 years before Sept 11 aluminium airplanes could
penetrate side of steel ships and masonry buildings

the sad thing is you're probably quite serious.

yet another example of the type of absurd twisted logic and irrelevant arguments that Nrp theorists are up against.

If this is all the debunkers got, i have no doubt nprt will continue to grow beyond expectations.

Originally posted by Smack
Even if the video is fake, what about eye witnesses? There were thousands of people in Manhattan that day watching those towers.

what about them? and so what? whats your point?

doesn't mean they ALL saw what you're implying.

In fact MOST can't agree on what they saw if anything at all.

And when the testimony of those who claim to have seen planes are scrutinzed, most if not all of their testimony ends up being worthless as being irrefutable evidence of what they originally claimed.

Originally posted by LightWonder
CGI planes is a far out conspiracy,

If that were true, you and the rest who make that Claim could easily show exactly how and where its true or the evidence presented in such docs like sept clues is all conclusively wrong... to this day, no one has offered such proof.

Why? because the visual evidence of fakery is irrefutable.

Originally posted by LightWonder
just CGI planes, and false-tapes are toooooo far out there for LOGIC, TPTB wouldn't make a mistake like that when they could fly the real planes into the buildings.

except no ones ever been able to refute the evidence of fakery and they DID make mistakes OVER AND OVER... the evidence of these mistakes are overwhelming and obvious... but the perps didn't count on the video evidence being scrutinized/analyzed frame by frame.

THEY'RE BUSTED.

just like their mistakes in the CD's of the towers... the demolition squibs are beyond clear.

just like their mistake in pulling WTC7... that'll go down as perhaps their biggest mistake and clearest proof 9/11 was an inside job.

Originally posted by Nola213
I really, really looked hard into this theory for a while.

But all of it can be explained by different cameras, different POVS, equalling different shadows and different colored planes as well as "it appearing" to look like different trajectories

Disappearing wings is a result of poor video, I mean we see that type of stuff on you-tube all the time.
But these people have no concept of perspective, or parallax (I believe that's what it's called, ie the moving bridge).

[edit on 20-10-2009 by Nola213]

No it ALL HASN'T been explained... each of those "arguments" have been addressed and countered with contradicting evidence repeatedly.

funny, i've been posting and contributing to these threads for quite some time and I've never seen any posts or evidence from you or anyone supporting what you're claiming.

If there is, it should be very easy for you to post a link to an argument or post or thread that proves what you claim.

So feel free to support your claim with an example that shows exactly how what you claim is true. I know you won't since what you're claiming is nothing more than your OPINION and no such conclusively evidence or debunking exists.

so good luck with that buddy.



[edit on 23-10-2009 by Orion7911]

It's starting to sound like an echo chamber in here. Do you wonder why? I'll tell you. Nobody cares to debate this absurdity with you any longer. It is as it should be.

Originally posted by talisman
You don't know its fake, because you don't know what its supposed to

The point is that the Military could or would never take a chance that someone WOULD HAVE FILMED IT FROM SUCH AN ANGLE SHOWING THEIR SUPPOSED DECEPTION.

nothing but an Assumption and baseless assertion based on nothing more than your OPINION and conjecture.

proves or disproves NOTHING.

Originally posted by talisman
The point that with All of the Camera's that day, the Military can't control all the footage because random people throughout the city would be filming the event.
.

then WHERES ALL THIS RANDOM FOOTAGE?

why are all these so-called amateurs with the footage linked to the MEDIA and government or video professionals?

show me JUST ONE VIDEO with conclusive PROOF of a REAL PLANE.

and why are there so many videos showing evidence of EDITING and tampering and most every time during the MONEY SHOT?

Originally posted by talisman
*IF* as you say, ALL THE VIDEO IS FAKE. Then explain this.........

Why didn't they "FAKE" video of the Pentagon Strike?

[edit on 22-10-2009 by talisman]

they DID...

but then the video of the pentagon strike ISN'T a "video" in the way you imply.

but since you're spreading disinfo, you know that.

comparing apples and oranges doesn't help your case.

[edit on 23-10-2009 by Orion7911]

Originally posted by talisman
Here is some more amateur footage that are resident No PLaner No Doubt will call fake without explaining why or even really looking into it. But for all you fence sitting people, take a look at another piece of footage.

Ask yourself this very important question.

Why would anyone plan such a thing when anyone could from so many different angles prove there wasn't a plane! Would you plan an operation like that? Think about that.

How would the MILITARY know they could control ALL AMATEUR FOOTAGE?

The answer is they couldn't of course, hence this plan is not possible. The plan that there was NO PLANES is an impossibility over such a huge populace of people.

[edit on 22-10-2009 by talisman]

september clues and many others have explained and destroyed that argument a while ago.