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.

 

An Analysis Of The Aircraft Which Hit The WTC Towers

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Hasn't this theory been shot down in flames before?? Why put a missile onto a plane that's about to crash into something like that? Based on a few frames of wobbly footage it's even possible to proove that Bigfoot was hanging from the undercarriage waving a big sign saying: "We have Elvis's brain on Planet Zort. Surrender now!"
But seriously, this is a nonsensical theory. The earlier posts are right - why would set off a small explosion that would be covered up by the massive one that happened at the same time?




posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 09:21 AM
link   
These pods don't have to be explosives do they?

I can't say i believe that they were actualy there because their is just too much to show they were not their.

As for the flashes, i dont think they are anything other than static discharge. I think we all know what its like to get a shock from static after getting out of the car. The car going through the air charges the body with static. The exact same thing happens with a plane but to a much higher degree. As the planes approached the buildings the static jumped to the buildings like a bolt of lightning thus creating the flash.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 10:03 AM
link   
i like the way 'conspiracy theroists' post links and pics and reference material and 'govt believers' rehash whats been told to them, with authority and finality.

for those who don't read links...about half way down the page is an excellent comparison pics...of what u ask...look for yourself.........

these topics should be beat to death, should be brought up too often...it is that important



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by clearmind
i like the way 'conspiracy theroists' post links and pics and reference material and 'govt believers' rehash whats been told to them, with authority and finality.


Excuse me, but what are you smoking?

I have not even read their official reports; I have linked to other crash material, crash tests, and personal experiences. All I have seen come from the other direction is bogus out of scale drawings done over two dimensional photos that suffer from all kinds of photographic inconsistencies.

Again you want to compare pictures; there is nothing in those pictures that is beyond your personal speculation. A FACT is that you cannot get a pod between the landing gear doors on a 767 and still retract the gear, period….

That is from personal experience of working on these jets, not from the government’s official anything.

Here take a look at this, which was posted by Grimm in a separate thread, it came right from one of your conspiracy sites and admits that:



911research.wtc7.net...
External Source


The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory:
Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics


Bart's theory may sound far-fetched, and some detractors have compared it to the aggressively promoted idea that the South Tower was hit by a pod-equipped cargo jet that fired a missile just before impact. However, the comparison is not deserved. Whereas the pod-plane idea is based on imaginative interpretations of artifacts in blurry video images.
.
disinformationists can use the Pentagon no-jetliner idea to leverage the more ridiculous WTC crash theories, such as pod-planes, missile attacks, holograms, etc.

With these and other articles and broadcasts, millions of people are being introduced to the idea that the attack was an inside job via theories that have no support in evidence, sound ludicrous, and are easily discredited. Unfortunately, first impressions are difficult to reverse.
.
.
.
Conclusion

The idea that no 757-sized airliner crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/01 is attractive to many skeptics because it contradicts a fundamental tenet of the official story, is supported by common-sense interpretations of photographs of the crash scene, and provides an explanation for the suspicious lack of physical evidence supporting the official account. Additionally, there is a substantial body of literature by no-757-crash theorists that appears to thoroughly examine the evidence. The complexity of some of this analysis may discourage other skeptics from evaluating the evidence for themselves.

As I show in this essay, many common errors in no-757-crash theories are easily exposed. Most of the no-757-crash arguments evaporate when scrutinized with attention to empirical data about the behavior of airframes in high-speed crashes, and the geometry of the Pentagon crash scene and vantage points of post-crash photographs. The remaining arguments are easily disposed of by assuming the crash was engineered, consistent with the presumed motives of the perpetrators to discredit the skeptics. Conversely, the abundant eyewitness accounts provide strong evidence for the crash of a 757 or similar aircraft.

In recent high-profile attacks on the work of 9/11 skeptics, defenders of the official story have consistently focused on the no-757-crash theory as indicative of the gullibility and incompetence of the 9/11 "conspiracy theorists." Researchers including myself have contributed to this vulnerability by endorsing this theory without either weighing all the available evidence (such as the eyewitness accounts) or considering less obvious interpretations for the paucity of physical evidence of a 757 crash. The Pentagon crash is an intriguing area of research because of its many unresolved mysteries. The promotion of theories about what hit the Pentagon in highly visible media do not advance that research but instead provide our detractors with ammunition with which to discredit us, and eclipse easily established and highly incriminating facts such as where the Pentagon was hit, the astounding failures to defend the 9/11 targets, and the obvious controlled demolition of Building 7.


So basically its saying that the Pentagon No-757 theory is bunk and that the Pod theory is so whacky as to even hurt 9/11 researchers cause…

Still want to back up these theories?


[edit on 1/31/2006 by defcon5]



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Yeah but defcon remember, when someone brings up good points, they are most definately working for the government



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ihatescifi
Yeah but defcon remember, when someone brings up good points, they are most definately working for the government



Cool....
When do I get paid?




posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Refrain from disputing the actual collision because it won't go anywhere.

Instead maybe you should question why NORAD stood down and actions that weren't taken to stop the planes on route.

Also the many inconsistencies with the Pentagon site and the other crash.

Personally I believe that it was planned and bear in mind that when these plans are made, there not supposed to be logical. Goes back to the Kennedy assassination. If your gonna lie, make it a big one.

Seems the official report is the conspiracy theory.

Someone mentioned info from people living in the area and I believe there are numerous reports, some of whom served in Vietnam and recognised a missile as well as further detonations prior to the collision.

Do a google video search for 9/11



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Sorry, I meant after the collision



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
It has been debunked based on prior evidenec, not based on my article.
I don't care whether or not you believe it, I am not here to debate.

I just wanted people to see the evidence, that's all.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
It has been debunked based on prior evidenec, not based on my article.
I don't care whether or not you believe it, I am not here to debate.

I just wanted people to see the evidence, that's all.

There is nothing to debunk

Betwen the wtc and the pentagon incident there was an hour.
They were waching tv at the pentagon and workers said "we are going to be next"
No one did anithing for an hour.
You know you are a target and you dont do anithing?
I just wish people would see the hard evidence before the impact, there is plenty.


[edit on 31-1-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Good fails evil cheats
Instead maybe you should question why NORAD stood down and actions that weren't taken to stop the planes on route.


There was no stand down. When you only have 21 armed fighters, at 7 bases ACROSS THE COUNTRY, then it's gonna be difficult to intercept four hijacked planes, especially when you don't have them on radar.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimm

No flash is seen here (animated GIF of the Naudet film.



9/11 DVD Censored! Image of Strange Flash as Flight 11 Hit North Tower Missing From Footage

Steve Hunter

I have discovered hard evidence of a top-level cover-up of the September 11 attacks containedon the DVD release of the Naudet brothers firemen documentary that captured the first plane hitting the North tower. I video taped this documentary from the TV early last year and bought the DVD later in the year.

In the televised version of the plane hitting the North tower there is a frame containing a huge bright flash of light that has been digitally removed from the DVD
version. I have attached two images of the three critical frames of the jet colliding with the North Tower.

The first is the TV video version, the second is the DVD version. Please excuse the quality of the images, as I don't have the best hardware to capture the images. I had to photograph the video version off my TV screen with a digital camera. Both versions contain the exact same frames.



Click here for larger image




Click here for larger image


As you can see, frame 2 of the TV version contains the bright flash while the DVD version does not.

If you have any copies of this impact on video you can check for yourself. You can't deny that this flash of light has been removed in the DVD. This bright flash is also
present in the doco "How the Towers Fell 2" but has been removed in the Rudolph Giuliani 9-11 doco (surprise, surprise).

Why would this have been done if the government has nothing to hide about the attacks?

There's obviously something the government doesn't want us to see.
What do you think?


(Notice two missiles firing from the wings)



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   

The case began with the suspicions of a reader
www.amics21.com...&tower-sm.jpg
One morning last February a young reader came into the head offices of LaVanguardia.es with an idea in his head that had occurred to him as he was looking attentively at the videos and photos on 9/11.

There are reader/discoverers. They're readers who get a chance to bring news out—provide their newspapers with an exclusive story. It is initiative which is gratefully received. These readers are efficient spontaneous reporters. That's what's happened in the case of the mystery of the plane which crashed into the WTC in new York on 11 September 2001.

The reader who walked into the editing room of LaVanguardia.es that winter's morning with photos under his arm was attended to by Josep Maria Calvet. The reader, who has asked to remain anonymously as R.R., asked the journalist to look hard at some of the details in the photos: two strange shapes which appeared below the aircraft.

This is how the reporters' work started off the results of which were published in articles in "La Vanguardia" on 22 June and 13 July 2003, and as I commented at the request of a reader, in the last article before the summer holiday season, published on 27 July 2003.

One function of the readers' ombudsman explained in La Vanguardia statutes is to describe the procedure the journalist follows in preparing, elaborating and publishing the story he takes up. The circumstances of this case beg telling the inside story of these reports.

Did "La Vanguardia" come up with this? How did the reporters find out about the mystery of the plane?

Two days after R.R.'s visit, the editorial office contacted Eduardo Martín de Pozuelo to ask him have a look and give his opinion on the shapes or bumps to be seen in the images of the plane seconds before it crashed into the skyscaper.

The office checked that the photos had not been manipulated in any way and that they coincided with the ones held in the newspaper's archives. It was true. There were strange "shapes" or "bumps".

Martín de Pozuelo set to work. He had a meeting with R.R. and Calvet at La Vanguardia.es head office. They spent two long afternoons poring over the photos, videos and all the visual material they could get together on the attack on the twin towers in New York. What conclusion did they come to?

They noticed evidence of shapes present on the fuselage of the plane. They couldn't tell what on earth it was.

Martín de Pozeulo has told the ombudsman that he did not think it was opportune to publish anything as yet on the subject. Data and reliable sources were missing. He says about these "shapes":

"It looked like an optical effect but as that was a totally subjective opinion I showed the photos to fellow photographers and asked them to give their opinion as image experts. They swung between the hypothesis of an optical effect or an added object, as I did. The reporters persevered.

They consulted another expert, Amparo Sacristán, an image and microelectronics specialist at the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. Her first appraisal encouraged them to go on in their investigation. Doctor Sacristán performed a digital analysis of the photos and concluded that they were shapes not reflections brilliance. The results of this new stage were surprising and disconcerting.

Xavier Mas de Xaxàs, who was working as a correspondent for the "La Vanguardia" in the United States on the 11 September 2001, searched for news, published or unpublished, which could throw some light on the matter. He was gathering information on the poor security at Logan airport (Washington).

Meanwhile Martín de Pozuelo consulted aviation experts—among them an aeronautical engineer who asked not to be identified, due to his rank. He spent all one morning analising the photos in the "La Vanguardia". His pronouncement reinforced the hypothesis of something added to the fuselage.

The two reporters conducting the investigation were not convinced, of course. They were sceptical. They decided to take it one step further to dispel all doubt. They turned to US sources. The Boeing company in Seattle agreed to have a look at the photos and give their conclusions. The photographs were sent electronically from "La Vanguardia".

For ten days, by telephone and electronic mail, the company responded whenever called by the two "La Vanguardia" newsmen, as the photos were studied by various departments at the company. Finally, from Seattle, back came a surprising, enigmatic reply: "We are not able to tell you what it is. Security reasons."


It was then that the newsmen decided there was enough to report to "La Vanguardia" readers. The text and photos were handed in to the newspaper's editorial office to assess whether to publish a first report. It was released in the June 22 issue. It caused an impact, even in the United States, where the translation of the "La Vanguardia" article was hung on a web site dedicated to 9/11.

The two reporters then asked Boeing once more: "Is there any further news?" Answer: "No answer for security reasons". A negative reply which does not clear up the mystery. And so they continue to investigate.
www.amics21.com...











posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc

Originally posted by Grimm

No flash is seen here (animated GIF of the Naudet film.



9/11 DVD Censored! Image of Strange Flash as Flight 11 Hit North Tower Missing From Footage

Steve Hunter

I have discovered hard evidence of a top-level cover-up of the September 11 attacks containedon the DVD release of the Naudet brothers firemen documentary that captured the first plane hitting the North tower. I video taped this documentary from the TV early last year and bought the DVD later in the year.

In the televised version of the plane hitting the North tower there is a frame containing a huge bright flash of light that has been digitally removed from the DVD
version. I have attached two images of the three critical frames of the jet colliding with the North Tower.

The first is the TV video version, the second is the DVD version. Please excuse the quality of the images, as I don't have the best hardware to capture the images. I had to photograph the video version off my TV screen with a digital camera. Both versions contain the exact same frames.



Click here for larger image




Click here for larger image


As you can see, frame 2 of the TV version contains the bright flash while the DVD version does not.

If you have any copies of this impact on video you can check for yourself. You can't deny that this flash of light has been removed in the DVD. This bright flash is also
present in the doco "How the Towers Fell 2" but has been removed in the Rudolph Giuliani 9-11 doco (surprise, surprise).

Why would this have been done if the government has nothing to hide about the attacks?

There's obviously something the government doesn't want us to see.
What do you think?


(Notice two missiles firing from the wings)


I have seen both the DVD and the unedited video on tv, and I saw no "missiles" being fired from the plane. You obviously are seeing things that aren't there. I mean, you would obviously see the contrails from the "missiles" being fired toward the tower. If missiles were fired at the towers, then why hasn't ANYONE came foward? Ask yourself this, just how much research did you put into this?

Thanks for getting me started again on the "pod theory," so I guess I have to debunk this one also. The "pods' as you so call them, it has been thoroughly debunked over and over and over again. These "pods" are actually the buldge in the fuselage of the aircraft. I see what you posted as a smokescreen to get around the truth so we can't get to the point.

Those were actual civilian airliners that slammed into those buildings. They are not the missiles that other so-called conspiracy theorists have been preaching. You know I first thought the same way until I realized that some of the numbers did in fact add up. It takes on slip of the mind for a person to change their mind, and that's what happened to me. Debating whether or not a missile was fired at the WTC will no prove anything. The real conspiracy here is why did Bush not do anything to keep it from happening!!!???



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
(Notice two missiles firing from the wings)


'cuse me here, but missiles would have an extending contrail which isn't presented or shown in the footage you have provided.

The "flash" is only apparent in one shot, this is not what a missile would do, it couldn't even stay airborne long enough to make it to the building if it did that (or if it did, the impact zone would've been at least 2 to 4 stories lower, and impacted at the same time of the planes impact.)

Oh, and it's rather interesting that your "missiles" are coming OUT of the engines.


[edit on 2-1-2006 by Shugo]



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 03:02 AM
link   


The "flash" is only apparent in one shot,


Try about 6...

I have pictures of about 4 of them on my website.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae



The "flash" is only apparent in one shot,


Try about 6...

I have pictures of about 4 of them on my website.


That doesn't matter, the rest of my post still stands, a missile wouldn't make it at where it was at.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
I have discovered hard evidence of a top-level cover-up of the September 11 attacks...


You can stop now...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Your gig is up.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Merc - you do realise that a missle is a vehicle designed to deliver a warhead to it's target, right?
Therefore, can you give a good reason for even doing such a thing milliseconds before the the aircraft hit the target itself?
Can you give a good reason why, if they wanted to use additional warheads to the fuel in the aircraft, they would not just place it in the nose?
The plane was the missile and the fuel was the warhead.
Did you think about what you are even suggesting logically before you wasted time writing it down, or did you realise after that it was crap but decided that as you had spent so much time writing it you'd publish it anyway?

Firing a barrage of missile before ramming a target is something best left for the movies, not only was there no facility to do so on the aircraft but it would be a pretty retarded and useless idea that would serve no purpose other than potentially leave behind evidence.

[edit on 1-2-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Just to clairify AM...I have 20 pictures of a "tatoo" my girlfriend put on my back before I "washed" it off (wasn't real) she started drawing on air I swear it! Because I have 20 pictures it's real!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join