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.

 

2nd plane hits south tower.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   
I watched quite a few clips of the 2nd plane hitting the south tower, the issues to do with the pod, the flash, the laser marker. 1 or 2 of those clips had been slowed down to allow you to see the clip a frame at a time. When i viewed i noticed the plane had fully entered the building before 1 piece of debris or explosion could be seen, almost as if the building absorbed the plane i found that quite odd but i put it down to the speed the plane was flying at.

An hour ago i watched another film, 1 clip caught my attention.
video.google.com...
At 18:22 mins into the film we see a plane strike the building from a new angle i certainly have never saw before.

When i watched it over and over pause/play style, i dont know how to describe it, maybe you should watch it.
I think it has been put out to obscure things more, thats just my opinion.
Could somebody do a frame advance from 18:22 to 18:25 please?
Can anybody confirm if this is the Naudet brothers work?




posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   
It is the same in the other clips, the plane hits the building and no debris comes from the building when you think it should.


and where did the left wing go?


[edit on 20-3-2006 by The Links]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Left wing? Maybe the Hologram Projector was losing power.

ALso, it is weird, I have video to, once I started getting into conspiracies it lets you think and see things in a new way. The plane disappears into the building, then a couple seconds later BOOM! Why the delay?

Also, where's the plane at the Pentagon? There is a 6x8 foot hole, no plane, no engines or luggage or bodies or debris, just a small hole. The Pentagon released a video thaty proves no plane hit! It is 5 frames, nothing, explosion, explosion, explosion, explosion. No plane, never, but if the terrorists got a bomb on the inside why not admit it? Because it shows the most Guarded Place on Earth was penetrated?



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevinS


ALso, it is weird, I have video to, once I started getting into conspiracies it lets you think and see things in a new way. The plane disappears into the building, then a couple seconds later BOOM! Why the delay?



Yes it is wierd, wierd also is the fact that the fireball is first noticed not at the entry point, but the first flame comes from the side of the building. As the flame comes out the side of the building debris comes out of the entry hole, lol.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevinS
Left wing? Maybe the Hologram Projector was losing power.

ALso, it is weird, I have video to, once I started getting into conspiracies it lets you think and see things in a new way. The plane disappears into the building, then a couple seconds later BOOM! Why the delay?

Also, where's the plane at the Pentagon? There is a 6x8 foot hole, no plane, no engines or luggage or bodies or debris, just a small hole. The Pentagon released a video thaty proves no plane hit! It is 5 frames, nothing, explosion, explosion, explosion, explosion. No plane, never, but if the terrorists got a bomb on the inside why not admit it? Because it shows the most Guarded Place on Earth was penetrated?


Point one: The Hologram Projector
Ever read Dan Brown: Deception Point? He mentions a sort of Holgramic Projector that shows "AIRCRAFT" above enemy anti aircraft installations. Used by Special Forces to confuse the enemy, they waste their ammo on the optical illiuosin and when the enemy has to reload the Special Forces move in for the kill... Far fetched i know, but Mr Brown does do his homework before hand.

Point two: Slow sound?!?
Sound travels slower than light. Considering the "Aircraft" (assuming it is one) entered the building a few hundred feet away from the camera mic, you'd see the plane go before the sound of the explosion. Think of thunder and lightning, which do you notice first? A bright flash in the sky on a dark stormy night or the sonic boom that follows it? Unless your blind, which i'm not saying you are, it would be the flash...

Point three: Pentagon attack
Lets look at the evidence, as you say "There is a 6x8 foot hole, no plane, no engines or luggage or bodies or debris, just a small hole." The 5 frame clip your speaking of was from a security camera in a parking lot. The FBI confiscated that tape and released it later showing no sign of a projetile going into the building, only before and the explosion after. What possible object leaves a 6x8 foot hole, has no engine, luggage, no-one in it and the FBI would want to hide? A Tomahawk cruise missile... Thats my theory anyway.

Hate to say it guys, but we've been [ censors circumvention removed ]. Pm me if you have any personal comments

[edit on 23-3-2006 by Marquall]

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3/23/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Optical illusions can happen with video sometimes. I can’t look at this video source frame by frame but I will add this link for you all to concider.

Fly over :: optical illusion?

Also I want to remind everyone that outlandish claims of 9/11 events can really damage the truth movement so lets be careful.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Grainy, relatively dark, low res pictures subjected to lossy compression algorithms, all of which appears years after the attack is by no means something to draw conclusions from.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Umbrax


Also I want to remind everyone that outlandish claims of 9/11 events can really damage the truth movement so lets be careful.


Yes i understand the damage it can cause, and has caused, and i believe this new clip has been added just to fuel that aspect, sidetracking tactic. The camera opperator is suspect if you ask me, he was filming the action on that morning but instead of focusing on the burning tower, his attention was drawn to the other tower not yet hit, i wonder who it was?



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marquall
[
Point two: Slow sound?!?
Sound travels slower than light. Considering the "Aircraft" (assuming it is one) entered the building a few hundred feet away from the camera mic, you'd see the plane go before the sound of the explosion. Think of thunder and lightning, which do you notice first? A bright flash in the sky on a dark stormy night or the sonic boom that follows it? Unless your blind, which i'm not saying you are, it would be the flash...



Good point Marquall, we hear the explosion then we see the flash

This could be put down to bad, errr, something or another.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marquall

Originally posted by DevinS
Left wing? Maybe the Hologram Projector was losing power.

Also, where's the plane at the Pentagon? There is a 6x8 foot hole, no plane, no engines or luggage or bodies or debris, just a small hole. The Pentagon released a video thaty proves no plane hit! It is 5 frames, nothing, explosion, explosion, explosion, explosion. No plane, never, but if the terrorists got a bomb on the inside why not admit it? Because it shows the most Guarded Place on Earth was penetrated?


Point one: The Hologram Projector
Ever read Dan Brown: Deception Point? He mentions a sort of Holgramic Projector that shows "AIRCRAFT" above enemy anti aircraft installations. Used by Special Forces to confuse the enemy, they waste their ammo on the optical illiuosin and when the enemy has to reload the Special Forces move in for the kill... Far fetched i know, but Mr Brown does do his homework before hand.

Point three: Pentagon attack
Lets look at the evidence, as you say "There is a 6x8 foot hole, no plane, no engines or luggage or bodies or debris, just a small hole." The 5 frame clip your speaking of was from a security camera in a parking lot. The FBI confiscated that tape and released it later showing no sign of a projetile going into the building, only before and the explosion after. What possible object leaves a 6x8 foot hole, has no engine, luggage, no-one in it and the FBI would want to hide? A Tomahawk cruise missile... Thats my theory anyway.

[edit on 23-3-2006 by Marquall]

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3/23/2006 by 12m8keall2c]


what you are saying is highly conceivable here consider this:

- recent announcements of digital 3d optimal or holographic storage technology to come out of Japan in near future.
- military cloaking tech, eg undersides of planes covered in flexible LCD type technology
- high power laser arrays fitted to large aircraft, tested as laser weapons, known tech

this could account for the apparent show that happened at the pentagon. It may explain some of the unusual events at the WTC but I still think that at the very least, the first plane went in. Many are questioning whether the second 757 in WTC II went in to the center core enough to bring down the building.

Of course if you are going to delve into tech then you really have to go out there and look at possible alien tech or intervention too.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   
So how do we explain what all of the people in the buildings and outside of the buildings saw, heard, etc.... where they all brainwashed or in on the great deception?



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I'm tired, so I'm not even going to try to be nice.

Do any of you [people] have even the slightest idea how holograms work?



[edit on 23-3-2006 by HowardRoark]

Mod Edit - Please rest and try to be nice later.

[edit on 23/3/2006 by Umbrax]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   


Do any of you [people] have even the slightest idea how holograms work?


As far as i know it uese 2 or 3 cameras to make a 3D image of something. I know what i said is far-fetched but these could be mounted on UAV's circling close by...




Good point Marquall, we hear the explosion then we see the flash



Erm...no, you'd see the flash first...


Something i forgot to mention on that point, as you heard from the tape at the time the plane slamed into the building, you could hear the distint whine of a turbine-jet engine, it was litterly screaming at full speed!!! Now if what denythestatusquo is saying is correct, which i'm sure he is, it could have even been a souped up UAV that crashed into the WTC or a un-maned drone anyway...



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   
This is not Hollywood, where a grenade will take out 4 cars and a helicopter after it is thrown. This is real life. The wing has already entered the building. It was going in excess of 500 mph , so with that much momentum the explosion will be released 'forward', shot out of the building on the far side. There would be no explosion at the point of impact in that photo, which suprisingly takes away from all the missle theories so Iam not sure why you would post it?

Also, holograms are reserved for the Mystery gang and Scooby doo, not the 1000's of witnesses who saw and 'heard' the plane. The acceleration of the plane. The impact of the plane.

and what is your theory of the passengers of the flight? where are they?



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marquall


Good point Marquall, we hear the explosion then we see the flash



Erm...no, you'd see the flash first...




Marquall yes you should see the flash first, but in that clip you hear the explosion before the flash, i thought that was what you was saying in Point two: Slow sound?!?
"Sound travels slower than light. Considering the "Aircraft" (assuming it is one) entered the building a few hundred feet away from the camera mic, you'd see the plane go before the sound of the explosion. Think of thunder and lightning, which do you notice first? A bright flash in the sky on a dark stormy night or the sonic boom that follows it? Unless your blind, which i'm not saying you are, it would be the flash..."



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I don't know about you Links, but when watching the clip, i saw the explosion BEFORE is heard it... and as far as i know that IS what i said in Point 2.




This is not Hollywood, where a grenade will take out 4 cars and a helicopter after it is thrown. This is real life. The wing has already entered the building. It was going in excess of 500 mph , so with that much momentum the explosion will be released 'forward', shot out of the building on the far side. There would be no explosion at the point of impact in that photo, which suprisingly takes away from all the missle theories so Iam not sure why you would post it?

Weather the wing had entered the building already, i'm not going to argue that, the fottage isn't the best quality to say the least. But i can defienatly agree on the plane blowing up inside, not at the point of impact. I agree that it was traveling close to the 500mph you said, and the fact that a normal aircraft of that size would have enough kinetic energy to carry through and crash through the otherside of the building, but as we all know, nothing went through, which leads me to the conclusion that the "weight" to "punch through". Assuming that hologram projectors were used, what else, that lacks serious weight or mass, could have been used as a improvised to attack the WTC? At a risk of repeating myself.... UAV!!!! Esdad71, i understand that Holograms are a little far-fetched but i've seen some convincing ones online and here in Ireland, if the US military does use them, just think of how sophisticated they'd be.... UAV light weight, stick a rolls royce turbo jet on it and point it toward the WTC...you've go your inital explosion and the cover for the demolitions.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marquall
I don't know about you Links, but when watching the clip, i saw the explosion BEFORE is heard it... and as far as i know that IS what i said in Point 2.



Yes, i must agree with you, i have no idea why i said that at that time, my brain was slightly overloaded, sorry.
What my point was i think you picked up on, plane is completly within the building before any debris is expelled. All the other clips are very much the same, the above clip if you pause at the right moment the plane is 3/4 it's length into the building but no confetti in the air. The jet test into a concrete block shows as soon as the plane contacts the surface it produces confetti, i know the tower was steel frame, imo i would still expect to see some debris around the entry hole as the plane? is paused 3/4 the way into the tower. But no, there is none, i find that peculiar.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   
FYI, A plane traveling 400 mph, will move 20 feet between each frame of a standard 30 frames/sec. video.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   
A hologram is one thing, how do you recreate the sound of the jet?



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   
You guys do realise there is no way to project a hologram into mid-air right, certainly not on that scale and at that speed?
And I don't mean 'Not possible apart from the super-duper science defying military projects', I mean not possible.
The image has to be projected onto a surface or you view it through the glass, regardless of what you think - the photons have to be reflected off a surface, so how do you think it could be possible to project an object into an open space?



One of the most frequent questions we get at Pangolin is: "How do I make 3D images float in mid-air?" This question probably comes because many people have seen special effects such as the "Princess Leia" scene from Star Wars.
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a floating-in-midair 3D holographic freespace projection. There are various ways of approximating such a projection; these are discussed below.
www.pangolin.com...


The closest anyone has come to achieving this is using a curtain of air and projecting the image onto that, but it's very limited and I'm not sure how one would achieve this on a large jetliner scale in the open and moving at over 400 miles/h.

www.io2technology.com...

It's not even true 3D as it's projected onto an essentially flat 'screen' of air. You'll find an old article in Rense somewhere if you look.

I suggest reading about holography here before attempting to discuss any wild and wonderful theories of how it could be used in the suggested manner:

en.wikipedia.org...

You have to forgive me if I sound slightly irritated, but it gets annoying when people talk about things without even bothering to do any research when the information is literally a few key presses away.

The idea is so complicated and beyond our current capabilities, that even if it was on the verge of being possible it would make little sense due to the expense and the complications in carrying it out without leaving behind any evidence.
It frankly would be a lot simpler to (you guessed it) get some airliners and fly them in. Even the remote-control theories hold water but the hologram theory is one of the biggest jokes I've heard in years.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join