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.

 

Why there were no planes at the WTC

page: 19
2
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear Everybody:

This link to a German website — home.debitel.net...
might help clarify some questions about whether or not there were planes flying into the WTC towers. Unfortunately I’ve “run” out of ATS-points to purchase further storage space for picture upload. Well I was able to squeeze one more graphic in. Perhaps it’s useful to our discussion.



Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods




[edit on 10/7/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]


You can't be serious right. These photos are from different distances & angles. The reference is from a building in the foreground. Of course they will come out different.

Blow them up & count the floors from the top down to where the incorrect reference line crosses the tower in each photo. I don't even have to & I can tell you they're off from eachother by at least 10 to 15 floors.

If the plane were to hit where these two photos reference then you would be able to see the dark band of the 78th floor sky lobby in the one on the right. It is totally engulfed in the explosion. We should be able to see it on the east side of WTC 2 but we don't.

Sorry but totally bogus reference.


I can't remember the guy's name, but there's a guy that's got a web site that has a whole bunch of these optical illusions. I laughed my A** off one day for about two hours. I wanna say it's a "Bob" something? ( Maybe someone can help me. )

Photobucket.com or others will store pics for free for you.




posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Dear 2pacSade:

I'd be very careful before dissing the Germans. They normally do very precise and meticulous research.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Dear 2PacSade:

I owe you! You're my hero! This thing with photobucket is GRREAT! Now I can go absolutely "ape#" with picture downloads. Thanks!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


















[edit on 10/7/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Ok let me bust down this ridiculous theory because i am boiling mad someone actually had the GALL to say this. I’m so mad this thread has got 19 pages of crap because I’m sorry, this is absolutely FALSE on so many levels it’s not funny.


Ok...imma come right out and say this theory is completley wrong because you are ignoring the biggest factor in this equation....SOUND. Now you may think sound has nothing to do with this but I want you to think about what im about to say long and hard.

Even if this wild theory say is even remote possible.....HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE SOUND OF THE PLANE BEING HEARD LONG BEFORE THE CRASH?!?!?!! Planes break the sound barrier for christ sake...how did the gov fake that? Study sound and how it works.....once you do you will realize there was no way the plane could have been fake because of the audio dynamics involved.

What you are theorizing would mean that there was a device, probably invisible mind you because any device big enough to break the sound barrier would be noticeable, that would simulate the sounds of a jet plane roaring across the sky.

It would also have to mimic the precise way the sound would move through the air, and travel in all 360 degrees appropriately following the plane......yeah ok that’s a load of horse crap. Seriously with all the trouble a person would have to go through to make the invisible plane work, it would just be easier to crash a real plane into the building.


Oh and of course you would have to ignore the THOUSANDS of eye witness accounts from PEOPLE IN THE TOWERS THEMSELVES that stated a plane hit the building...but sorry I forgot their opinion isn’t worth crap to you people and they are liars too in your twisted mind.....

Forgive me if i sound upset or am being hard on people, but theories like this offend me so much becuase they aren't even rooted in reality. It also ticks me off that most of these "truth seekers" NEVER EVEN BEEN TO MANHATTAN, LET ALONE THE WTC. You people really should have no right to talk about that building cause you guys didn't hang out at that place before 9/11. you have no idea what it ment to nyc or its neighboring buddy the garden state. you desicrate the memory of thousands of people who died and thousands more who knew the wtc as a friend. sometimes my stomach actually turns at the sheer volume of noobs who belive this conspirocy theory, and weren't even around the area to see or hear what really happend. you guys just watched what happened that day. the people of manhattan and it's outerlying territories lived it.

THIS THEORY IS FALSE PLAIN AND SIMPLE ANY “EVIDENCE” YOU SEE IS MERELY VIDEO ANOMALY BECAUSE THE VIDEO IS SLOWED DOWN FRAME BY FRAME.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
To me this seems like disinformation.

An easy way to discredit an entire movement of conspiracy theorists. You throw a ridiculous theory out there, and pul lthe rug under it, and it just discredits people.

If you want to see a real conspiracy, look at the actions of the US government before and after. Look at the intelligence that was gathered, which nobody acted on. Look at the mass confusion in our air defense that day, and look at all the foreign intelligence from MI6, MOSSAD, and Egyptian intelligence, which we ignored leading up to the month of September.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   
You guys need to relax and not take offense to other people researching something they think is fishy.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spawwwn
Even if this wild theory say is even remote possible.....HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE SOUND OF THE PLANE BEING HEARD LONG BEFORE THE CRASH?!?!?!! Planes break the sound barrier for christ sake...how did the gov fake that? Study sound and how it works.....once you do you will realize there was no way the plane could have been fake because of the audio dynamics involved.


the plane was not going faster than sound. that plane is not even capable of those speeds.
maybe you should slow that anger down, before you go getting mad at other people for not having YOUR LEVEL of scientific 'knowledge'.


At normal atmospheric pressure and a temperature of 20 degrees Celsius, a sound wave will travel at approximately 343 m/s; this is approximately equal to 750 miles/hour.


i'm thinking a missile was used as both the 'screen' for the holographic projector to lock onto and beam the images onto, AND is the source of the sound, AND the debris that shoots out the other side of the building. maybe the projector is built into the missile.

YES, that's 'overly complicated', but this whole thing has been a PSY-OP from day 11. part of ANY effective PSY-OP is CAMOUFLAGE and INFO FLAK. i don't WANT to even ENTERTAIN the idea of holographic planes, and yet, the video evidence keeps telling me(since i first noticed the too-smooth entry and invisible wings) that that(plane) is not REAL.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   
billybob,


That's why at the momment in leaning towards a orb with holographic projectors.

I'v seen these orbs before and they seem to be not enough advanced for ET's and too much advanced for the mainstream knowledge of technology therefor a perfect level for military technology.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   
lol ok so now missles make the same sounds as planes? they also mimic the movement of planes? and they also apparently can fly great distances because nobody in the TRI STATE AREA reported seeing a missle launched. oh and of course they would leave no smoke trail like real missles do! lol fine..the plane wasnt real. it's all an illusion created by bush and the aliens.

lol whatever man you guys belive what you want to belive. have fun living in fantasy land.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I've been following this thread here and there and I'm not quite ready to form an opinion but it would certainly help to know just how far along holographic technology has gotten. Is it possible to project an image in daylight under those circumstances, what would be needed to pull it off, etc. But yeah it's pretty odd how the nose sections of those planes seem to (vanish?) into the buildings.

As for myself, I'm starting to lean towards this theory...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
A 50 year plan isn't above the global elite, hell we're still fighting the remnants of WWI.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   
I watched the news as the WTC tragedy unfolded on 9/11 and our Australian reporters on the scene reported seeing passengers strapped into their seats lying around the place. But the American news wouldn't report anything about the planes. Like the Australian reporters told us details of the passengers and crew that the Americans weren't allowed to know. The Americans are given their news after it has been carefully censored or shaped to suit a certain viewpoint.

I grew up thinking America is the greatest place on earth but it's obvious they are being controlled by media that withholds information from them.

I bought an amazing ufo/alien video documentary and there were strict warnings on it saying that Americans were not permitted to see it.

So it's safe to say that all the photo frames showing masses of bodies strapped to aircraft seats falling from the sky after impact with the WTCs were carefully cut out of the news footage before people were able to see it or record it. That's why there are no pictures of what you are looking for.

Americans are being sheltered from the truth and all the blank spots allow people to create all manner of conspiracy theories



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I also want to mention that I worked near an airforce base for a year or so and every day I would watch and listen as their largest planes flew around. Their engines sounded like ordinary ones making the usual amount of noise. But one day one of the pilots put the pedal to the metal and let the engines have full power while flying around. I had never imagined aircraft engines could rev that high. It made me realize that ordinarily large planes do not utilize their full power at all but instead run on only half of it or less. It makes sense that an engine will last much longer if it only runs at a fraction of it's maximum speed and I think that's why planes don't use full power so much.

What I'm trying to point out is that if those terrorists gave the planes full throttle then the speed of the planes would have been phenomenal. Nothing like ordinary planes that we see every day. With full throttle on and time to build up the speed those planes would have been moving at serious speeds.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by probedbygrays

I bought an amazing ufo/alien video documentary and there were strict warnings on it saying that Americans were not permitted to see it.



THAT is the moust amazing thing i had red in this topic!!
(please note im not talking in a hironic way), that is truly amazing for me. care to share with us the video name? i would love to get it also. i can see it because i am european



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   
I gave the video to the library so other people could watch it. The person in charge took the video home and phoned me to say she was awestruck by the content. She said she was ordering lots of ufo/alien books for the libraries in the area after seeing the video. It was a few years ago and I can't remember the name of the video? I'm really sorry. I wished I had kept it now, but at the time I wanted to educate the public. I bought masses of books for the libraries back then. I even sent books and media to movie producers to try and get them to think outside the box. If I remember the name of the video I'll let you know.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by probedbygrays
I bought an amazing ufo/alien video documentary and there were strict warnings on it saying that Americans were not permitted to see it.


Uh huh.

Have you any idea of how silly that sounds, probed? Americans don't need "permission" to see anything. Er... except above top secret documents. And you wont find them in Australian libraries.

Juss keepin' it real.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   
I believe the tech is there to pull off a hologram, but it doesnt make any sence for it to be used at the WTC.

I believe there was a hologram at the pentagon, and MAYBE shanksville, but not at the WTC.

A 767 moving at 500-600mph is ALOT of force.

Just because it "melts" into the building doesnt mean its a hologram.

Throw a Apple as hard as you can at a Steel Chainlink fence and see what happens. Apple shrapnel does not bounce back.

Ill be following this thread alot, but my belief is that it was remote control 767s.

Until i see that clear piece of evidence, and not grainy videos of overlapping frames. I wont be changing my mind.




[edit on 7-10-2006 by Josh_HLB]



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods


This is laughable, and evidence that you're researching this subject based on limited or no experience with the subject matter and related items.

I give you:
WikiPedia: Compression Artifacts
JPEG Artifacts
(Just do a Google search for more)

You're zooming in on compression artifacts. Any researcher that takes even a little time to understand their subject matter knows this, and would never present a zoom-in on compressed JPEGs as evidence for conspiracy.

Pitiful.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 08:40 AM
link   
mr oldskool you are very insulting and very arogant.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by selfless
mr oldskool you are very insulting and very arogant.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Unfortunately, the post is accurate. If someone is to present evidence, they have an obligation to understand what they're presenting.

Can you point out where my most recent post is incorrect?



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Dear mister.old.school:

It’s o.k. if you don’t want to believe the close-up video analysis. But what about the other frames?

The plane appears. And it disappears in to the tower. Nothing gets damaged. Nothing drops down. The plane glides into the building as if it were a circus “tent”. The man below doesn’t bother to turn his head. Then — AFTER the plane is already inside the building — explosions start. And the passerby then and only then turns his head. Am I missing something here? Please enlighten me if I am. The footage proves that the cause (aircraft crashing into building) and the effect (damage to the structure, explosions) are mismatched. The events aren’t “properly” synchronized. I myself am VERY OLD SCHOOL when researching.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join