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: 21
2
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by johnlear
The technology comes from Planet Slurpo. This may take awhile.




So I guess that means you're really not serious about the theory after all?

I'm confused here.


read the small print :


The above is my opinion and is intended to promote discussion. It is not represented as fact unless so stated.


that is lears sig

it gives so much wriggle room - it isnt funny .

just my 0.02 groats - but lear and serious incompatible .




posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
You know Wizard, that image you just put... I notice something here.



If you were to tilt that image of the plane by a couple of degrees, it would fit.


[edit on 23-10-2006 by deltaboy]



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   
that picture doesnt take into account the angle the photographer had on the building when he took the picture...had he been even with the impact zone then maybe the diagram holds a little weight but it does not



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape


The above is my opinion and is intended to promote discussion. It is not represented as fact unless so stated.


that is lears sig

it gives so much wriggle room - it isnt funny .


Who can present anything except their own opinion? You may think you know how the world works; you may really, really think you know, but at the end of the day, it's still your opinion. There are countless variables that may remain hidden that you have failed to take into account. Apparently there was a time, when standard opinion was that the Sun orbited a flat Earth. If you thought differently from the "experts", you were probably laughed at, and labeled as insane, much as we see happening daily here on our beloved ATS. Who's to say that there was not help from aliens in the staging of 911? Who's do say the the flying spaghetti monster didn't create the universe? Who's to say that this isn't just a dream?



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 12:17 AM
link   
here's a link to a dissappearing wing.
youtube video from webfairy

interestingly(to me, at least) is that this is not the wing i was talking about. the plane goes through many frames with perfect video tracking, ie. the motion blur excuse doesn't wash, and then after passing behind a building loses coherency as a wing completely disappears.



the possibility that nico haupt is right, and all video feeds to networks came from the military, which used plain old CGI to dub in the planes.

he has pointed out that a few witnesses didn't see a plane, but only heard the explosion.

here are some strange anomolies which may have been either targeting, or holographic projectors/screens/whatever...from 'nineeleven2001.com.

here is a link to a critical analysis some of the wierd anomolies of 911...from the same website, 'the strange images' page. this is a pretty great site. looks like someone's been doing their homework. they've already got both the arguments for 'no planes' and the standard cointelpro counterarguments underneath.
takes a while to load, though. big page.

in this picture, (link), you can see two different camera angles BOTH showing the SAME missing rear stabilizer wing, on the right side.
interestingly, that is not what the good conspiracy researcher was even pointing out with that image comparison.

there are quite a few other pictures of the plane with invisible wings. i will post them when i find them.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
here's a link to a dissappearing wing.
youtube video from webfairy


billybob... you're a long-time member of ATS in excellent standing, and I highly respect your history of contribution. However, I need to say that this angle of "conspiracy research" continues to confuse me as it defies logic and critical thinking on so many levels.

Are you aware that a respected 9/11 Truth analyst things this theory is rubbish?
A Critical Review of WTC "No Plane" Theories

by Eric Salter
28 September 2005

With the amount of attention that the Pentagon no-plane theories have received, it shouldn't be surprising that some would also make the bizarre claim that no 767s hit the World Trade Center, despite voluminous video and photographic evidence to the contrary. My previous articles dealt with the core of these theories at length. These articles were lengthy, so the purpose of this summary is to provide a somewhat condensed and updated summary for those new to the subject or lacking in the time to delve into the details of the image analysis.

There are 2 versions of the no-plane arguments: The first, that small planes or missiles hit the towers and these were covered over in the videos and photos of the impact by 3D graphic images of 767s. The other argument made is that the planes (at least the second plane) was in fact a hologram generated by classified technology. The proponents argue that visual "anomalies" indicate the fraudulent nature of the holographic or computer 767-in the case of the second hit-and show that the plane in the Naudet video of the first hit was not the size or shape of a 767.



The first problem is a long-standing and very significant issue for the vast majority of evidentiary analysis going on... you're looking at a compressed video of a compressed video. That Youtube video (for example) is at least a second generation compression of the original video... meaning the original has been compressed (with possible dropped frames), then uploaded to Youtube which applies further compression (and possibly more dropped frames).

Here's the problem... when digital video is compressed, individual frames are not retained, Instead, depending on the codec and compression settings, keyframes are selected and only the changes between key frames are retained. And to further confound matters, compression techniques similar to JPEG are applied to what remains. The result is an "approximation" of the full motion video that is sufficient for playing of video, but horrible for single-frame or slow-frame analysis.

You can imagine what could happen if you compress a digital video twice, with the possibility of loosing keyframes and applying aggressive JPEG-style compression a second time. (It goes completely downhill if you compress more than twice.)

So... with these odd multi-generationally compressed videos of a brief missing wing and still-frames of these compressed digital videos... we can never be 100% certain about the details of what we're seeing. With that in mind, we need to rely on more material... as much as possible. And the overwhelming body of video and photographic information available (for the second impact), we simply don't see these things happening. This is where it's important... actually imperative... that people engaging in either research of conspiracies, or review of conspiracy research, apply critical thinking and examine the available body of evidence.

Now... the image of the possible drone is interesting. But given what we know about the possibilities of holographic projection, we can easily speculate that a small rotor-driven drone isn't a stable platform for reliable projection (there's a lot of wind in Manhattan). But if we can see it from other angles, it begins to present itself as an interesting anomaly that certainly implies direct involvement of some government-sponsored agency that (at a minimum) anticipated the WTC attacks.


There is a long list of much more interesting and potentially fruitful research items than the possibility of holographic aircraft.

1) What work was being done inside the powered-down WTC the weekend before the attack?

2) What work was being done for several days in the top-most floors?

3) What was the source of the deep-basement explosions seconds before aircraft impact?

4) What level of systematic confusion did the secret Pentagon terror drill cause on 9/11?

5) Why did the "hijacker" execute a slow 270 degree turn to attack a reinforced section of the Pentagon?

6) What is the source of the squibs several dozen floors ahead of the WTC collapses?

7) Why was the WTC remains rushed out of the area, denying forensic analysis?

... and so on ...

The list of far more mundane questions is long and growing. While the possible answers are assuredly far less fantastic and compelling as the thought of holographic projection, such answers would certainly point us in the direction we need to be.

In the scheme of things, you can ask yourself a simple question... what line of research would make "them" nervous?
Holographic planes? Hardly. No one would believe it.
Finding someone who saw the WTC prep-work during the power-down? You bet.


In my opinion, if there are operatives in deep dark governmental corners watching the 9/11 speculation on the Internet so they can report to their 9/11-complicit superiors... they would be pleased that theories like this are rising to the surface.



NOTE: These are my opinions, any my opinions only. They do not reflect any "official stance" of AboveTopSecret.com.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Dear Everybody:

For the record I just wanted to set straight what my beliefs are concerning the presence of planes at the WTC towers on 9-11. Just as the title of this thread states — I strongly suspect there were no aircraft crashing into the WTC towers. I also DON’T think there were any holograms. I postulate there wasn’t anything at all — other than explosions inside the buildings.

If there were credible true eyewitnesses — and there aren’t — who actually saw the planes, I would consider the hologram theory a possibility before concluding that real airline jets smashed into the twin towers.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
If there were credible true eyewitnesses — and there aren’t — who actually saw the planes,

Certainly you're not serious about that.

There are hundreds of witnesses and thousands of minutes of video.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 09:21 AM
link   
I know this is hearsay but here goes. My friend knows a lady who owns a convertable. Well, she had her top down on 9/11 on highway 395. The plane clipped trees and the leaves fell into her car. She claims that she saw a passenger jet fly over her car and hit the pentagon. I know, hearsay but that was the clincher for me.

Edit: Wrong thread...sorry. I didn't read the rest of the title to see that it was WTC...not pentagon....duh.

[edit on 10/24/2006 by Griff]



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
If there were credible true eyewitnesses — and there aren’t — who actually saw the planes,

Certainly you're not serious about that.

There are hundreds of witnesses and thousands of minutes of video.


Dear SkepticOverlord:

I’m entirely serious. Of course there were thousands of cameras — private and public — directed at the towers on 911. But if there weren’t any planes they would have only captured the smoking buildings with the “impact holes”.

I propose that the visual film “evidence” actually showing the planes — all of horrible quality by the way (surprise, surprise) — came from official sources only. There is no competing real amateur documentation, because it’s impossible to have recorded something that never happened. If there had been aircraft we would have images so sharp you could “read the numbers” off the tailfins — you can bet the farm on that. The well-they-were-too-fast-excuse is not permissible. If we can capture Space Shuttle launches crystal clearly then for sure we can accommodate conventional passenger aircraft. Or are we to believe there aren’t any photographers in New York City with those kinds of capabilities?

And about the witnesses — I’m saying I haven’t seen or heard of any credible ones yet. I cannot outright prove this, but the interviews as broadcasted on public television appear staged and bogus. Because of all the other highly suspicious factors and the physical realities I think it’s reasonable to radically assume there were no planes at all.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


[edit on 10/24/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
If there were credible true eyewitnesses — and there aren’t — who actually saw the planes,

Certainly you're not serious about that.

There are hundreds of witnesses and thousands of minutes of video.


Dear SkepticOverlord:

I’m entirely serious. Of course there were thousands of cameras — private and public — directed at the towers on 911. But if there weren’t any planes they would have only captured the smoking buildings with the “impact holes”.

I propose that the visual film “evidence” actually showing the planes — all of horrible quality by the way (surprise, surprise) — came from official sources only. There is no competing real amateur documentation, because it’s impossible to have recorded something that never happened. If there had been aircraft we would have images so sharp you could “read the numbers” off the tailfins — you can bet the farm on that. The well-they-were-too-fast-excuse is not permissible. If we can capture Space Shuttle launches crystal clearly then for sure we can accommodate conventional passenger aircraft. Or are we to believe there aren’t any photographers in New York City with those kinds of capabilities?

And about the witnesses — I’m saying I haven’t seen or heard of any credible ones yet. I cannot outright prove this, but the interviews as broadcasted on public television appear staged and bogus. Because of all the other highly suspicious factors and the physical realities I think it’s reasonable to radically assume there were no planes at all.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


[edit on 10/24/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



I was standing on Park Place west and Greenwich St. I can tell you that I saw a 150ton airplane slam into a building. Now maybe it was an image teleported to my brain or a hologram with sound, but what I saw sure as hell looked real to me. Maybe the nightmares I had for 2 years after of a plane hitting the building were not real either.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Can you help us understand how a theoretical holograph projection device would function in bright sunlight (much less cast shadows)?



If we're going to take the leap into the unknown technology zone, and we consider for a second that the planes may have been holographic projections of origin unknown, would it then be too much of a leap to consider that in fact they didn't cast any shadows, in fact, the shadows observed were also holographic projections?

To clarify: Not shadows. Independent holographic projections.

[edit on 24/10/06 by Implosion]



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Implosion
To clarify: Not shadows. Independent holographic projections.

Then it would likely be some other type of "unknown" technology unrelated to holography as we know it today. Using light to project darkness is contrary to logic and physics.

But in the end, it still factors down to this:
It's easier to send an actual plane to hit the building than a hologram or other projected image of unknown origin.

Why would "they" introduce something so complication into an important operation?


NOTE: These are my opinions, any my opinions only. They do not reflect any "official stance" of AboveTopSecret.com

[edit on 24-10-2006 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

But in the end, it still factors down to this:
It's easier to send an actual plane to hit the building than a hologram or other projected image of unknown origin.

Why would "they" introduce something so complication into an important operation?


To be fair, I believe that actual real planes crashed into the buildings. All I'm trying to do here is run with this theory.

The major problem we have when tackling some obscure high technology that we can't possibly understand, is deciding what is and what isn't complicated.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Dear Skeptic Overlord,

Your comments are always appreciated. However they are rapidly approaching 'subtle intimidation' on this thread.

I would respectfully request you watch your languarge very carefully in regards to your comments to and about those of us who are 'considering' the possiblity that there were no 'real' airplanes used in the attack on the WTC.

Your comment to Billbob:


Billybob you're a long time member of ATS in excellent standing and I highly respect your history of contribution. However I need to say that this angle of conspiracy research continues to confuse me as it defies logic and critical thinking on so many levels.


is an insult to Billybobs highly professional and extremely informative post.

Your further comment:


Are you aware that a respected 911 truth analyst thinks this theory is rubbish?


is rubbish itself.

Your comment on this issue has been read and noted. Any further repetition will be considered as 'attempt by an owner of ATS to unfairly impede the search for the truth on what, if anything, hit the WTC on 911'. (Please review TERMS AND CONDITIONS).

I know that you will take the time to think about this issue and see that your comments that a "911 truth analyst thinks this theory is rubbish" is not only highly inflammatory but also contradictory in terms and an oxymoron as well.


911 Truth Analyst? Who are you kidding?



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   
I really don't know if it's transparent or not, so I'm not even going to try and argue it. There's as good a chance as that photo being edited as there is that the planes were actually a PSYOPS Holographic project. It's possible people. Just because you "saw it on tv" doesn't make it real. I'm not saying plane didn't hit the Towers, but what I am saying is, just because it's on tv, that doesn't make it real. There are many things we've seen on tv, computer generated dinosaurs, aliens, Oprah skinny, we've seen these things on tv, it doesn't make them real. We've seen what computer generation and photo/video editing can do. That goes both ways because the same technology you'd use to create a holographic plane would be basically the same one as editing those photos to make it look holographic, but in the end, it's all possible.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

I propose that the visual film “evidence” actually showing the planes — all of horrible quality by the way (surprise, surprise) — came from official sources only.


quality varies , and not all of it came from official sources - you really have not done your homework


There is no competing real amateur documentation,


only because you have already poisoned the well , by clauming all footage must be false

if you actually look - there is more ameteur footage than profesional


because it’s impossible to have recorded something that never happened.


further circular reasoning .


If there had been aircraft we would have images so sharp you could “read the numbers” off the tailfins — you can bet the farm on that. The well-they-were-too-fast-excuse is not permissible.


utterly laughable .

have you actually ever attempted to film an object at a high rate of tracking

almost all the cameras were hand held -- and a large percentage consumer grade -
if you think you can capture crystal clear footage of an object traveling at 600kph + from a range of under 2 km , when you have no idea that it is about to appear in your feild of view - nor do you have any idea of its true trajectory so you cannot predictivly lead the camera to keep it in shot - please try it .

please look at how many seconds the planes were in shot for - could you adjust focus and zoom to stabilize the shot and ensure the perfect sharpness you demand



If we can capture Space Shuttle launches crystal clearly then for sure we can accommodate conventional passenger aircraft.


a blatant red herring - the camera crews who document the shuttle launch , have specialist equimpent optimised for the job - thier cameras , lenses and mounts are all selected soley for the purpose of filming the shuttle

further -- they know the exact lauch time / trajectory and rate of climb inadvance

they have all the focus settigs , light metering values , and pan / tilt adjestments calculated in advance too .

they even get to practice the shot - first


Or are we to believe there aren’t any photographers in New York City with those kinds of capabilities?


no there were not actually - because no one was given advanced info on where the planes would appear from or thier trajectories .

the photographers in NYC were mainly using hand held equipment - and were taken by suprise as planes roared past skyscrapers - they had to power up or refocus from other targets - all in split seconds

and with the added psychological baggage that they knew people on those planes were seconds from death .


And about the witnesses — I’m saying I haven’t seen or heard of any credible ones yet. I cannot outright prove this, but the interviews as broadcasted on public television appear staged and bogus.


you are simply projecting your fantasies about how you want a witness interview too look .

interviews are staged you muppet - they tell the interviewee where to stand - and which direction to look in - and fire questions at him


Because of all the other highly suspicious factors and the physical realities I think it’s reasonable to radically assume there were no planes at all.


ok , fantasy assumption noted


[edit on 24-10-2006 by ignorant_ape]



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Dear Skeptic Overlord,

Your comments are always appreciated. However they are rapidly approaching 'subtle intimidation' on this thread.


What? John, I disagree completely with that asessment and would question how, exactly his adding his opinion to the mix is "intimidation"? The implication you are making is flat wrong. there is not one instance where we (the three owners) have ever saught to "intimidate" anyone on any subject.

YOU of all people should KNOW THAT, how many times have we stood fast in our support of your ability to express your beliefs and opinions on this site? I don't want to derail this thread but, that and most of what followed in that post was uncalled for IMHO.

Springer...



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Whoever removed Skeptic Overlords post of a picture of, 'hands being washed' please put it back. Thanks.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   
john,

Its great to see you adressing the questions asked of you. Way to realy get to the bottom of the issue. Oh wait you didn't. instead you choose to find every excuse to dance around them by trying to side track things.

So lets get back on topic. I have a few questions that I would like to have you answer. Please do not take these as insults as they are not intended to be that. I will listen to just about any side of the story as long as its supported by logical information. You CAN'T just say "it could have been holograms" with no supporting information and expect everyone to automaticaly buy into it.

1. If they were holograms where are the real planes and real people?
2. Where did this tech come from? A serious answer this time if you please? Not a simple one line joke (at least i HOPE it was a joke)
3. Why go to all the trouble? Motive means a lot. It just seems WAY over complicated to me.

I know you posted a URL for a military paper about a holographic projector. But you said yourself it was for MOMENTARY distraction. Not sustained deception. And how did you come across this paper? I cant find a link to it anywhere in the actual site. Maybe got someone on the inside that planted that rather amature looking "paper"? Hey its a theory. I mean I cant find it linked to anywhere even after extensive diging. A google search doesn't show any internal links to it. So how did you find it? Because so far thats the only documentation I have seen about your theory. And in my minds eye its sort of questionable. So please, convince us. Lets get back to basics here. Not supposition that you are privy to information we arent so we should accept your word as gospel fact.

And Skeptic Overlord, I know I am just a little guy here at ATS but, I personaly apreciate your efforts to keep things at least somewhat realistic. Keep up the good work. And dont let everybody else fool you. You have every right to say what you want to who you want. This is you and the other amigos site. Alot of people have put a lot of work into it. but it wouldnt be ATS if not for you guys.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join