New Video: september clues exposes 911 TV Fakery, page 25


Pages: <<  22    23    24    25    26    27    28  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 27 times


reply posted on 6-11-2007 @ 03:24 PM by dionysius9
There were real planes used on 911. These are the questions I have:


Were they the actual flights with passengers on board, or were they perhaps military replacement aircraft flown via remote control? If military, did the real flights land somewhere? If they landed, where are those passengers and what in gods name did they do to them?

If they were the actual civilian flights, were there truly terrorists on board who did the dirty work, or was the terrorist thing a cover-up, when in actuality the plane was rigged with remote controls because trusting the terrorists to do their job would have been too risky?

I see no other questions worth asking.

Do I know what the answers to these questions are? No. The best any of us can do is think "If I were a diabolical scheming gang of rich liars and thugs, what would I do to pull of this event and make it convincing to the public at large?" Pulling off a scam is going to leave a whole different fingerprint for the event than the evidence of a genuine terrorist attack.

Ever since 911 happened, I have always "felt" that something was awfully wrong with the story we were given. I spent my time and study for the first 5 years trying to calm myself with explanations that made the government story sound plausible. I was exhausted by the end and had to ask myself "could they have actually done it?" Once I admitted "yes, that IS a possibility" all hell broke loose. I cried, I feared, I got very angry... moreso than when I believed terrorists did it.

I WISH it was as simple as terrorism, but it is not. I would feel safer in a world with religious extremism than I do in a world with diabolical leaders, AT HOME.

[edit on 6-11-2007 by dionysius9]


reply posted on 10-11-2007 @ 01:34 PM by twitchy
Originally posted by PepeLapew

Was that really called for? Seems Rather childish.

Originally posted by Benzie101
Man this theory is really quite stupid in my opinon. The vast amount of homemade (in a manner of speaking) videos that depict a plane

Vast amount of homemade videos depicting a plane sounds pretty good, got any straight from the source that weren't handed over to the mainstream media?
All this bashing and trashing, but nobody has come up with a sufficient explination of the anamolies in the footage that was shown on the networks. The fade to black, the nose out...
It's a dangerous assumption that it's impossible for those planes to have been missiles altered to resemble civilian craft, and it's totally impossible for them to CGI planes over those missiles...
There's no proof either way, but until somebody eplains some of these anamolies, than an assumption is all it is... What anamolies you ask?



Here's a gif of a jet impacting a concrete structure...

Yet, on 9-11, the planes are able to penetrate into the building PAST the wings before any damage is visible. The planes pretty much vanish into the building, then explode, like a missile.



Now maybe it was just cooincidence, but I read somewhere recently that a team of engineers that were developing missiles that would closely resemble civilian airliners just happened to be amungst the victims of 9-11.

Also laser guided munitions depend on a laser painting the target, the infrared laser cannot be seen by the naked eye, but it can be picked up on video cameras. Point your television remote at your camcorder and you will see what I mean. Now taking that into consideration, what do you suppose the little glow on the building in the front of the nose prior to impact is?





Or how about the Pentagon...



Additionally, see if you can find the wreckage from the plane in this picture, if you can't find any, Why? They told us it was mostly vaporized? Yet another unprecedented even on 9-11, the total vaporization of a jumbo jet that left behind only a few easily recognised pieces of the plane. Do you not think it odd that the rest of the plane was completely vaporized yet a section of the plane with the legible airliner's logo was still intact? Has there ever been a jet airliner crash and completely vaporize before? Yet another unprecedented event?

If you can't explain these anamolies, not speculate about, but explain them with proof positive, then we have a problem. If 9-11 went down the way we are told it did, then why is there unexplained anything? Can you explain them PepeLapew, with something other than your insulting pictures?


reply posted on 10-11-2007 @ 04:35 PM by thelibra
Originally posted by scientist
I am a bit shocked at ATS' stance on this topic, especially when considering all the views they entertain on UFOs and the like, however I was not witness to the "trolling" that was apparently going on.



Your assumption on what the "ATS stance" on this topic is, versus the reality, might actually surprise you. This thread will pretty much explain it in full. I'd recommend giving it a read before assuming that ATS stands behind a particular theory or story.

Killtown, bsregistration, and the rest were not banned because of their theories. They were banned for being arsehats to the other members, trolling, and waging a personal war against ATS on several other sites.

[edit on 11/10/2007 by thelibra]


reply posted on 22-11-2007 @ 01:24 PM by twitchy
reply to post by thechauffeur

I've not been able to find the original source, but supposedly there was a team of MIT engineers who were designing a missile system to resemble civilian aircraft, all of whom died on 9-11. It's obvious alot of people did indeed see something hit the towers, but it's possible also that they may not have been your everyday planes.
As to slipping in a boolean animation over the live feed, it's not as impossible as most folks seem to think it would be. Then we have Bush's odd quote about seeing the first plane hit on television? I wonder if he was talking about seeing the 'daily' for the animation before it happened?
There's some undeniably strange crap going on in that footage, and I'm pretty sure there's a fade to black there but I don't know what program it is as my geek abilities are slim to none.

I think this thread is probably close to explaining the origin of the hologram theory.

[edit on 22-11-2007 by twitchy]


reply posted on 22-11-2007 @ 01:40 PM by talisman
reply to post by thechauffeur


The people who tell you that your friends didn't see a plane are no different then the de-bunkers who tell eyewitnesses they didn't see UFO's.


reply posted on 28-11-2007 @ 01:14 PM by eyewitness86
Here are a few prime examples of a POD, or SOMETHING , exiting the Tower AFTER the crash on the other side. We all know that it CANNOT be, by any stretch of the imagination, be the nose of the ' aircraft ' that struck the Tower. An airliner nose hitting a Tower would be shredded beyond recognition before getting to the core. But, there is something there, and I personally, after watching this many times, believe that we are seeing a pod that blew out but was supposed to explode just inside the building, or be totally hidden in the fireball. A minor technical hitch in an otherwise successful plan.

The ' pod ' is consumed when the fireball hits it and I believe that the contents were faken evidence meant to be picked up below and not incinerated in the initial fireball: Perhaps the passport found? Perhaps parts and other debris meant to confirm the story? Perhaps.

But there is NO doubt that we are seeing a projectile being ejected just prior to explosion.



And: Here you can forward to right about 7:00 in, almost at the end, to get to the meat of the matter. Thsi almost makes me accept John Lears hologram theory. Why? The news helicopter is pretty far away and zooms in on the tower. There are NO AIRCRAFT ON THE ENTIRE HORIZON..to the right there is NOTHING IN THE AIR. The cameraman zooms in and a few seconds later, all of a sudden, an aircraft appears and hits and the news crew goes " Oh!! Another one!! " But the copter would have seen the approach from far off and would not have kept zoomed in until the last second!! Thats insane!! Remember, you can forward to about 7:00 minutes in:



The people in the news chopper WOULD have zoomed BACK if they saw another plane coming toward a Tower..NOT keep the picture tight until the hit!! They would have radioed that another plane was coming and they would have kept it in the frame until it hit!! THAT is what should have happened if the story was true. But it did NOT. Thats proof enough to me that something is rotten in Manhattan on 9-11!!

Look at that a few times: Not only does the ' nose ' or pod come out the other side..but as telling as that is the fact that there are NO planes on the horizon just before the cameraman zooms in..and remains zoomed in until the hit...says that the copter crew did NOT see any approaching planes at all. The imagine could have materialized just before the buildings exterior by a few miles..whatever..NEXT:

And here we have some radio operator in the background telling Chopper Five what a great job he did!! Imagine that!! The chopper photographer fails to see a large commercial jet on the horizon far away from him, and failes to zoom back and catch the entire approach and strike of the plane!! There has already been ONE Tower hit by a plane..the chopper guys know this..and yet if they , the pilot or crew there, a large jet screaming in from the right, they would just keep a tight shot on the Tower until the explosion, missing the most dramatic and revelvant parts of the picture..right? And NOT radioing it in? Please. My God, who could believe that? But here the guy keeps saying " Nice work, nice work..to the chopper..nice work for NOT screwing up and zooming back and showing the horizon again?



So what do YOU think?


reply posted on 29-11-2007 @ 10:44 AM by eyewitness86
You know, when closely examining the first video again, the long one..I saw that just before the ' airplane ' struck the Tower, it looked as if it only had one wing!! Take a close look at the slomo video and see if you see what I see.

The plane appears to have only one wing, even though at that angle and banking like it was both wings should have been seen..and then notice that the plane enters the Tower quite fully before any explosions are seen emanating from the broad side of the Tower facing us. Odd, to say the least. Then the plane is fully inside the building and explsosions are starting to erupt along a line and then VOILA!!

A large ' nose cone ' type shape comes out of the Tower. It throws a shadow down the side of the building so it is solid. It gets engulfed in the fireball that follows it out of the side of the Tower. this is all plain and clear..you cannot fail to see all of this. Ok.. Now for the real goodies:

In the second video, if you look closely, at the end..there is a few shots of the ' approaching aircraft ' supposedly taken by the cameraman that was not assigned to stay tight on the Tower and not back out and catch the flight from the whole horizon across, as any news photog would have done by nature..if not directed otherwise. These pics show a ' form ' of light that doesn't look like a jetliner to me at all. I am starting to lean more and more to John Lears camp the more I see the details of pictures..It is too odd and cannot be dismissed:

What is the object being ejected from the Tower just prior to being engulfed in falmes? It HAS to be dealt with: it cannot just be called an ' anomaly ' and tossed aside. It is real and it is on film from various angles, so it CANNOT be a camera glitch. Lets hear what it is, and what that means..


reply posted on 3-12-2007 @ 08:47 PM by dracodie
reply to post by eyewitness86


there are more videos with the wings missing , i have done this compilation of the videos with freaky wings.

br.youtube.com...

Dylan avery says its video compression that causes it , but would video compression only affect the wings in the various videos? i dont think so


reply posted on 4-12-2007 @ 02:30 AM by apex
Originally posted by dracodie
reply to post by eyewitness86


there are more videos with the wings missing , i have done this compilation of the videos with freaky wings.

br.youtube.com...

Dylan avery says its video compression that causes it , but would video compression only affect the wings in the various videos? i dont think so


You have to remember the planes are traveling very fast in these videos. From the diagrams here of the 767, the wings are maybe 6 or 7 metres long(front to back) at their largest point. If the plane is traveling at 500 mph, that puts it at 223.5 m/s. There are probably 24 frames per second in the video, maybe less after compression but probably taken at 24 per second, so in 1/24 of a second, the wing moves 9.31 m. So it is hardly surprising that the wing isn't very visible, even at it's widest point. The Fuselage is 60 metres long, so you don't get such blurring. The effect is also reduced on the engines.
Pages: <<  22    23    24    25    26    27    28  >>    ^^TOP^^



Curiosity rover has photographed a new UFO
  Posted 13 days ago with 10 member flags
Criticism of Israel now a crime in California.
  Posted 2 days ago with 9 member flags
The power of greed can make you misspell even your own name...
  Posted 11 days ago with 7 member flags
Research into the Prophecies & Predictions of Billy Meier
  Posted 10 days ago with 5 member flags
Sky Portal Appears Over Arctic Facility
  Posted 4 days ago with 5 member flags
Strange Wormhole Portal Appears Over Arctic Facility?
  Posted 4 days ago with 2 member flags
The nuclear attack on the moon-did it REALLY happen?
  Posted 3 days ago with 2 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

My rant about my country.... England
  Rant: 6 hours ago, 39 replies
PROOF 9/11/01 was an inside job
  9/11 Conspiracies: 15 hours ago, 34 replies
I have a new Kitten....
  General Chit Chat: 14 hours ago, 25 replies