Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

New Video: september clues exposes 911 TV Fakery

page: 25
27
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   
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]




posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Oops

[edit on 10-11-2007 by Benzie101]



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 12:38 AM
link   
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 in clear view flying into the tower just overwhelms any theory you could come up with.

Sadly, it's theories like these that seem to somehow take away credibility from the people with solid theories.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 12:45 AM
link   



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Some of the more aggressive posters such as bsregistration and Killtown were run off from ATS. And it’s a shame. Because they were telling it ‘like it is’. Yes, they were rowdy writers. But their outspokenness was refreshing and entertaining. We could use a little more straight talk.

There were no planes on 9-11, because there were no plane parts. Neither hide nor hair of them was to be found. And without a corpus delicti — we cannot and should not say that there were.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   

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?



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   

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]



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   
But what about all the people who DID SEE A PLANE. What about my friends Brian and Frank who lived across across the Hudson in New Jersey and clearly saw a large plane which they thought "was carrying water to put out the fire in the first tower" and which then HIT THE SECOND TOWER.

And what about the Naudet brothers movie which inadvertently shows the first plane striking. Are we now suggesting that this was also doctored. And if not, then we're saying that a REAL plane hit tower one, but the second plane was a product of Final Cut Pro.

A 'conspiracy' that requires a missile being fired/explosives hidden in the building to cause a huge explosion and then a plane being superimposed onto news channel footage in 17 seconds before a TV audience of several billion (not to mention the half a million or so people on the Manhattan streets all looking up at the sky; and also, let's not forget people in the tower itself who saw a plane) seems a little high risk. It's the biggest and best Indian Rope Trick ever !

Don't you think it would be just easier to hijack a plane and crash it into the towers !



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   
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]



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   
WHAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED - VERSION ONE

You buy some club class tickets on low-security internal flights. You have some thugs. You get the thugs to kill some people on the plane and threaten/force their way into the cockpit and kill the pilot. Then the guy who's had pilot training steers the plane at high speed into the biggest building in New York, which eventually collapses.

WHAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED - VERSION TWO

You have a missile that you make to look like a plane that you fire from, say, a ship in the North Atlantic/ or you have no plane at all, and you hope that no-one is looking at the sky that day and you have explosives in the building which are perfectly timed to mimic a plane-strike and then additional explosives that will bring the building down. But, because the world will be looking at that exact spot, you have to make it look like a plane has hit the building by doctoring the footage almost 'live'. And then you hope that the hundreds of people who are in on this cunning plan, the explosive guys, the missile guys, the video editors, the news crews, the politicians, the CIA, the Illuminati, the freemasons, the Knights Templar keep schtum and don't ever say a word to anyone about what really happened.

Essentially the point is that EVEN IF it was a Government conspiracy, then the easiest way of doing it would still be to hijack a plane and fly it into a building.

Anyone heard of Occam's razor ?



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   
scenario three:

modified remote control planes, disguised as commercial airliners are flown into the towers. the passengers are either in on it (a MERE few hundred people), or are killed or imprisoned, or brainwashed and given new identities at a remote location.
the pentagon plane flies over from the north side of the CITGO station, while a missile or small drone(globalhawk, tomahawk, or cruise missile disguised as commercial passenger plane) is fired from ground level into the pentagon.
all this happens under the cover of drills that mimic the actual attack, confusing those who would respond effectively to the threats.

later, an army of rovian disinfo pros "create their own reality" about what could or could not have happened.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   
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?



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   
3:11 to 2:58 of the video second from the bottom, what the hell is that little light that crosses from left to right in the smoke, looks like some kind of IR spotlight or beam to me, don't they use those to aim laser guided munitions? if it is IR it would have been invisible to teh naked eye but show up on the footage like that, point your remote control at your camcorder sometime and you'll see what I mean.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 08:37 PM
link   
I don't have very good eyes and an old monitor and cannot see much of the lights you talk about...but no doubt there were lazers used to point that day.

The more I think about this the more astounded I am by the fact that in that second video, the Channel Five helicopter takes a WIDE view and there are NO planes anywhere on the right side to the horizon line. The camera zooms in and is there for just a couple of seconds when BOOM!! The second plane hits!!

But the BIG problem is the fact that no plane could travel from the far right past the horizon in those few seconds. If there had been another jet coming, SURELY to hell the helicopter camera crew would have PULLED back on the zoom and caught the approach..it is just inconceivable that this did not happen..It is as if the camera operator was told to get a tight shot and hold it there no matter what..and they did so, and earned the congrats of the bosses.

WHY would the camera operator on the helicopter NOT zoom back and film the plane that would have been all TOO obvious coming from the right to the left. The far wide shot taken just a few seconds before impact shows NO AIRPLANE in the sky!! Where did it come from? Why did the camera guy zoom in and hold and not pull back and get the most im;ortant shots? It stinks.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   
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..



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 08:03 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 08:47 PM
link   
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



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 02:30 AM
link   

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.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 09:56 AM
link   
I want to address the "nose Cone"problem. Couldnt the picture have been altered to make a puff of smoke exiting the building look like a nose cone because they screwed up with the footage of the impact showing the nose cone exiting the building?

Something i dont agree with on the video is the angle the plane hit at changing. I cant remember the exact numbers but a simple explanation would be that as the plane swooped in towards the building they could have pulled back on the flight controls thus making the angle of entry different.

A good video, explains some things but ignores others. Still i come away with more questions than answers






top topics



 
27
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join