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.

 

This is an obvious Missile!!!! watch!

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by soulpower

That footage and the womans comments are from the first plane that hit WTC, I was talking about the second plane that hit.
I'm just bringing this up and not deciding anything here.


Uh no its not, its when the second plane crashed, not the first.

If you want to see the full version I'll look for it if you ask.

[edit on 13-9-2007 by deltaboy]




posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   
That's an aircraft. You can clearly see both engines flanking the main blur.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   


Heres a good angle of the plane.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by AcidxDemo
This isn't even the screencap from 29.5 seconds.. as a matter of fact, it's not even the same perspective or tower..


So we're only supposed to pay attention to the very few amount of videos and pictures that are of poor quality and blurry that don't show anything on the plane in very high detail and ignore the tons of other videos and pictures that do show a plane?

That seems a little unfair and appears we've sunk to the point of picking and choosing what we consider evidence simply to fit what we want to believe. That doesn't look like truth seeking to me.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Having looked at this AND having sat through hours of coverage of the WTC attacks (seems like just yesterday) there is no doubt in my mind that 2 757 jumbo jets hit the towers. Missiles and holograms??



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   

That seems a little unfair and appears we've sunk to the point of picking and choosing what we consider evidence simply to fit what we want to believe. That doesn't look like truth seeking to me.


Very well said. This seems to be SOP for conspiracy theories in general.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Originally posted by 16kram





Having looked at this AND having sat through hours of coverage of the WTC attacks (seems like just yesterday) there is no doubt in my mind that 2 757 jumbo jets hit the towers. Missiles and holograms??




Thanks for the post 16kram. They were trying to simulate Boeing 767's not Boeing 757's. The Boeing 757 is a small airplane. The Boeing 757 is the airplane that did not crash into the Pentagon or crash into the field at Shanksville.

In either case neither of these qualify as a jumbo jet and are not referred to as such.

Thanks for the post.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi

That seems a little unfair and appears we've sunk to the point of picking and choosing what we consider evidence simply to fit what we want to believe. That doesn't look like truth seeking to me.

Unfortunately, there are a fair amount of alleged "truth seekers," who are only interested in cherry picking evidence to prove their own version of the "truth." I'm sure there are some who are genuinely driven by a quest for the truth concerning the 9/11 attacks but sadly they are lost in the waves of charlatans and those seeking to feel important.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Night Watchman
 


its because the evidence seems inconsistent, its not like people began looking for this before they saw it, rather the opposite, its these vids and clips that made them ask questions.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by 16kram
 


How deep of an understanding are you creating to such small amounts of words? I think you are adding weight to the intended meaning of peoples replies. I do not fully believe that they were missiles, just like I don't fully believe they were passenger filled commercial jetliners. Too much evidence calls for suspect intentions. Are you not able to hold up all the curious points of reference on 9/11 to give people the benifit of the doubt on their inquiries?

Whatever happened to "there is no such thing as a stupid question?"

Why are you so adament? Can't you see all the curious aspects of 9/11? Do you disregard all of them, or just this aspect alone? Because if you yourself had suspicians, it would seem you would be more sympathetic to other people who were trying to pull themselves from the veil of ignorance.

Just an fyi.


AAC



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation
 


I personally think 9/11 was an inside job. But the point I'm trying to make is, if it looks like a plane, there's pieces of the plane, there's essentials of the plane such as the flight data recorder, it leaves the outline of a plane in the building, and witnesses say it was a plane, then it's probably a plane.

I'm all for open discussion and questioning everything. But what a good amount of people in the "truth movement" don't understand is, just because you question the official story doesn't mean you have to question every single thing. If there's good reason to, then great, I'm all for it. But if it's something so plainly obvious, then to keep looking for something that isn't there is completely counterproductive, and only makes the movement as a whole look bad.

I mean, if the official story says it happened on September 11th, 2001, are we going to question that just because they say that's when it happened? Are we going to question that it was sunny in New York City that day?

Those are bad examples, but I hope you get what I'm trying to say. I'm basically saying that we don't have to do a complete reversal of what the official story says and pawn that off as the truth. It doesn't have to be they say plane, we say missile, they say real, we say hologram, they say arab terrorists, we say jewish terrorists. It's just really unnecessary and counterproductive.

Like Night Watchman said with there being true truth seekers, there definitely are. I'm friends with many of them. I'd like to think of myself as one of them, but like everyone, I've made my mistakes and bought into things that I shouldn't have. But that's part of the learning process. The next part of the learning process is being able to accept that you were wrong when new evidence comes along. People need to stop denying every thing thrown at them just because they don't want to believe they are wrong.

It does absolutely nothing for us or for themselves. If you want it to be the 9/11 Wild Theories Movement, then by all means, start your own movement and say lizard people flew the holograms into the Twin Towers. But if you want to stay a part of the Truth Movement, then you really need to pay attention to truth. Truth has no bias, and no pre-determined look. If truth resembles the official story side, then we should say we were wrong and move on from there. If truth resembles the "conspiracy" side, then we should continue our research and move on from there. But we should never try to bend the truth to resemble our personal bias. That's when it becomes about personal belief rather than the truth.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by DodgeG1
 


EXACTLY what i was thinking.... seemed like the wings would've shown impact aswell, it really does look like a small diameter object going into the building and exploding



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for the post.


I hear you - I got my 7xx's mixed up. I'm glad you enjoyed my post



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 11:24 PM
link   
I belive every image/clip we see that contains an image of an airplane is COMPLETELY fabricated..........Peer presure is REAL! By constantly hammering us with disinfo (i.e BRAINWASHING) we (as a whole) are pretty much open for any reality they decide to present us with.......Here's a question? how many people do you think ACTUALLY saw a plane hit Twin towers? How many people heard first hand from a person actually seeing it hit?

Fishing stories!

I caught a tuna the size of a small dinghy yesterday....fastforward 1 day....I caught a tuna the size of Queen MAry yesterday!

[edit on 13-9-2007 by Steff]



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
reply to post by 16kram
 


How deep of an understanding are you creating to such small amounts of words? I think you are adding weight to the intended meaning of peoples replies. I do not fully believe that they were missiles, just like I don't fully believe they were passenger filled commercial jetliners. Too much evidence calls for suspect intentions. Are you not able to hold up all the curious points of reference on 9/11 to give people the benifit of the doubt on their inquiries?

Whatever happened to "there is no such thing as a stupid question?"

Why are you so adament? Can't you see all the curious aspects of 9/11? Do you disregard all of them, or just this aspect alone? Because if you yourself had suspicians, it would seem you would be more sympathetic to other people who were trying to pull themselves from the veil of ignorance.

Just an fyi.


AAC



AAC I'm not totally confident that I completely understand your post but I think the jist of it is that you and I probably are on opposite sides of the fence on this, and that's fine - I have very good friends that I don’t see eye to eye with on 9/11 either. In fact one of my best friends through high school lost his brother on flight 93. He never talks about it and I never ask him about it. We still have barbecues, celebrate each others birthdays, and have good conversation together. With that said I don’t see where you think I am unsympathetic. I definitely don’t mean to be and it isn’t my intention to ridicule or offend anyone here.

As for my view of the events of 9/11, well I guess I must be a simple SOB. I’m new here at ATS and there seems to be a lot of stuff to take in, so we’ll see.

Oh and this is probably the longest of the very few posts you will see of mine, hope that’s ok.


...edited for sp

[edit on 14-9-2007 by 16kram]



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by racerzeke
I do agree with you that it looks like a missile, but you have to take into account the view of the camera is so narrow and the plane is going really really fast. ...
[edit on 9/11/2007 by racerzeke]


And besides, the digital camera on which this is recorded is doing some kind of differential sampling. The shadow of the fusilage of the fast-moving jet can be differentiated from the previous state of the pixels, but not so much the reflective sides. As a result, the appearance is more like a super javelin, not any military missile. The length of the "missile" seems to be about as long as the width of the building!



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 12:39 AM
link   
And why nobody ever thought of this :

I strongly doubt that the airplane flew against the building directly. It seems very difficult to fly with such an airplane so close to the ground at about 500 mph and specially with a highjaked plane and the building is not a high tower. It is obvious that the airplane was in a kind of landing situation at a very fast speed and of course with gears in and not out, and that the airplane touched the ground before it hit the building and then was almost completely dismembered (at least the wings, because the reactors were used as the missing gears) at the impact with the ground, with such a speed, and that what looks like a missile is the front part of the fuselage or the fuselage without the dismembered wings. It looks small from the camera view because the camera is using a wide angle lens and things that are at a certain distance look very small with such a lens...



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 01:43 AM
link   
With all of the recorded amateur video and the live news videos there can be no doubt, at least in my mind, that one plane hit each tower..
In my opinion though, the Pentagon is a completely different story, a huge passenger airline skimming 40 feet off the ground and hitting it almost perfectly square..
Im no pilot but Ive heard from several different veteran pilots that flying a plane like that is difficult for a real pilot. were supposed to believe an amateur pulled it off?
That and many, many other strange things that belong in its own thread..
WTC Planes, Pentagon Missile, Shanksville, one plane shooting down another WITH a missile



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 05:35 AM
link   


I belive every image/clip we see that contains an image of an airplane is COMPLETELY fabricated..........Peer presure is REAL! By constantly hammering us with disinfo (i.e BRAINWASHING) we (as a whole) are pretty much open for any reality they decide to present us with.......Here's a question? how many people do you think ACTUALLY saw a plane hit Twin towers? How many people heard first hand from a person actually seeing it hit


The only person disinformed is you! You ask how many saw it or have
first hand knowledge of the plane hitting the building. Some 50 people
in the upper floor of my building watched the second plane slam into
the South Tower. My boss came downstairs to our office and told us
what had happened. Went upstairs to watch the towers burn and collapse
Is that good enough for you ????



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation
 


The video clip is edited in just the right way in order to make you believe that its what its not. Which is normal in conspiracy flicks. You can see the two engines of the Jet very clearly. Besides that, I saw the second plane hit the tower LIVE that morning like everyone else in the country.




new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join