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: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
 



With all do respect, they are stating that a hologram followed the missile. Then after impact, preplanted explosives ignited to form the entire scope of the impact. The other videos show the hologram of the airliner. This video shows the missile. That is what is being said.

Considering some eyewitness in NY claimed to have seen and heard a missile. Again, this is just is what is being discussed. Not too crazy to discern over IMHO.

BTW, that still looks like a missile the same way the other shots look like an airplane. Throw in a hologram theory and it seems feasible.


AAC




posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:51 AM
link   


[edit on 15-9-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Palasheea
 


You can see the engines in both of the top 2 pictures you posted... the arrow in the top pic is pointing right at on of them. You can also see the engines in the video if you follow the planes with your eyes. I am guessing the lack of wings is a trick of the light.

I dont know for sure but I dont think any missiles have airplane engines or anything similer attached to them. Correct me if I am wrong.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:56 AM
link   
It's obviously a plane. I agree with everyone on that -- but it really does look like a missile though I'm sure this is because of the speed that it was traveling just before impact -- and most of all, the poor quality of that video.



[edit on 15-9-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Alright, if this is a missile, then what is this?





See the dark areas on the sides of the "missile"? They move with the "missile", which means that they are some type of side attachments or wings. Also the tail area is visible as a dark area.

To this point, none of you have pointed out what type of missile it is that would even fit the description of what the still images show. So you now cannot go find a missile that has wings and a tail to fit your theory. That'd be looking for bits and pieces to pass something off as truth.

Based on that original video, and this much clearer video that shows an airplane, both the "missile" in video 1, and the plane in this clearer video, appear to be the same length, or roughly the same length. Flight 175 was a Boeing 767, 159 feet in length. Just for comparison, a BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missile, which has "wings" and a "tail", is roughly 21 feet in length. Big difference.

So, to me, this is just silly. There's one poor quality, dark, blurry, brief video clip that doesn't show clearly defined wings, but seems to show dark blobs in the area of the wings, and we call it a missile while completely discounting all the other videos and pictures that are much clearer, the live television broadcast, the witnesses, the flight data recorder, the passengers of Flight 175, and the fact that it'd be completely pointless to use a missile, and oh yeah, by the way, we haven't even determined what type of missile it is.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Then after impact, preplanted explosives ignited to form the entire scope of the impact.


Please explain to me what the difference is between this and just using an actual aircraft?



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
Please explain to me what the difference is between this and just using an actual aircraft?


You just don't get it, Novus. The difference between flying a missile into the tower that has been pre-armed with meticulously placed explosives that will blow at the precise moment that the missile impacts the tower in order to simulate an airliner impact and an actual airliner impact is that the first option is indicative of a conspiracy and the second is not. Duh!!




posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:49 AM
link   
never mind ..


[edit on 15-9-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:52 AM
link   
OK, what wold be really handy is the frame rate of this video. Now the wings of a 767 aren't that much longer than maybe 5 or 6 metres, leading edge to rear at the longest point.


Now if this video is for example, 10fps, and the plane speed is 500mph, that is 223 m/s. So in the space of a frame of video, those 6 metre wide wings are moving 22.3 metres. Is it really that surprising they are blurred to the point of not seeing them? Even if it were filmed at about 24fps (normal movie speed IIRC) they would move 9.3 metres per frame.

Also note the front and back of the plane are blurred, since it is moving so fast. Whereas still images from a still camera show it whole, since on a bright day, shutter speeds of less than 1/200 of a second are easy.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 02:04 AM
link   
I think that long black object that coming in like a bat out of hell from the top of that frame is a lot shorter due to motion blurs, than it appears in this video.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Fear not, Palasheea. The problem with that "missile" clip is that it's a poor copy of a copy of a copy of this copy of a copy....:



....where the wings are clearly visible.

In all of my years of exploring conspiracies and modern art, I've learned to hold one truth dearly: Never assign to design what can easily be explained by decay.




Heh. I just made that up.



UPDATE: They were not taken by the same camera, but from a nearly identical position. Oopsie.



[edit on 15-9-2007 by Tuning Spork]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Ok... it's a plane.

[edit on 15-9-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 02:40 AM
link   
If you freeze at 1:09 its very obvious that its an airplane.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Yes... it's a plane. I'm so embarrassed!


[edit on 15-9-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 04:04 AM
link   
AnAbsoluteCreation

I don’t know of this is earlier mansion before.
This are the links to the new September Clues Parts 7 & 8 videos.
It supports in a way your thread of “This is an OBVIOUS Missile!!!! WATCH!”
If this isn’t the SMOKING GUN, then what do you need more to proof that 9/11 was a giant FALSE FLAG operation.
I look forward to see what the debunkers who are against the inside job theory say about this.

September Clues Parts 7
www.livevideo.com...

September Clues Parts 8
www.livevideo.com...



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
I look forward to see what the debunkers who are against the inside job theory say about this.


spacevistor,

I think we'd be better off examing and discussing the raw footage rather than a manipulated presentation. Methinks we oughta make up our own minds.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
Alright, if this is a missile, then what is this?





Just need to apologize to Novus about my confusion last night concerning the image above which I thought was the second image from my post that's showing a sequence of screenshots I got of that black line coming from the top of that frame at 29.5.

I actually thought that he had smudged the edges of that plane to make it look like there might be wings on the side of that black line to support the argument that it's a plane. But now after reading over his post on this, it's somewhat clear that he's not leaving out the possibility that it IS a missile but I was too tired last night to have caught that.

At any rate, a little later I noticed that his image is in fact NOT from my image sequence from my post because my second image in that layout was a tad bit further down on it's path just before impact into the building. The image he was using is a teeny tiny fraction of a second BEFORE the second screenshot in my sequence layout in my post. If one compares his image and my second image, one will see that. I didn't notice that last night. It was between 3 and 4 in the morning here when I was looking at all of this.

So this morning, I looked at the part of the OP's video and tried to catch a screenshot that's in the same position as the one that Novus was using. After a few try's I managed to do that .. see image below.



So what we are seeing here are smudges at the side of that black thing at that precise fraction of a second just before my 2nd image in my previous layout where before and after this screenshot those smudges are not seen at all anywhere else in that sequence.

So once again, sorry Novus! Having been in this forum for a yr. now, I've seen cases of image manipulation by members who tamper with the original image posted by someone else with an opposing view in ways that support their views. So I thought maybe this was the case here but your image that you were using was an entirely different screenshot than the ones I captured from that vid and used in my post. At any rate, it's just amazing how different things show up in only a mere fraction of a second when taking screenshots of video's like this -- probably due to how fast the object was coming into that frame.

But having said this, because of how fast that object was traveling, I'm sure that, due to motion blur, it's actually shorter than it's showing up in the video.

Also --- it's just amazing how different this video looks from the other movie that is being shown here on this page where the plane is seen very clearly. But to say that the differences lie in the qualities of each video causes me to pause because those differences are just waaaay too dramatic. Where one video looks most definitely like a plane, the OP's 29.5 video segment does not look like one at all where one has to use their imagination and their preconceived notion of what they are EXPECTING to see in that video for their brain to register it as a plane and not a missile.

The notion that that video segment is a missile and that that tower was hit by one is just too 'off the wall'. So because of this, even though it looks nothing like a plane to me, I will side that it is -- simply for the sake of common sense and logic.

Once again, my sincere apologies to Novus for the misunderstanding on my part.

[edit on 15-9-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   
I did a video capture of that section of the OP's movie that looks like a missile is going into the S.Tower. Then I inverted it in Studio 8 for that object to show up better and then inserted it on a You Tube page. Below is that vid. segment that starts at 29.5 for those to see who have not been able to see that part frame by frame on their computer. I've also slowed it down too.

Just take it for what it is... and yes, we already know that it's not National Geographic quality but nevertheless, we do have to credit whomever recorded this video for having enough composure at the time of this event to grab hold of whatever videocam he had nearby to be able to capture and record this unprecedented event at the moment of impact.

Whatever the case may be, it really does look like a missile. Not only in this video below but also in that movie that the OP gave us a link to. But, for most of, we are seeing a plane because that's what we EXPECT to see in this video. And even though it's not showing that, most people's minds will be filling in the gaps convinced that it's a plane and not a missile. At any rate, regardless that it does look like missile to me, common sense and logic tells me it's not -- it's a plane....



[edit on 15-9-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


so which is it mr lear? bombs, missiles or energy weapons? what brought down the towers? you seem to assume it was all three! or is your dissinformation strategy that thinly veiled???



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Until Mr. Lear answers, allow me: What is so hard about understanding that several different means were used to achieve the effects witnessed? Explosives of a conventional type were OBVIOUSLY used as seen in many clips, making squibs and blowing sections of the buildings apart into carrying size pieces, as well as to sever the core columns at the level of the ground.

Directed energy weapons were used for the actual TOTAL PULVERIZATION of the Towers. Dustification can ONLY be seen in cases where instantaneous high energy is applied, and in no ther scenario. Fire and gravity CANNOT turn concrete into a dust with the consistency of flour.That is a fact and beyond dispute. So we are left with ONLY a directed high energy weapon as a feasible and LIKELY alternative to the oficial lie.

Sure, several means were used; that was the plan and it worked well. It would NOT have worked at all if the media were not totally corrupted and beholden to the corporate and political masters who actually pulled the 9-11 events off. If even ONE major media outlet were to devote the time and with an honest and fair presentation of the known facts, it would be all over for the perps. Americans are not stupid, just lazy and trusting. Once they knew the facts, the outrage factor would be too much for the perps to be able to deny or suppress.

HUNDREDS of ' inexplicable anomalies ' that are NEVER accounted for by the government.A combination of proven facts that scream out for atention, yet remain consigned to the box labeled ' conspiracy theory ' and relegated to the trash after being discounted despite the obvious value and truth of it's substance. We see the results of several types of explosives and demolition materials, such as thermite, thermate, cutting charges, and possible even more exotic explosives; the lower levels were rocked by a force that rodriguez says evaporated a 50 ton press. Imagine that? A 50 ton press just GONE!! The entire lower levels blasted apart, with people burned and injured, all BEFORE the plane crash(alleged).

The insane excuse about fuel travelling 100 plus stories down the elevator shafts is stupid; they were designed to eliminate any chance of fire traveling thru them, and they were staggered and sealed for that express reason. No amount of fuel could have gotten to the lower levels, no fuel was smelled or seen, and the explosive force was far greater than what a fireball could do. There HAD to be a seperate series of tremendous explosions at the very lowest levels to seprate the steel supports from the bedrock and make the structure ready for the coming top down evaporation of all water bearing materials, including concrete and humans.

Steel caught fire and waas smoldering and blazing as it fell in great sections from the outer walls, but PAPER was not affected at all!! Tons of paper everywhere and all of it pristine, none burning, but steel buring right next to it. Amazing that people cannot see the obvious problems here.If GRAVITY and FUEL FIRES far above the bottom can account for enough heat to melt steel, why did it not burn paaper? Makes one think, doesn't it?

In any event, imagine for a moment that you are the guy who has to plan the destruction of the Towers for the Cheney/PNAC/Black shadow govt. crowd. You have to come up with a scenario that accomplished the following: The complete and total destruction of ALL of the WTC complex and NO OTHERS. The ' pan ' that the comples sits in MUST not be disturbed due to a massive loss of revenue by the perps and their pals in the financial games. It has to be LOCALIZED. Then, it must appear to be thr result of the ' airplane ' crahses that were to be the apparent cause of the ' collapses '. Fire was also a factor, but it proved to be a problem for them as the tapes of Chief Palmer telling us that the fires were small and easily controllable, ONE FLOOR below where the supposed ' INFERNO ' was melting steel and about to cause the total collapse desired.

That is why that building was the first to fall, and was the last hit by a plane and the least damaged; the illusion of a hot fire was about to be totally betrayed and so they had to blow that Tower first to stop any further talk about the fires going out soon. They HAD to have the lies of a very hot fire to support the steel weakening as a cause of ' universal collapse '. If the fires were out and the building was standing strong, as it showed throughout the entire event, then the jig would be up when they turned the Towers into dust. They HAD to maintain the image of fire until the beam weapon was used, and they were forced to act ahead of schedule by the unanticipated arrival of the firemen one floor below the collapse zone.

They hate it when a plan goes awray, because it leads to more questions. Questions like " Why did the last Tower to be hit fall first, especially when it had far less core damage.?". Then they have to either ignore the questions, as the 9-11 Commsission did, or try and make bold assertions of facts that are not in eveidence. They then are forced to say " Gee, the fires were so hot that the steel weakened just the same as the other Tower and once they started to go, it all just fell". That then is repeated all over the media and then forgotten about.

The fact that it is all lies and unproven and disproven means nothing; the people are alseep. Those of us who go beyond the norm and actually research and read




top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join