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.

 

No planes hit the Twin Towers?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Yes, I'm talking about the Twin Towers and not the Pentagon. The "I saw it happen on TV!!" argument might not be as sound as you think.. You might want to reconsider. I don't know if stuff like this has been posted earlier, so I'll just go with it.

Well, first of all, I don't know if I believe this myself. The thing is, there are so many theories out there, I don't know what to believe anymore. But this.. Oh this blew me away. Sorry to tell you but we'll have to do with Youtube videos for now.. Basically they cover how TV trickery was used to make people believe in things that weren't really there. Same image comes over and over again, and same voices etc.

The whole explanation is 9 parts. I will give them at the end of this post. For a few previews, I'll just put in a few short videos. Some are in the whole documentary and some are not.

First, let's start with the moving bridge:


Some weird responses by cameraman:


Nose in, nose out video:


Now i know these videos don't prove that there weren't any planes at all, but if you look at the next full documentary, you will in the least start to have doubts about the planes..

For a full documentary:
Part 1:
www.youtube.com...

Part 2:
a
www.youtube.com...
b
www.youtube.com...

Part 3:
www.youtube.com...

Part 4:
www.youtube.com...

Part 5:
www.youtube.com...

Part 6:
www.youtube.com...

Part 7:
www.youtube.com...

Part 8:
www.youtube.com...

Part 9:
www.youtube.com...

Good luck..




posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
lol lol Im sorry but that is the biggest bit of horse # I ever heard, I have a friend that was there, got stuck in a lift one of the only times he has been in one 6 blocks away. Members of his family were on the street and saw the planes hit, you may be able to do fake it on TV but you cannot fake the things people see with there own two eyes. Don't even start with the "but they were brainwashed/conditioned". They know what they saw, they were in shock for weeks after.

Same for the pentagon, a plane hit, as PLAIN AS DAY.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
I remember those videos but they had a different name, cant think of it right now, we had a discussion about it....



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
This is pretty much thought of as in the 9/11 truth movement as disinformation.The media may have played with the images,but many many people in new york saw the planes hit the buildings.There has been quite alot of threads about this if you search ATS.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by Solomons]

[edit on 26-2-2009 by Solomons]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
if you look at the next full documentary, you will in the least start to have doubts about the planes.

Those few who are very gullible and don't do any research to check the truthfulness of such claims may start to have doubts about planes hitting the towers. But most people will not have doubts.

TV Fakery is considered disinfo by the 9/11 truth movement. Not a single research organization in the 9/11 truth movement accepts the tv fakery theory and the discussion of the theory is banned everywhere due to it's blatant disinformation and the hostility the topic causes.

The nose-in/nose-out claim has been debunked by me for a while:







As one can see, the noses are different sizes and shapes which we can conclude that not only is it not the real nose coming out of the other side of the tower (there's no exit hole), that also it was not a fake, inserted plane onto live tv. Every single tv fakery claim is easily debunked, effortlessly.

September Clues and tv fakery are very well debunked at the link in my signature.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
No planes hit the two towers. I have to agree, for I did not see planes or the buildings . I was not there. If I did not see it with my own eyes I can not 100percent say it happend. It is like god and the bible, I can not see god, so I don't know if he exists at all.

Our best bet is to find eye witnesses . They know for sure.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by wiredamerican
 


There are thousands of New Yorkers that were standing outside watching the first tower as the plane slammed into the second tower. There are dozens of videos of the plane hitting the second tower including home videos of the first and second plane.

Don't you think that if there were no planes, thousands of people would be coming forward in every media outlet and screaming that they didn't see a plane hit the south tower while the news kept showing a plane? Come on. It doesn't get much closer to the definition of disinfo than this.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
This is one of the dumbest 9-11 theories out there.

I know quite a few people who saw both planes that day hit the buildings or at least fly over thier heads.

I guess my friends all disinformation agents secretly working for the governement?



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by drock905
This is one of the dumbest 9-11 theories out there.

I know quite a few people who saw both planes that day hit the buildings or at least fly over thier heads.

I guess my friends all disinformation agents secretly working for the governement?
Small or large plane? Because, apparently, it was a missile which can easily be confused with a small plane.. I bet most of you arguing here didn't even watch past the first part. If you only watch the 3rd part, which covers the "amateur" videos, i think you'll rethink your position. And by the way, i bet almost no one saw the first plane, but they just heard an explosion and then looked up. Since the media told them it was a plane, everyone says they saw the plane. There are also live videos in that documentary where people present clearly say the second tower just exploded and they didn't see a plane. And another funny thing is that apparently almost all the eye witnesses are workers at one of the tv stations.

It's easy for you to throw it out the window. But how about the moving bridge? How come the buildings seem to be filmed from the same angle? How come do you hear the SAME woman scream in completely different videos? I suggest you watch the whole thing before posting a biased opinion...

And even IF there were planes, you might want to ask yourself why they wanted to manipulate what they showed on TV in the first place, because these videos ARE evidence that the videos/images have been tempered with..

[edit on 26-2-2009 by vasaga]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
And by the way, i bet almost no one saw the first plane, but they just heard an explosion and then looked up.

How about the opposite? How about someone saw the first plane, but was too far away to hear the explosion?

There was a second video of the first plane shot by someone who was sitting in traffic waiting to enter the Brooklyn tunnel. It's the second video here:

guardian.150m.com...

And before anyone gets any ideas, he was not from New York and was randomly video taping and happened to be taping the towers at that moment.


Originally posted by vasaga
There are also live videos in that documentary where people present clearly say the second tower just exploded and they didn't see a plane.

Clearly if you're on the other side of the tower, your view of the plane will be obstructed and you will only see the explosion. That gets a big DUH! The ground noise and all the tall buildings would conceal the sound of the plane approaching until the very last second.

Just because people weren't in a position to see the plane and only saw/heard the explosion doesn't even come close to proving there was no plane.


Originally posted by vasaga
But how about the moving bridge?

The bridge wasn't moving, the helicopter doing the filming was moving. Things in the far background further away from the camera will appear to "move" faster than things closer to the camera. This is simple physics and again doesn't come close to proving that there was simply no plane.

All of this is easily debunked in the videos in my signature, thanks.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Next to september clues loose change looks like a unbiased documentary.

That doesnt say much though, so does Triumph of will.

Edit to add:
Seriously OP, look at those vids with one half critical eye. Listen to him when he tells you a perspective in one shot is the same as in the other, or is different than in the other. You will find no correlation between what is shown and what he is telling you.


I recall a sequence of "amateur fotos of new york" He shows you a bunch of high gloss magazine pictures, none of wich have a price tag below 1000 dollars, and compares them to video. Its too ridiculous even for truthers.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by debunky]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Solomons
 


Exactly.
Besides, in the Naudet brothers' documentary they were shooting that day a plane is clearly visible, just not the kind of plane we were told.

Disinfo, strawman, the whole ball of wax.

Peace




[edit on 27-2-2009 by Dr Love]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by zerozero00
Leave it alone BoneZ....you always pop your head in and spout your "spiel"!

You might as well put me on ignore because every time this disinfo is peddled, you'll see my name.

Your post also contributes nothing to the thread, so the mods will probably be along soon. And finally, the mod that posted just before you said it was disinfo also. Tell him to leave it alone like you did me. I want to see what happens....



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
ok!...before you start attacking me personally, I have something for you to have a look at'''''I know we are from the same book...just a different page thats all...

maybe there is something in the drone/military plane/radio controlled or no planes at all theories that don't make sense...but the evidence to support all is not well with the OCT is very strong going by all that we know!

www.arsenalofhypocrisy.com...

read it and think....maybe you disagree with the whole document but at least someone has tried to make sense of it all...

please read and comment....I dont want to argue with you because your looking for the "truth" like me!....but don't keep preaching what is right and what is wrong...unless you know something I don't??


we agree its an inside job! yep?. ..but I'm still looking for the facts!...I don't proclaim to know it all!...do you?



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Well if you look at the live pictures from amateurs 9/11 one frame at the time, you can clearly see that the plane is a CGI. You can see the building repair itself after the wings are in the building. Don't you think that's funny?

D.Duck

[edit on 27-2-2009 by D.Duck]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by D.Duck
you can clearly see that the plane is a CGI.

You tell the thousands of New Yorkers that all watched the plane with their own eyes that it was CGI'd into thin air. You also tell all the people that filmed the first and second planes that all of their video tapes were magically altered and had a CGI plane added in. I wonder what the ones with home videos will say...



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by D.Duck
you can clearly see that the plane is a CGI.

You tell the thousands of New Yorkers that all watched the plane with their own eyes that it was CGI'd into thin air. You also tell all the people that filmed the first and second planes that all of their video tapes were magically altered and had a CGI plane added in. I wonder what the ones with home videos will say...



You seems to forget that highly advanced 3-D and hologram technology was available
prior to 9/11!!

It would be rather silly to ignore this information, but sadly, 95% of people do.

One has to wonder why that is!!

From DoD declassified budget papers 2000 - 2007, but no longer available:



".....
These programs will also explore a combination of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) based electro-optic spatial light modulators in combination with very short pulse solid state lasers to provide powerful new capabilities for secure communication up-links (multi-gigabits per second), aberration free 3-dimensional imaging and targeting at very long ranges (> 1000 kilometers). Lastly, innovative design concepts and system integration of MEMS-based spatial light modulators (SLMs), that provide a quantum leap in wavefront control, photonics and high speed electronics, will be explored for an affordable and high value communications, image sensing and targeting system for use well into the 21st century."


[edit on 27-2-2009 by djeminy]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by djeminy
You seems to forget that highly advanced 3-D and hologram technology was available prior to 9/11!!

You seem to forget that holograms can't make the damage done to the towers in the form of huge, gaping holes.

Just like all available evidence points to the towers being brought down with explosives, all available evidence shows planes hit those towers, so you may as well just let it go. You will not win this argument.



new topics




 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join