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.

 

Why they didn't use planes...

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 


Excellent point and very much true. Only the people who can weed throught the crud of some of the posts lately on these threads are able to see what is clearly happening. You can see that the engine is a 737 and tell that it is not as large as a 767 engine because of its comparison to the street sign. But you will have some that will argue that, but we know that a 767 with no blades is 48inches and with blades is 84 inches. That sign is not near four feet across, no matter how many bonez look at it, it won't turn it into a 767 engine.

Should you wish proof again of this, I will again show some more evidence that this is not from a 767 and therefore a hoax and therefore part of the No Plane hit the twin towers theory, which has been proven by many to have been a fact, not theory.

Thanks
]




posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
I'm not sure if you guys got this, but I thought you'd like to notice it for a laugh...



bonez
I'm not sure which pictures you mean unless you're talking about the one's on the last page of the jet engine and car. I have no idea when they were taken, but I would assume they were taken before the towers collapsed as there would be dust and paper everywhere in those pictures after the collapses.



Originally posted by D.Duck
The plane was hanging half in and half out of the Empire State Building.

bonez
You obviously Googled the ESB story, but you have to research ALL aspects of a topic before commenting on it. You can't just go Google something and then post only the parts that are relevant to your agenda.



Gotta love it eh?

So anyways I followed some of the links to the ESB and the pictures show that the WTC was a fabrication. The beams on the WTC were not even broken through yet they say the wing went through. Like I said about feeding....



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Ive never once questioned the FACT that the US Govt, under Israels control, sacrificed thousands of lives to crash AIR PLANES into the WTC and a MISSILE into the Pentagon, since the plane that was supposed to hit it was re-hijacked by the passengers and the Military was ordered to shoot it down.
Anyone that believes that the nice, perfectly round "punchout" hole in the Pentagon was made by a plane, is seriously mistaken.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by D.Duck

The sooner you realize you were watching a "movie" on 9/11, the sooner you will find out what was really going on.

D.Duck



Re-read my post.

I was standing in the control room. There was no "movie".

You are making things up. Period.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by AllTiedTogether
 


That's the size for an UNDAMAGED engine. No matter how you look at it, the engine in the pictures is severely damaged. That engine has been compressed somewhat. Without tearing it apart there is no way to look at the casing and say what it's from. Any speculation is the person's opinion unless they were there and took it apart.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   

You can see that the engine is a 737 and tell that it is not as large as a 767 engine because of its comparison to the street sign. But you will have some that will argue that, but we know that a 767 with no blades is 48inches and with blades is 84 inches. That sign is not near four feet across, no matter how many bonez look at it, it won't turn it into a 767 engine.

Why pick 737 engine? Why not, IAE V2500 engine, for example? What about JT8D?

CF6-80 including fan is 86.4 inches, or 93 inches, depending on version. JT9D is 92" - 93".



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Wrong; A qualified A&P mechanic that has worked on either or both of those types of engines would be able to determine the difference.
Im sure out of the hundreds of members here, theres bound to be one of those here that could give his educated opinion on what the engine is.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Berzerked
 


I don't have an A&P but I spent many years working on various engines on planes. A lot of the key things that you would use to identify the engine externally are gone on that engine. All jet engines have the same key components. The only way to say 100% conclusively is to tear it down and look at the compressor sections and other internal parts of the engine.

You even said in your reply "their qualified OPINION on what it was." That's exactly what it would be. Their OPINION.

[edit on 3/5/2009 by Zaphod58]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Soloist,

Could you tell me what you were doing in the control room?

D.Duck



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by D.Duck
reply to post by Soloist
 


Soloist,

Could you tell me what you were doing in the control room?

D.Duck


It is where I was working that day. All non-essential personnel were allowed to go home, but we had to stay and had the F.B.I. guarding our facility.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
what about this : www.youtube.com...

maybe you will do some consideration?




posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


How long is your delay on the live feeds.

D.Duck



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by D.Duck
reply to post by Soloist
 


How long is your delay on the live feeds.

D.Duck


I cannot and will not divulge that, in any case that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Like I said, I was there, no CGI planes were inserted into the feed, this whole theory is complete junk.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Soloist,

I have just written you off as a guy who make statements out of thin air and are not willing contribute to the research about 9/11.

D.Duck



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by D.Duck
reply to post by Soloist
 


Soloist,

I have just written you off as a guy who make statements out of thin air and are not willing contribute to the research about 9/11.

D.Duck




Haha... OK!


Says the person who said the following :



Every one of those are fake CGI planes and they are easy to do.

Watch this clip and you can see how it was done, very easy job.


Should we just write you off as a guy who posts youtube videos as evidence? Guess so... since you claim they are "easy to do" you surely have industry experience? I would love to hear in detail, how you a studio could possibly pull off a live CGI event such as the one you are claiming.

As I said, I know from professional experience what it takes, so I will know if you are full of it. I await your response...

Or are you just making statements "out of thin air"?



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Well if you are that professional you would have immediately seen that the plane are CGI.

Every real professional laugh at the live feeds and amateurs videos.


D,Duck



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by D.Duck
reply to post by Soloist
 


Well if you are that professional you would have immediately seen that the plane are CGI.

Every real professional laugh at the live feeds and amateurs videos.


D,Duck



Great answer.

Nice way to dodge the question. I was there and saw NO CGI planes.

You have just proven that you have no idea what you are talking about. You claim it was easy to do but offer no evidence (other than a youtube video) or explanation to back that claim. Those of us that have worked in the industry are interested in your "easy" way, please share it with us so we don't have to do things the hard way anymore.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by D.Duck
reply to post by Soloist
 


Well if you are that professional you would have immediately seen that the plane are CGI.

Every real professional laugh at the live feeds and amateurs videos.


D,Duck



Great answer.

Nice way to dodge the question. I was there and saw NO CGI planes.

You have just proven that you have no idea what you are talking about. You claim it was easy to do but offer no evidence (other than a youtube video) or explanation to back that claim. Those of us that have worked in the industry are interested in your "easy" way, please share it with us so we don't have to do things the hard way anymore.


this guy was THERE? in the control rooms? on 9/11?

Yeah right.... and i'm a rocket scientist from nasa! reallly, i am.
trust me.


CRAIG!! CIT!! where u guys at.. we got a LIVE ONE.

DD... this guy is full of absolute BS and is not here for any serious
discussion of 911. If he's not a shill and here to spread disinfo, the guys a troll.


WHO IS HE?
WHAT STATIONS/CONTROL ROOMS DID HE WORK AT?
WHAT TIME?
WHERE'S THE VERIFICATION FOR HIS CREDENTIALS AND FACTS TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIMS?

and of course the second REAL questions are posed, his response to key questions is "SORRY I CAN'T DIVULGE THAT"
reallly? what a joke.

cmon... to take this poster seriously is a total waste of time and bandwidth imo. Seen it/Been there done that ad naseum.

I guarantee we'll never see any verification or details other than the typical obfuscation, empty claims, assertions, ad homs, evasions, silence and the usual disinfo and excuses for why he can't "divulge" any facts or details. We're just supposed to take his word for it based on pure faith

THE SAME BS LOGIC THAT CREATED AND WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS CONSPIRACY TO BEGIN WITH. Does anyone ever get tired of this charade and the OCT or plane hugger supporters?

911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, the LIVE FOOTAGE contains FAKERY and the MSM were in on it. Anyone with half a brain and common sense knows it.
We don't even really need the science, structural engineers, eye-witnesses and facts. You just have to see the VISUAL EVIDENCE or watch wtc7 get PULLED!


Anyways, Its gone beyond the point now where claims like soloist having INSIDE KNOWLEDGE are even credible or need to be analyzed when not only is he stone-walling and trying to cock-block, but there's IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE AND PROOF OF FAKERY.

thats really all that matters now.

This guys either here to spread disinfo, do damage control or is playing dumb.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by D.Duck
reply to post by Soloist
 


Well if you are that professional you would have immediately seen that the plane are CGI.

Every real professional laugh at the live feeds and amateurs videos.


D,Duck



Great answer.

Nice way to dodge the question. I was there and saw NO CGI planes.

You have just proven that you have no idea what you are talking about. You claim it was easy to do but offer no evidence (other than a youtube video) or explanation to back that claim. Those of us that have worked in the industry are interested in your "easy" way, please share it with us so we don't have to do things the hard way anymore.


Do you know what I have proven?

It takes about 5 minutes to insert a CGI 767 into a video if you have all the things pre prepared.

It takes 20 minutes if you start from scratch, no big deal, but you know all that because you are a professional.

" AIRPLANES DONT MELD INTO STEEL AND CONCREATE BUILDINGS, THEY CRASH AGAINST THEM"

D.Duck



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by D.Duck

Do you know what I have proven?

It takes about 5 minutes to insert a CGI 767 into a video if you have all the things pre prepared.

It takes 20 minutes if you start from scratch, no big deal, but you know all that because you are a professional.



ROFL!

Ok, You've certainly convinced me and anyone else in the industry you have no clue whatsoever about CGI and live TV.

Thanks!



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join