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: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
I think the whole reason this theory, regarding the Twin Towers specifically, was put out there was to attempt to negate the fact that NO PLANE hit the Pentagon.



Very plausible and intelligent hypothesis...well done mate!




posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
WHO IS HE?


Someone who actually worked in the industry, try and keep up please.



WHAT STATIONS/CONTROL ROOMS DID HE WORK AT?


One of the big 3 networks.


WHAT TIME?


From 5 AM that morning until well into the night.



WHERE'S THE VERIFICATION FOR HIS CREDENTIALS AND FACTS TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIMS?


Actually several people here know where I worked and what I did, I have posted proof of that before. I have been advised by the mods early on to not share any personal or company information.



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.


Sorry that's not information I am at liberty to discuss. That's just the way it is, I will not ever divulge operations details to anyone ever. I have signed a NDA stating that.

And it was hardly a "key" question anyhow, it was to distract away from the posters lack of knowledge about CGI and live TV.

You want to ask non specific questions, I'm more than happy to set you straight. But do not expect me to give out any company secrets. Sorry, but a real person in the industry will never ever do that, if they do, you can rest assured that are a fake.



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


Ok, move along then, you are wasting "time and bandwidth".



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


See above, I have several major motion picture credits and my work is used in many studios as well as post-production facilities in the industry. I developed standards that are still in use today and will be for years to come, and many of you enjoy the results on a daily basis.



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?


I'm tired of this charade of people who think they know all about CGI and live TV and how "easy" it is, but have NO proof, not one person ever from the industry to come forward....nothing but youtube video's and silly laughable theories about how it was done.

Sorry those of us that were there call you on your BS. Admit it, you know nothing about CGI and live TV. NOTHING.



We don't even really need the science, structural engineers, eye-witnesses and facts.


(Bolded for dramatic effect)

Wow, seriously that is absurd. Shhh everyone, ignore the facts! You don't need those...look over here at this youtube vid...it's all you need..

LOL!



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


"Divulge operation details" "don't expect you to give out company secrets"

Are you serious? You supposedly work for a TV network, not the CIA.

What are the secrets anyway? That your main anchorman wears a hairpiece? Are the operation details about where to go for your Xmas party?

Get real. Tell us exactly who you work for then prove it. Or stop saying you know its not CGI because you "where there".



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
reply to post by Soloist
 


"Divulge operation details" "don't expect you to give out company secrets"

Are you serious? You supposedly work for a TV network, not the CIA.


Yes I'm serious. I signed an NDA, as do all that work in the industry.



What are the secrets anyway? That your main anchorman wears a hairpiece? Are the operation details about where to go for your Xmas party?


Oh please. You need to re-read the question posted since it seems you are confused.



Get real. Tell us exactly who you work for then prove it.


I have previously and was advised against it by the mods. Several members here know from that, and that's all I have to say about it. Once again re-read the above posts. Believe what you want, I don't really care. But I would love to see you people ask for qualifications from these "experts" who claim they know all about how easy it is to put CGI into live TV.

So far it's been all bunk. Posting youtube video's and claiming they're true. Hilarious!



Or stop saying you know its not CGI because you "where there".


I sure will, as soon as "experts" who claim that it was so "easy" to insert CGI into live TV across multiple networks stop making these false claims. Were they there? HOW do they know? Why don't you question their intentions and experience instead of someone who worked in the field? And since they know SO much about the matter have them explain in detail exactly how this was accomplished!

Or would that just make too much sense?



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


In all these threads regarding the no plane theory, Ive never said once that I believe it.

All I was questioning (initially) was that some of the footage has definitely been tampered with. Especially of the 2nd plane which shows it approaching the tower at various angles, some are going perfectly straight while in other videos the plane is clearly dive bombing towards the tower. Other videos show it turning as it hits the tower while others don't.

Not to mention the various colours of the plane, oh and none that clearly show the planes logo and windows.

I also don't see that in this day and age with the top end of technology that America possesses, that this couldn't be pulled off.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
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.

I keep saying this, but the NPT'ers don't like to deal with facts.



Originally posted by D.Duck
I have just written you off as a guy who make statements out of thin air

Says the person that makes his own statements out of thin air here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Originally posted by D.Duck
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.

Yet not one professional engineer, scientist or physicist in the 9/11 truth movement supports NPT. Must be "every real professional" in D.Duck's reality.



Originally posted by matrixNIN11
We don't even really need the science, structural engineers, eye-witnesses and facts.

Of course you don't. You guys make it all up out of thin air as you go as I've proven over and over again.



Originally posted by matrixNIN11
not only is he stone-walling and trying to cock-block

The emphasized part in your quote has to do with a guy trying to keep another guy from getting a mutual woman. Why you would use such a thing in this conversation is beyond something....



Originally posted by matrixNIN11
This guys either here to spread disinfo, do damage control or is playing dumb.

Looked in the mirror lately?



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
I'd like to chime in and say that if in fact no planes hit the WTC then they have been able to tamper with A LOT of videos.



3:15 in this video is odd. The Witness says what was that? They're bombing it? Even though he is very far away, I believe he would have been able to see a plane... it looks as though a plane is latter added in.

I am willing to admit though that many of the video's are questionable and I have seen the video where a plane did not hot the WTC before the explosion... that is also very odd. I have also heard witnesses saying that a plane did not hit the building.

I wonder now if many of the leading 9-11 sites have decided to end the debate on this subject because it has now become too questionable and too much evidence is being supported for both sides. I believe they are trying to move onto other subjects involving it.

The possibility of a missile is in the back of mind, and I'd like to see some evidence of the flight path that took place that day.


[edit on 5-3-2009 by Techsnow]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 


Wow Matrix... Looks like bonez has called in some help with solo, gets frustrating having to deal with these types.

I think the video that has been shown and the fact the DD created that great CGI footage to prove how easy it is to someone with half a brain, has you ahead. The fact that some of the them question the size of the motor and speculate that you can't tell because its crunched and you'd have to take it apart.... do you not think that that has already been done? Or did they just say that's from this plane and didn't look for any identifying marks on it like a serial number so they could maybe work out the trajectory for a computer model they may have built. Did that not cross anyone's mind since it was a crime scene? I'm sure somewhere, someone has a number that identifies that engine as being from a particular company with a particular serial number or part number that could aid in identifying it as a 737 or 767 engine. Going by the pictures I've provided earlier, there is no way in hell that that engine has been compressed enough to have it lose more than half it's size. It would look like it went through a metal compressor. That is not what we see above.

Also, if you look here , they have some good photos and also a trajectory of what this thing would have had to do to be where it was found. Murray st is like 350 metres away. I don't remember seeing anything that large being thrown from the building at a trajectory that would make it land on Murray st. With all the footage we have of these things being blown up, surely they would have one clip that has an engine being thrown and someone noticing it. If you notice the pictures also, it's not like someone was shocked by having a 6ton engine drop near them. That would have been quite the story to tell but no one had it happen. And how is it that the engine showed up underneath and surrounded by by all those poles? On this page, some of the pics show street signs to the side that it would have had to come from, so did this engine sort of go around these poles before it came to rest?

To believe in real planes you have to believe a lot of other things that don't make much sense, and that to me is acting like a sheep. I refuse to see a plane in a video that is clearly using CGI and has been proven at least four times in this thread alone. Most other threads on the NPT it has been proven just as many. You just have trouble weeding out the good data from the bogus when you have so many derailers and trolls. This topic is one of the worst for them as is obvious from the replies to clear questions.

Rgds



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
Not to mention the various colours of the plane, oh and none that clearly show the planes logo and windows.


There is one angle where you can see a logo on the tail that matches nicely with the United Airlines logo. As for the windows there is no way that you would ever be able to see them. I've posted pictures before that were taken at the airport, within a few hundred yards of the runway, zoomed way in where you can't see the windows. And these are high definition pictures. There is no way that you would be able to see the windows from that distance with the resolution we're talking about.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   
As far as objects being thrown from the explosion in the direction of Murray Street, there is that little fireball that heads off that way. Its visible in many of the clips in the video in Techsnow's post that catch that side of the building. In particular watch from 1:34 to about 1:53 for two very clear clips. I'm not saying this proves anything, or whether it is an engine at all, but if theoretically the plane was real and the engine was ejected, there's a fair chance thats what it would look like. If not, then it must be some other fairly large chunk of debris.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Techsnow
 


If you notice in the picture below from the video you provided at 0759 on the counter....


Does not look like a plane to me, and about the size of a missile.

If you check the video and stop it on 2:31 you get a picture of a mini plane with very small wings, best described as a missile.

I think they used a missile and covered it up with graphics, but unfortunately didn't do a very good job. Cause you can see right through the facade boys, if your not wearing sheeps clothing....

Rgds


[edit on 5-3-2009 by AllTiedTogether]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by mastermindkar
 


One of the pieces of debris is very large. I made a GIF out of the video:




posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
Does not look like a plane to me, and about the size of a missile.

It doesn't look like a plane to anyone with the horrible compression and low quality of the video. Get the original video from the source and then come back and post instead of peddling this disinformation, thanks.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by mastermindkar
 


Those chunks they show in the video are no way near the size of an engine. And if they did hit going at the speed it was ejected I think it just wouldn't maneuver its way around poles and plant itself. It didn't even roll, but managed to crack the concrete. Probably dropped off earlier that morning under guise of some type of water works being done and then they uncover it for its duty. The page I provided earlier also shows a square on top of the engine for size comparison. To believe this you have to believe about 45 other things that don't make sense unless all 45 do. That is not science, that is religion.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   
We're looking at the fireball from over 1000 feet away, with only sky scrapers for reference, how accurately can you deduce the size? The engine chunk in the street is about 4 feet by 2, judging from the pictures, with the measuring tool and road sign for reference. How could something "no way near the size" of that be so clearly visible from so far away, yet heavy enough to maintain the sort of arc it does? How big do you think it was? I don't mean to sound vindictive, I am just curious.

Equally so, I'm not going to speculate the engine's final trajectory based on a handful of closely cropped photos of it after it came to rest. It would be more helpful, for instance, if someone were to go to that spot and take some LOS photos from there to the WTC's former location (and approriate height) to see how the engine may or may not have landed as shown.
This in turn assumes the engine did in fact impact cleanly without bouncing or anything first, which is based entirely on one poorly cropped photo of the "cracked" concrete. It could concievably just have landed on a crumby section of sidewalk, which NYC has plenty of. It just looks wierd for an impact crack, almost like the block had settled, unless the engine's impact displaced the entire cement block without cracking it, which is probably also possible. The point is that one fairly ambiguous photo is not enough to leap to conclusions over. If there are additional photos, perhaps after the engine was removed, they would be very useful in confirming the nature of the engine's landing.

As an aside, one of the pictures shows the end of the engine smoking. If the engine was dropped off earlier, under the guise of some water works or some similar construction as you say, did they then light it on fire as part of the ruse? I suppose they may have, they have seem to have a knack for brilliant nuances while simultaneously missing the big things.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
reply to post by Techsnow
 


If you notice in the picture below from the video you provided at 0759 on the counter....


Does not look like a plane to me, and about the size of a missile.

If you check the video and stop it on 2:31 you get a picture of a mini plane with very small wings, best described as a missile.

I think they used a missile and covered it up with graphics, but unfortunately didn't do a very good job. Cause you can see right through the facade boys, if your not wearing sheeps clothing....
[edit on 5-3-2009 by AllTiedTogether]


exactly what i pointed out in the thread i began here called the DRONE CLIP!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think You'll definitely enjoy that thread. More need to see this clip!

THAT IS DEFINITELY NOT A COMMERICAL JET and to me, only MORE IRREFUTABLE PROOF of Inside Job and "NO PLANES"

its a DRONE/missle

EOS



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Can you find a blurrier, more pixelated picture to use as irrefutable proof?

Look at it this way, the tower that blob is about to hit is about 208 feet wide. The blob, therefore, is at least 100 feel long, probably a fair bit longer. How many cruise missiles or UAVs are that large? The Global Hawk, the largest UAV currently in service, is less than 50 feet long.
The missile you pictured, judging from the man, appears to be no more than 40 feet long. The apparently similar sizes of the blob and missile pictured is meaningless due to the different viewing distances. By using the nearby objects with known dimensions in the pictures (tower and man), it is easy to prove that they are of significantly different sizes.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by thesneakiod
 


thesneakiod,

Now we have someone who says he worked for the networks.

I think we have to prepare our self for chopper pilots, firemen, policemen, military guys, politicians saying "go back to sleep, nothing is wrong with the fake videos, believe us, we were there" but they all signed an " NDA". hahaha.

WOW, some real truthers.............

That's even more stupid than the OCT.


Best
D.Duck



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by D.Duck
reply to post by thesneakiod
 


thesneakiod,

Now we have someone who says he worked for the networks.

I think we have to prepare our self for chopper pilots, firemen, policemen, military guys, politicians saying "go back to sleep, nothing is wrong with the fake videos, believe us, we were there" but they all signed an " NDA". hahaha.

WOW, some real truthers.............

That's even more stupid than the OCT.


Best
D.Duck



NDA


It's obvious you don't work in the industry or know anything about it. So all the comments about how easy it is to pull this off that come from you, well myself everyone else should consider null and void.

Unless of course I'm mistaken about your industry experience, have you worked in the industry? Because if not I call you out on it right here and now, admit you don't know what you're talking about. You can either recant, or have your ignorance exposed for all to see.

Your question about delay times on live TV have nothing to do with the topic at all and is simply too specific for anyone who has signed an NDA to answer.

If you were to reword your question into more general terms the outcome would be different :

Is there a delay on live TV? Yes.

Is it long or short? I would say rather short, but it's relative.

How long in the delay? Cannot say, that's inside information.

If I were lying I would just give you a number and be done with it, how in the world would you know that particular network has that specific delay time?

You wouldn't.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by D.Duck
reply to post by thesneakiod
 




NDA


It's obvious you don't work in the industry or know anything about it. So all the comments about how easy it is to pull this off that come from you, well myself everyone else should consider null and void.

Unless of course I'm mistaken about your industry experience, have you worked in the industry? Because if not I call you out on it right here and now, admit you don't know what you're talking about. You can either recant, or have your ignorance exposed for all to see.

Your question about delay times on live TV have nothing to do with the topic at all and is simply too specific for anyone who has signed an NDA to answer.

If you were to reword your question into more general terms the outcome would be different :

Is there a delay on live TV? Yes.

Is it long or short? I would say rather short, but it's relative.

How long in the delay? Cannot say, that's inside information.

If I were lying I would just give you a number and be done with it, how in the world would you know that particular network has that specific delay time?

You wouldn't.


Soloist,

Just tell me why you think a 767 can penetrate and be swallowed by a steel building and explode inside, not having one part of the 767 break apart on the south side when impact and fall down to the street on the south side.

Do you think the tower was made out of butter and the 767 was hot, like a hot knife slice trough butter?

Do you remember the race car driver Greg Moore hitting the wall at 180 MPH and died. That thing exploded on impact and it would not had made any different if that car had been going 2000 MPH. The only thing that would have happened if the car had hit the wall at 2000 MPH is that it will be smaller pieces to pick up. IT WOULD NEVER PENETRATE THE WALL.

Do you think any aluminium fender or bonnet on a Nascar would penetrate any wall, at any speed at Daytona race track?

Why do you think an aluminum wing filled with many thousands of gallon of fuel would penetrate a steel building and explode inside?

The only thing that would do that is the CGI 767 that you guys showed us on TV.

Shame on you for showing the whole world a fake 767 on TV.

D.Duck



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join