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.

 

Wow! YouTube Documentary shows WTC Impact/Explosion and No Plane @ (5:40m) ?!?!

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
www.youtube.com...

Great doc worth a look... but I have NEVER EVER seen this particular clip which is at 5:40 and I've been trying to verify the source/origination since as much as i support the real NPT, I believe this clip is too good to be true since if any verification was found, this would be the grand daddy of smoking guns.

For now I'll just say this clip is truly amazing and present the clip and perhaps someone here can officially verify whether this was doctored and the "plane" or drone/missle edited out. But if thats true, they did a very good job this time imo.

If not, the implications would for all intents and purposes clearly validate NPT and NMT (no missle theory), pre-planted explosives, and tv fakery/CGT (cgi graphic theory).

www.youtube.com...






Mod edit: Fixed embedded link.

[edit on 3/2/2009 by Hal9000]




posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
The part at 5:40 where they say there is no plane, the plane came from behind the building relative to where the camera was so of course you can't see it till it hits. Camera angles are tricky little things.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
but I have NEVER EVER seen this particular clip which is at 5:40

The clip at 5:40 is the clip with the "missing left wing" and they just took the whole plane out. It's a fake.



Originally posted by matrixNIN11
pre-planted explosives

Pre-planted explosives would have to have been on the outside of the building for all to see because explosives don't suck things in, they blow things out. The building was pushed IN, so no explosives were used in place of planes.



Yep, the pic shows huge chunks of building pushed IN by a big plane. Nothing to see here......



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   
thats the question though... you're saying they TOOK THE PLANE OUT ie edited/photoshopped out right?

as the doc seems to explain or assert, its easy to ADD cgi but not as easy to erase in the same manner...

not saying thats true, but any other opinions on that?

also, are there any anomalies in this clip that show evidence of taking it out?

as to your point about blowing out and plane pushing in,,, i'm not following your point... maybe i'm just not understanding, but your logic seems to contradict what you're saying.

why would pre planted explosives HAVE TO BE on the outside?

and whatta mean by they suck things in? From what i'm seeing, there's an explosion coming OUT. so what you say would happen, does seem to be happening.

????????

i need some more clarification and/or stronger conclusive evidence/argument debunking this... i'm not convinced enough yet.

not saying you're wrong since i'd have to agree its probably fake... i'm trying to determine this is beyond a doubt fake or get some opinions here
before i'm sold on what you're saying.

believe it or not, i would like to see this debunked more clearly if it can be done... i can neither prove or disprove this yet imo.



Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
but I have NEVER EVER seen this particular clip which is at 5:40

The clip at 5:40 is the clip with the "missing left wing" and they just took the whole plane out. It's a fake.


Originally posted by matrixNIN11
pre-planted explosives

Pre-planted explosives would have to have been on the outside of the building for all to see because explosives don't suck things in, they blow things out. The building was pushed IN, so no explosives were used in place of planes.



Yep, the pic shows huge chunks of building pushed IN by a big plane. Nothing to see here......


not so sure yet...



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
but I have NEVER EVER seen this particular clip which is at 5:40

The clip at 5:40 is the clip with the "missing left wing" and they just took the whole plane out. It's a fake.


Oh, as to that point about the MISSING WING, you do realize the clip showing the PLANE and MISSING WING is the clip I HAVE SEEN MANY TIMES... so thats not what i posted this video to discuss since anyways, that part of this clip proves FAKERY to me if that clips from the original released footage several have already analyzed in their docs.

The portion i haven't seen before is the clip WITHOUT THE PLANE... thats what i wanted to discuss more and question.

can anyone confirm or verify the source of this clip? the docu creator Mahdiarmy claims the clip was the REASON he made the doc and he's been trying to source where the original clips came from.

again, i'm very skeptical about this no matter how much i'd like to believe its legit,,,, but until its proven more, i'm on the fake and edited camp... but its still interesting since i don't see it less fake than the clip with the plane and according to others, that clip with the plane is un-edited and from released footage.

so perhaps the next question should be then, can anyone verify the clip with the plane??



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
as to your point about blowing out and plane pushing in,,, i'm not following your point... maybe i'm just not understanding, but your logic seems to contradict what you're saying.

why would pre planted explosives HAVE TO BE on the outside?

and whatta mean by they suck things in? From what i'm seeing, there's an explosion coming OUT. so what you say would happen, does seem to be happening.


Have you ever seen anything explode and pull something in? If you look closely at the picture he used you can easily see that some of the facade was pushed IN at the impact site. The only way for that to happen if they used explosives and no plane would be to have planted the explosives on the outside of the building.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
The Buildings Support Was Re-Enforced By Internal Steel Girders Yes?. Then Surely It Is Possible That As Each Floor Came Down, The Shockwaves Could Have Disslodged Or Even Broken These Supports On The Floor Below Or Several Floors Below?

I Can't See Why They Would Have Deliberately Sabotaged Their Own Building, If That Is What You Are Trying To Say, Appologies If It Is Not.

-TSR



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
why would pre planted explosives HAVE TO BE on the outside?

No-plane/CGI/tv fakery theorists claim that since there were no planes that hit the towers, explosives were used to make the impact holes. If you look at the picture that I keep posting over and over, at the top of the hole you can see that there are large chunks of building pushed IN.

For explosives to have made those holes and blow the building IN, they would have to be placed on the outside of the building for everyone to see. Explosives placed on the inside of the building to make those holes would have blown the building OUT which is the opposite of what the factual evidence shows.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Reply To BorgHoffen:

Exactly. There Is Such Factual Evidence For A Plane Hitting The Building.. There Is Almost No Denying That It Was A Plane That Collided With The World Trade Centre. As Well As Eye Witnesses, The Company In Which The Plane Was Owned By Surely Must Be Able To Account For The Loss Of Plane.

I Don't Even Know Why I Am Explaining This, A Plane Did Hit The WTS.

-TSR



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The clip at 5:40 is the clip with the "missing left wing" and they just took the whole plane out. It's a fake.

Pre-planted explosives would have to have been on the outside of the building for all to see because explosives don't suck things in, they blow things out. The building was pushed IN, so no explosives were used in place of planes.



Yep, the pic shows huge chunks of building pushed IN by a big plane. Nothing to see here......



The steel skeleton had melted, and the building was destroyed from the center outward. I don't think there was any pushing in.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Its threads and videos like this that ruin the movement. Planes hitting the WTC it is 100% true. I sometimes wonder if threads and vids like this isnt a diversion from the real truth on who was behind 9/11 and who planned and funded it. I think that is where the focus needs to be and not crap like this.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by tjeffersonsghost
Its threads and videos like this that ruin the movement. Planes hitting the WTC it is 100% true. I sometimes wonder if threads and vids like this isnt a diversion from the real truth on who was behind 9/11 and who planned and funded it. I think that is where the focus needs to be and not crap like this.



Wow, what's got you so emotional ?

There was no impact, as the video suggests, so unless you have compelling evidence to the contrary, all of your rhetoric sounds like a cover-up.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I actually think certain debunkers got together and threw out this "No Plane Theory", to take down the movement. Or maybe its just plain disinformation.

You can't have NO PLANES, when Most of New York would have had their eyes looking right at the Towers Live as this happened. That type of conspiracy would involve far too many people, just tons of people.

Also, logically even *IF* you had fake footage (I don't believe that to be the case), but even *IF* that would not mean NO PLANES. All that would entail is that someone had reason to alter the video, to hide perhaps the identity of the plane etc. It is a leap to conclude NO PLANE either way.

Real Planes hit the Towers. If you throw out that, then anything becomes open season. Perhaps New York was CGI, Perhaps all the people were CGI, I mean seriously where would something like that end?

The theory refutess itself, and has no need of further refutation.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Wouldn't the walls on that picture be bent outwards instead of inwards if there was an explosion?

Us ( as in WE ) people have made up to much different ideas now about 9/11 I don't know what to believe anymore. =P



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
I actually think certain debunkers got together and threw out this "No Plane Theory", to take down the movement. Or maybe its just plain disinformation.

You can't have NO PLANES, when Most of New York would have had their eyes looking right at the Towers Live as this happened. That type of conspiracy would involve far too many people, just tons of people.

Also, logically even *IF* you had fake footage (I don't believe that to be the case), but even *IF* that would not mean NO PLANES. All that would entail is that someone had reason to alter the video, to hide perhaps the identity of the plane etc. It is a leap to conclude NO PLANE either way.

Real Planes hit the Towers. If you throw out that, then anything becomes open season. Perhaps New York was CGI, Perhaps all the people were CGI, I mean seriously where would something like that end?

The theory refutess itself, and has no need of further refutation.




I'm not sure how a "No Plane Theory" would cause all 9/11 conspiracy theories to suddenly become invalid.

I'm convinced. The plane didn't impact, it just went through it like Casper the Friendly Ghost. Also the plane does not have any decoration on it whatsoever. If it wasn't a commerical airliner, then it was a military craft. This video suggests neither.

Who has witnessed a plane hitting tower 2?

On the YouTube vid there is a link to another 9/11 vid of a nervous woman who said that she witnessed a plane hit the Pentagon. The interviewer clearly states why he doesn't believe her.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
The steel skeleton had melted, and the building was destroyed from the center outward. I don't think there was any pushing in.

I guess I have to start making my pictures stupid-proof because this is ridiculous. I now have arrows pointing at a couple parts of the building that are pushed IN:



Steel melts in ovens or with incendiaries like thermite/thermate. Office fires and kerosene won't burn hotter than 1500-degrees and steel doesn't start to melt until around 2700-degrees. Get researched before posting false information.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



By "pushing in" are you saying than an airplane penetrated the building, or that explosions penetrated the building?

You do not even indicate where this picture is from. It could have been a completely unrelated incident, or even tower 1 instead of tower 2.


Mod edit: Replaced large quote with reply link.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3/2/2009 by Hal9000]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
if you watch the second capture of the "fake" plane hitting the building you will see the force of the planes motion sending debri flying in the same direction of the planes course or flight!
plus im sure there is some pictures and videos of parts of jet engine that was found around the bottom of the building before it collapsed, i remember watching it on the news people were diving out of the way of debri falling from the entry point



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 


I have never seen this clip at 5:40 where the building starts to explode with no plane in sight. At 5:57, the very same clip now has an airplane in it, hitting the building at the time of the explosion... I don't have an explanation for that. It would be very hard to remove that plane, but they've had nearly 8 years to do it. I don't know if the film is faked or not, but as I watched on the morning of 9/11, I saw a plane hit the second building. Live.

I don't believe the "no plane" theory, but I definitely don't believe the "official story" either. So, I tend to think this clip is somehow faked.

The second part of the film I thought was interesting is at 8:00 to 8:30. The plane looks like it moves through the building and the building "heals" after the plane blasts it... Again, I can't explain it.

But thanks for posting. It's very interesting.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join