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: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Wow, at 5:40, where it shows the alleged CGI plane, it also is stragely devoid of any detail on the building. Of course, they use this building's "non-reaction" as evidence, but the video doesn't really support this claim, because of the building's lack of detail

O-315

I believe 9-11 was staged, but we should be looking at Quo Bono, and the entire body of evidence, not just some videos, online. Terrorists are just as capable as the media and government of doctoring videos.




posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen


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.


Whats got me so emotional is I truly believe that 9/11 was a government hit and Im not even saying it was a US government hit. I can tell you it wasnt 19 arabs being led from a man in a cave. This was a government hit because of some agenda. Threads like this take the eye off the ball and I think are put out there to discredit the true fraud of 9/11. Planes hit the towers...period. It wasnt a hologram or anything like that planes hit the wtc end of story. We need to figure out who was behind 9/11 and this is just taking the investigation off course. no offense.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Hi, WTC researchers.

Many know that the [radio-controled?] planes did NOT
pull down WTC 1 and 2 down.

[Almost] controled demolition did.
See good photos of 45* cut in columns, threre:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Blue skies.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by BorgHoffen
 





Perhaps you should get a life? Thread alerted to admins for being a pathetic attempt at other retarded threads telling lies.Repeat thread.


I wasn't going to post in this thread until I saw your response to the poster, this has to be the second most childish responses I've seen on ATS.

Personally, I have not had the opportunity to have what the poster has allegedly previously had to say.

Neither have I seen this video before, and will watch the video and make up my own mind whether the video maker is full of BS.

If you so desperately want to burn books, may I suggest you join a church and find a pastor you can suck up to.

To accuse the poster of "Telling lies " requires a debate and not censure, I'm sure the OP wouldn't mind you trying to prove him wrong though.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
I am so sick of seeing people put this no planes theory forward. Thousands of New Yorkers saw a plane go into the second building with their own eyes, not on TV. They were all looking at the WTC burning from their windows, the street, the Brooklyn Promenade, the NJ side of the Hudson river, etc...

So the government somehow caused thousands of New Yorkers to have a mass, unified hallucination. This is ridiculous. This is one of the most densely populated places on earth, and not a single NY'er has come out and said there were no planes.

I think that the people who keep putting the no plane theory forward are purposely trying to discredit the real truthers out there.


[edit on 1-3-2009 by finemanm]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I totally believe it was an inside job but im not sure about this theory, i watched the second plane hit live on telly as it happened and theycouldnt have doctored all the public responses,newscrews responses & police/firesrevice etc cos they were commenting as it was happening.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tofu9
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



The explosions had to negate each other on all sides, or else the building would have twisted or toppled, instead of falling an hour later. For the debris to be pushed out, the plane needed to have penetrated through the building entirely. If not, then the unbreached portion of the building would have provided resistance.

There is a piece of debris that seems to actually be flying out instead of falling (this is the alleged UFO or "Tesla sphere" that has been described already, as accelerating at 6 times faster than gravity).

The lighting of the plane itself is suspicious. Except for one angle (which, coincidentally, is the angle referenced most by conspiracy theorists), it does not change for perspective, and has a very dark shadow, which obscures any possible location where a plane would be painted. In addition, the reflections look unrealistic.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 





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



While not wanting to disagree with this statement, I cannot help but wonder where exactly is the big plane you speak of in the picture ?

Why are there no bits of big plane stuck to the big hole ?

I'm not trying to be pedantic here but my knowledge is clearly minimal on this subject. Now that I'm actually thinking about it I cannot help but wonder how it is possible for the entire aircraft to travel through steel and concrete without leaving bits?

I'm sure some white coated types will endeavor to enlighten my Grey matter.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by moocowman
Neither have I seen this video before, and will watch the video and make up my own mind whether the video maker is full of BS.

When you take a look at the no-plane/tv fakery/cgi/hologram "theories", also know that there is a great debunking here:

arabesque911.blogspot.com...



Originally posted by moocowman
To accuse the poster of "Telling lies " requires a debate and not censure

The debate has been done and long passed. The no-plane/tv fakery/cgi/hologram "theories" are not supported by anyone in the 9/11 truth movement. Further, these theories are considered disinfo and banned from discussion almost everywhere in the 9/11 truth movement so as to disassociate ourselves from these "theories" and concentrate on research that has real evidence and forensics.



Originally posted by moocowman
I cannot help but wonder where exactly is the big plane you speak of in the picture ?

If we could fly into the hole, you would see most of the plane sitting up against the core. A few of the heavier parts like landing gear, engines and other parts, flew out the other side and landed on top of other buildings and the street below:





If you watch the following video, you will hear the second plane slam into the south tower and hear debris from the plane slamming into buildings and raining onto the ground. You will also briefly see a shot of something flying through the air and you will also very briefly see someone laying on the ground who died from one of those aircraft parts hitting him. If you look at the damage to the car in the pic above, you can only imagine how the poor guy looked as the camera operator kept saying "that guy is so dead":

www.livevideo.com...



Originally posted by moocowman
Why are there no bits of big plane stuck to the big hole ?

The plane weighs 300,000 pounds travelling at around 500mph. Something that big and fast doesn't come to a stop on a dime.



Originally posted by moocowman
I cannot help but wonder how it is possible for the entire aircraft to travel through steel and concrete without leaving bits

As I stated above, the plane weighs 300,000 pounds travelling at around 500mph. The only concrete in the building was the concrete that was placed on top of the floor truss pans for the office floors. The concrete was 4-inches thick and was a light concrete mix, so it wasn't even full concrete.

As far as the steel columns are concerned, the outter columns didn't even fail. It was the connectors that failed. If you look at the next photo, you will see that the outter columns were put together in sections of 3:



Now when you look at the impact zone, you can see that all the columns are broke in sections of 3:



So to sum it up, the 300,000 pound, 500mph plane easily broke the connectors on the outter steel columns, but was unable to get past the indestructable core of the towers.

Lastly, if you take a look at the Empire State building from 1945, you will see similar damage from a much slower and smaller B-25 bomber made a similar hole and even wing penetration on the left side:



The right wing got caught in that corner and actually broke off and fell to the ground, but large heavy planes do not just slam up against buildings and fall down.

I hope I was able to explain some of your questions in a manner that was understandable.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Here you have the holes in WTC compared to the hole in the Pirelli building when a small plane hit it. Please enjoy.

home.debitel.net...

Look at Piolt Quiz

Check around at this site and it will answer many of your questions.


D.Duck


[edit on 2-3-2009 by D.Duck]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by D.Duck
 


How does showing a building hit by a much larger and heavier plane, and a much smaller and lighter plane prove anything? The Amsterdam crash was a 747 just after take off, and nearly the maximum weight. A Rockwell Commander is a single engine plane that holds almost no fuel compared to a 767 or large commercial plane. That doesn't prove anything.

www.jl-s.com...



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Well I would think a larges plane would make a big hole and a small plane would make small hole, but you think otherwise, good luck with that.


D.Duck



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Thanks for pointing these things out to me.
There we go, someone has claimed no planes and you have presented evidence to the contrary which on the face of it I can't deny.

Quite a straight forward discussion without having to resort to name calling or book burning.

Yes this topic may have been discussed before and debunked but I had not been been involved with the discussion, so I see no harm in the poster bringing his point of view to my attention allowing me to consider his claim.

No doubt topics like the yeti etc will forever go on until proven, but likewise I have not been involved in that discussion. Should someone post something tomorrow in relation to a Yeti and I decide to get involved in that discussion what harm is there in that ?
ATS members who believe they have debunked the yeti don't have to get involved in the discussion if they don't want to.

I really cannot see what all the fuss has been about, in this instance I'm quite happy with your response, so if the poster wants to present something else to me that he thinks may (although it doesn't look likely) contradict you then great kick on.

Cheers for the info



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by finemanm
I am so sick of seeing people put this no planes theory forward. Thousands of New Yorkers saw a plane go into the second building with their own eyes, not on TV.


YOU'RE RIGHT... thousands to billions all saw what the perps and msm wanted them to see and were victims of the TV Fakery showing cgi planes.


Originally posted by finemanm
They were all looking at the WTC burning from their windows, the street, the Brooklyn Promenade, the NJ side of the Hudson river, etc...


So you claim without any proof whatsoever.

where's all the thousands of witnesses you're talking about? If there's that many thousands of witnessess who saw what you claim, surely there should be at least HUNDREDS who had camera's.

So pray tell where are all the hundreds of PHOTOS and MOVIES? please show a logical argument for why no such thousands of witnesses exist and why there's only a LIMITED amount of photos and footage of which nearly EVERY ONE shows evidence of TAMPERING, MISSING FRAMES AND PHOTO-SHOPPING and connections to the MSM.


Originally posted by finemanm
So the government somehow caused thousands of New Yorkers to have a mass, unified hallucination.


In ESSENCE, yes.... the government in collusion with the MSM are responsible for TV FAKERY that BRAINWASHED thousands of New Yorkers and the world into a mass unified hallucination that COMMERICIAL BOEING PLANES ie 11 and 175 hit the WTCs.


Originally posted by finemanm
This is ridiculous. This is one of the most densely populated places on earth, and not a single NY'er has come out and said there were no planes.


not only do you have no evidence to support that claim, the fact that several witnesses including media reporters said they didn't see any plane destroys your argument.


Originally posted by finemanm
I think that the people who keep putting the no plane theory forward are purposely trying to discredit the real truthers out there.
[edit on 1-3-2009 by finemanm]


i think the people who claim the npt doesn't have any evidence to support it are either in denial, don't understand whats its really about and haven't done enough research, or part of the cover up.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Thanks for pointing these things out to me.
There we go, someone has claimed no planes and you have presented evidence to the contrary which on the face of it I can't deny.


Cheers for the info



Yea you are right, I also want to thank BoneZ for posting a picture of a 737 engine in the corner of Murray street, that will tell us a lot of stuff were planted around the WTC complex.

Once again, Cheers for the info.


D.Duck

[edit on 2-3-2009 by D.Duck]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I'm sure there has to be independent video on YouTube or wherever to disprove No Planes. We don't need to re-hash the same video that was shown on the mainstream media



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
NO PLANES....I swear the human race needs help...So the couple thousand who saw the first plane hit and the quarter million LIVE witnesses who saw the second plane hit are what????? Lying, wait let me guess, under a spell from the CIA..no no wait, they are under the mind control of alien reptiles...naw I forgot, they are all MKUltra experiments told what to see and say...or hang on, better yet...the chemtrails are making them all see things and they THOUGHT they saw planes...no no no no...now I got it, the Bush administration walked around down on the street while this all happened and handed out money to all these people to forget what they saw!

You wanna dispute anything, dispute WHAT hit the pentagon....but the No planes theory at the WTC's is honestly VERY pathetic and pretty stupid.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11


where's all the thousands of witnesses you're talking about? If there's that many thousands of witnessess who saw what you claim, surely there should be at least HUNDREDS who had camera's.




I was there. I saw the second plane. I HEARD them both. Yes I had a camera on a coffee table 10 feet away but guess what....

2 PLANES JUST FLEW INTO A HEAVILY POPULATED SKYSCRAPER!!! You honestly think that these hundreds with video cameras saw what was happening and thought, "DUDE!!! THIS STUFF IS PERFECT FOR YOUTUBE!!!" I think not. Your arguments are moot. If you weren't there, do NOT try to speak for those that were. This is nothing but disinformation. I am not trying to defame you in ANY way, I am simply pointing out that your arguments are horribly flawed.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
I'm sure there has to be independent video on YouTube or wherever to disprove No Planes.


And i'm sure you're that assertion is based on no more than your OPINION for which you'll never be able to back up.

But feel free to show me all those videos (or just ONE) that "have to be there" that show exactly how and where they disprove "no planes", tv fakery, and docs like SC, even though you probably don't even know there's a pseudo-npt camp which you done little or almost no research on.


Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
We don't need to re-hash the same video that was shown on the mainstream media


right... no sense in discussing fake footage.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
I'm sure there has to be independent video on YouTube or wherever to disprove No Planes.


And i'm sure you're that assertion is based on no more than your OPINION for which you'll never be able to back up.

But feel free to show me all those videos (or just ONE) that "have to be there" that show exactly how and where they disprove "no planes", tv fakery, and docs like SC, even though you probably don't even know there's a pseudo-npt camp which you done little or almost no research on.


Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
We don't need to re-hash the same video that was shown on the mainstream media


right... no sense in discussing fake footage.






What the hell are you talking about??



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join