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: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 



Audio de-syncing could happen for a number of reasons.

Someone looking to doctor a video clip is not going to de-sync the audio.

I personally think that a ground misssle hit the Pentagon.




posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I will start by saying yes there was video tampering not sure about fakery of adding planes and what not, the contrast, fades to black and other things I would assume were done to hide details on the planes and the pentagon was hit with a missile.

The video posted above about adding a CGI plane is very well made but come on how long do you think it took that guy to make it.

But lets play with all that just for fun, so we start a few days before then incident by checking camera angles for all stations possible that would cover the incident live, then we create animated (wire frames for) planes so we can mapulate to any angle needed, ok so far so good, now that most of pre-production its done all we need is the rest of the footage and minor post-production, so we get the explotions on the buildings, let the post production begin so we can have the final product for the masses.

I guess we have 2 ways of making this:

1- since we have wire frames of planes ready on every angle all we need is to sync impact with explotion, ok done lets encode it with some low quality to make details hard to see, hand it to the stations job done where is my money? in my account over seas, thank you very much.

but then that might take to much time and we needed as quick as possible so I have prepared an idea that might help me do the job quicker and more efficient, took a little more pre-production since i didn't know how would the weather be but we have 7 days forecast, so i had a pretty good idea of a sunny day and had the camera angles already lets do number 2.

2- post production was clips already made of the planes impact and all I would need is the new footage of the explotions, a simple cut from impact to explotion and I am done quicker.

ofcourse being director of production for this incident and having a good staff, well prepared with Mac computers because thats what i trust for my editing needs the job is done, masses are fooled and you guys have been debating this for about seven years.

----------------------------

I hope you guys pick up all the sarcasm and also that if I decide to put many plausible details my story could be believable for many...



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
I believe this is the other side of the tower shot. I could be wrong ... those towers all look alike ....



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12.21.12
So the 9/11 truth movement is the foremost authority on what theories are okay and which ones are not.

All you need to know is that nobody in the 9/11 truth movement accepts these fake "theories" and everything is debunked here:

arabesque911.blogspot.com...



Originally posted by D.Duck
AIRPLANES DON'T MELD INTO STEEL AND CONCRETE BUILDINGS, THEY CRASH AGAINST THEM. In the real world this could not happen.

More lying and purposeful deceiving from you I see. In the real world, THIS DOES HAPPEN. It happened with a much slower and smaller plane into the Empire State building in 1945. I guess that was CGI'd also, even though they didn't even have computers back then.

B-25 bomber crash at the Empire State building, 1945:




Originally posted by JPhish
Duckman pretty much just took all of you to school

Actually, D.Duck has been getting schooled for the past couple days now, by me. I caught him doing what NPT'ers do all day every day, lying and purposely deceiving others as I've shown above, and in the following post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Originally posted by matrixNIN11
all this compilation does is reinforce the NPT and VIDEO FAKERY camp.

I can see how you would think this with the logic that you use, but this video nails the coffin shut on NPT because this movie shows mainstream media videos, independent videos AND private home videos, ALL showing the same exact thing.

Guess what else this shows? That every single video with people outside all react to the plane BEFORE it hits the building. And then you can hear them saying "another plane". People are seeing the plane and reacting BEFORE it hits the building, then confirming it was a plane, all without the mainstream media telling them there was another plane. That's confirmation right there that people saw and reacted to the plane and acknowledged there was a plane, all without help from the news.

Let's continue with your type of logic...



Originally posted by matrixNIN11
50 different COLOR CONTRASTS

From 50 different cameras. With your logic, every camera in the world should record with the same exact color settings. This is absolutely false. Every camera has color settings on them and every manufacturer has their own way of depicting colors. You should make an appeal to your congressman to start a bill that requires all cameras to record with the same exact color settings so it doesn't make people think there are fake planes flying around.



Originally posted by matrixNIN11
50 DIFFERENT ANOMALIES

And? Every single video in the world has anomalies because nothing is perfect.



Originally posted by matrixNIN11
I especially love the clip at 5:50 which demonstrates the AUDIO FAKERY as the sound of the jet (dubbed in) continues even AFTER its already hit the building. doesn't take much analysis to see such blatant fakery if you use common sense.

If you used REAL common sense instead of the type from the disinfo handbook, you would know that sound can only travel so fast. It's called THE SPEED OF SOUND. The planes hit almost a quarter mile up and you have no idea how far away the cameras are from the towers. Doesn't take much analysis to see such blatant disinfo if you use REAL common sense.



Originally posted by matrixNIN11
its astounding at the number of people and level of brainwashing that contributes to perpetuating the hoax.

It is astounding at the number of people that contribute to perpetuating the hoax of NPT. It's sad, really.



Originally posted by matrixNIN11
its quite simple... NOTHING

Yep, quite simple. NPT has NOTHING in the form of evidence. Maybe that's why I keep busting the NPT'ers peddling false information.



Originally posted by matrixNIN11
I'm truly looking forward to the day, and it will come, when plane-huggers, SOC supporters and those who say NO nukes or DEW, finally realize they were wrong.

That will never, ever happen and you can bank money on that fact. I've debunked everything you've claimed so far. Therefore, it's easy to see that that will never happen.



Originally posted by Swing Dangler
The nose out however is very suspicious and I think this is where the no planers have their best case evidence with video manipulation.

The "nose-out" has been debunked by me and a few others for quite awhile now:





And in the following pic, you can see that there's no exit hole for a real nose:



Now we can conclude that if it were a real nose, there would be an exit hole. If it were a fake nose from CGI, holograms, etc., then it's shape and size would remain exactly the same. Neither is true, so that's another "fact" of NPT's that is debunked.

As I've now shown, the NPT'ers have absolutely no legs to stand on and everything is easily debunkable with real common sense, logic and research, all topped off with science and physics.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by D.Duck
 


Awesome job Duck! Awesome.

This should put a few people in their place. This is better than the jokers did on 9/11, but I guess they didn't have enough time to get it right though.

You've debunked all that nn came out with. Which isn't hard at all but it gets a little annoying responding to the same dribble post after post. Your info is 100% though...

Thanks.


[edit on 4-3-2009 by AllTiedTogether]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by AllTiedTogether
 


D.Duck is actually the one that got put in his place. You should see my post above yours and this one here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by D.Duck
 


I also watched the video of different angles provided by Tech and if you look at the video at 0154-59, the plane mysteriously comes into the view of the camera at 0155 from nowhere. Just materializes and becomes real to the camera. Just another screw up that someone will say is natural when filming moving objects or some other lame excuse. Noticed the troll is still derailing this one.

Have fun guys... It seems that the same regurgitated trash is showing up for explanation with some and this makes it easier to dismiss as nonsense and fluff.



[edit on 4-3-2009 by AllTiedTogether]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
BoneZ, all that you do is use ad hominem, genetic fallacies and attempts to appeal to the pride of anyone dumb enough to listen to you. You've given no evidence.

You also did not debunk the nose in nose out from the live feed. You've actually supported that it is the planes nose. A puffy debris/fire explosion would not have flat surfaces as you claim the "nose" to have as it came out the other side. All that you did was increase the contrast to distort the image. Nice job.

Please leave the thread, you're not contributing and it's obvious you're purposely trying to derail it.

[edit on 3/4/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
All that you did was increase the contrast to distort the image.

Um, the images are screen caps directly from "September Clue(less)". Want to try again with a different excuse?



Originally posted by JPhish
Please leave the thread, you're not contributing and it's obvious you're purposely trying to derail it.

In case you haven't noticed, this is a public discussion forum to discuss ALL sides of any subject. If you want to discuss this stuff without having it debunked so easily, I suggest going to an NPT forum.

And if by "derailing", you mean debunking, well that's just too bad.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 



The responses that come back are usually not too hard to respond too. The contrast from a screen capture cannot be changed? Wow! that's amazing. I thought that's what duck did in the earlier example. Guess that nulls out the spill. As for the engine that is displayed on Murray St, it has been shown time and time again to be a 737, maybe, but not big enough for a 767. Here's a link to a picture and some info that will show what we know and maybe some people up, but I doubt it.





[edit on 4-3-2009 by AllTiedTogether]

[edit on 4-3-2009 by AllTiedTogether]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
As for the engine that is displayed on Murray St, it has been shown time and time again to be a 737

So we have one NPT'er that I busted here that says it is a 737 engine, then he says he "recognized" it as a 737 engine (yeah right!), then he says it's not a 737 engine, then he says he's just going to say that it's a 737 engine because nobody can prove otherwise.

Now we have another NPT'er saying it's a 737 engine (again) and posts a link to a picture with measurements that have no frame of reference. Anyone can put measurements on any image and portray them as accurate. Just because you can write measurements on an image doesn't make it correct. There's no possible way you can get an accurate measurement from a crumpled up piece of metal in a picture, let alone tell what kind of engine it is unless you tear it apart to recognize the differences between a 737 engine and a 767 engine.

Sorry, no proof here.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


He is clearly the more superior than us and has debunked us beyond belief. He used the name DISINFO agent on us about sixteen times so far in this thread and uses it just as often in his responses in the others. I just ignore anything he says as it's usually just to get someone kicked.

Just curious, do you have a link to the unedited clip? I've seen it a few places but would like to see it by itself. It clearly shows that this was staged and the planes were added later. Very clear when you see the before and after shot. They didn't get to all the footage and I'm sure more brave people will come forward with footage from the day.


Thanks



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by AllTiedTogether
 


yeah, i know, just thought i'd let him know that we realize what he's doing. No i don't have the original clip; i highly doubt it was ever leaked to the public.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



Unless you can produce video from 1945, I'm not sure what relevance this has. The photo doesn't show much evidence of a fireball explosion, no wings where clipped off during 9/11, and a B-25 is slightly different from a Boeing 767.

I'm also not sure what that whole "nose out/in" issue is about.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
Unless you can produce video from 1945, I'm not sure what relevance this has.

The relevance is that the no-planers say that planes don't enter buildings, they bounce off. The B-25 that hit the Empire State building was doing 145mph or just a little faster and was able to get at least half way in. Imagine how far in the B-25 would have gotten if it were doing 500mph. And the B-25 only weighs 41,000 pounds compared to a 300,000 pound jetliner.


Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
I'm also not sure what that whole "nose out/in" issue is about.

No-planers deceive others and say that the nose of the "inserted" plane exited the other side of the south tower after impact, proving it was CGI because the "inserted" plane's nose accidentally went past the tower. I've shown that not only is it not a fake plane's nose, it is not a real nose because there's no exit hole on that side of the tower. The nose of the plane that impacted the tower is not the same shape or size of the "nose" that came out the other side of the tower, as I've shown.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

The relevance is that the no-planers say that planes don't enter buildings, they bounce off.


Nobody said that. There was an impact crater after the collision, but during the collision the plane underwent some kind of freakish osmosis.




No-planers deceive others and say that the nose of the "inserted" plane exited the other side of the south tower after impact, proving it was CGI because the "inserted" plane's nose accidentally went past the tower. I've shown that not only is it not a fake plane's nose, it is not a real nose because there's no exit hole on that side of the tower. The nose of the plane that impacted the tower is not the same shape or size of the "nose" that came out the other side of the tower, as I've shown.


Ok, you can see that same protrusion (for lack of a better word) in every angle. If it's a faked airplane, then the CG must have been completed ahead of time, and then adjusted for the perspective of every camera that recorded the incident. It is more likely to be simply smoke from the explosion.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The relevance is that the no-planers say that planes don't enter buildings, they bounce off.

Nobody said that.

They say it all the time:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
It is more likely to be simply smoke from the explosion.

Agreed.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
let me get this straight... you're claiming the clip that doesn't have a plane is not the ORIGINAL clip, but the ORIGINAL clip also HAD NO PLANE EITHER but ADDED ONE?

huh???

are you aware of what you just stated? and have you been drinking?

matrix . . . the original clip could not have had a plane in it, or at the very least it is HIGHLY unlikely. I have never seen the original, but based on what I can yield from the second installment of the video I can deduce this.


you've just contradicted and agreed with yourself at the same time... or something like that LOL did i miss something? cos that has to be one of the most bizarre posts i've ever seen here.
it’s not bizarre it’s just a little confusing if you don’t follow it correctly.

Original video had no plane (more likely than not)
Second installment had a plane (released by media)
Third installment had no plane (the one in the DOC)


Please provide evidence supporting this incredible claim.
the evidence is that I can yield a seamless replica of the third installment of the video using paint and image ready. If the plane was truly there it would be impossible for me to do this.


If what you say is true, you should have no problem providing the ORIGINAL CLIP you're talking about from which this DOC was taken and this CLIP you're talking about should HAVE NO PLANE THERE TO BEGIN WITH right?

The original clip and the third installment of the clip are likely identical.



This is precisely what i've been asking for... THE ORIGINAL CLIP which you say HAD NO PLANE TO BEGIN WITH??

Like I said, the original clip and the third installment of the clip are likely identical.


I'll be sitting on pins and needles for your reply.

Sorry I’m responding late, I missed your post.


You can make that statement how EASY IT IS to fake and photoshop such things, but at the same time have such a hard time accepting FAKERY, NO PLANES, CGI or that it wouldn't be easy for the most advanced military and media on the planet?

It’s easier to tell the truth than it is to tell a lie.


you're kidding me right?

No matrix, I’m not.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Guys,

The last thing the perps will give up, is the MSM(TV,Newspaper) because its a more powerful weapon than all missiles, bombs and the rest of the stuff that the military use.

The perps will give up anything as long as they can keep MSM

MSM can manipulate, dupe and betray the whole world by showing fake pictures and by having new anchors reading scripts designed to set your mind at the wrong place.

That is why they are working hard telling you "There is nothing wrong with the live feeds we showed you on 9/11, please go back to sleep"

If you look closely at the live feeds from 9/11 you will see most of it is FAKE and the same goes for the amateurs videos.

You should not take my word for it, you should look for your self

Its going to be bad for you in the beginning because you are going to feel betrayed but in the long run, it will be good for you.

I know its hard to wrap around your brain but you were looking at a MOVIE on 9/11


Best
D.Duck



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by vcwxvwligen
 





Unless you can produce video from 1945, I'm not sure what relevance this has. The photo doesn't show much evidence of a fireball explosion, no wings where clipped off during 9/11, and a B-25 is slightly different from a Boeing 767.


As BoneZ has been trying to show you - in 1945, over 50 years before, a
B25 bomber smashed into the Empire State Building. The plane weighed
a fraction of what a 767 does - according to my references a full up
B25 has max weight of 36,000 lbs (this includes crew, full fuel load, guns
and bombload). This plane had been stripped out as a personnel transport
It weight probabaly in at less than 20,000 lbs. Was traveling at about
180mph (1/3 of what the 767 would be doing) Yet is able to penetrate the
Empire State Building. Now the ESB exterior is quarried limestone some
8 inches thick.



The exterior of the building was built using Indiana limestone panels.


One of the planes engines punched all the way through the ESB to land on
roof of adjacent building. Now the engine of a WWII bomber is able to
punch clean through a building what would a jet engine traveling at several
times the speed do?




One engine shot through the side opposite the impact and flew as far as the next block where it landed on the roof of a nearby building, starting a fire that destroyed a penthouse. The other engine and part of the landing gear plummeted down an elevator shaft. The resulting fire was extinguished in 40 minutes. Fourteen people were killed in the incident.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join