It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# New Video - No real planes hit World Trade Center (Continuous Pieces)

page: 6
7
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 06:40 AM

Look around - notice something about the room. It is mostly EMPTY
SPACE! Once you breach the exterior walls is not a lot of resistance
to 767 travelling at 500 mph - the furnishings in the way were bulldozed
across the building to the outer side. In some cases the people caught
in the path of the planes were ejected out the other side of the building
along with debris.

Your comparison of a building to a solid slab of concrete is false

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 08:27 AM

Originally posted by mosey
all i've said is that there are too many problems with the videos.

For the benefit of a tightly focused discussion and analysis, could you please provide us with what you believe to be the single-most damning problem with the videos you mention?

The videos have many holes. different flight paths, different angles same backgrounds, same angle different background, planes that vanish along a perfect line (up until the tip of the wing), impossible speeds.

Again, please see above. Let's perform a step-by-step examination if these problems, one at a time.

funny how a f-4 Phantom weighing 60000 pounds ACTUALLY TRAVELLING AT 500mph does not pierce concrete ALONE, without intense reinforcements.

A solid block of concrete is very different than the upper-floors of a steel-frame building that has been constructed to be only as strong as it needs to be.

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 09:18 AM

No need to go step by step, just hit it straight on.

Obviously Mr old school, its been a while since you were in school but I will help you with what you learn in school today.

Step NR1. Learn Newtons third law then look at the footage.

See how easy it is, you were looking at a "Movie" on 9/11 my friend.

D.Duck

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 09:33 AM

Originally posted by D.Duck
Step NR1. Learn Newtons third law then look at the footage.

Excellent. I have an understanding of physics.

So let's move one then, shall we? Could you point out, for the purposes of a constructive exchange, the exact point of any footage you desire? This way we can be certain we're booth on the "same page" so to speak.

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 11:16 AM

Just have a look at the footage and remember the law and you will be fine.

D.Duck

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 11:41 AM

Originally posted by D.Duck
Just have a look at the footage and remember the law and you will be fine.

I've asked you for a specific portion of the footage that best illustrates your point. Can you please do that?

If you expect people to accept your fantastical claims, you must be willing to do your part in assisting illumination.

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 01:26 PM

Originally posted by thedman

Look around - notice something about the room. It is mostly EMPTY
SPACE! Once you breach the exterior walls is not a lot of resistance
to 767 travelling at 500 mph - the furnishings in the way were bulldozed
across the building to the outer side. In some cases the people caught
in the path of the planes were ejected out the other side of the building
along with debris.

Your comparison of a building to a solid slab of concrete is false

D.Duck you literally sum up my posts in single sentences good sir.

that wonderful perfect line... i love the very tip of the wing still being in perfect form.
do you remember what that f-4 phantom did when it hit? the explosion spread outwards because it didnt pierce...
now dman you make an excellent point except for the simple fact that THE PLANES COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TRAVELING AT 500 MPH. it absolutely blows my mind that you people can watch this and think "yeah that looks right. that would totally happen... oh that tin can totally just shot through that impossibly going 500mph."

(just for all of you going on about the many eyewitnesses, like i said im not saying whether or not there was a plane, but witnesses didnt just talk about planes)

wing disapears beautifully before hitting the building

and my all time favorite.....

just a couple clips i thought of as note worthy... these arent all of them, i have to head out the door so i cant spend all day on this post, however... lets start with those videos.

[edit on 31-3-2009 by mosey]

[edit on 31-3-2009 by mosey]

[edit on 31-3-2009 by mosey]

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 01:37 PM

Originally posted by mosey
wing disapears beautifully before hitting the building

It is impossible to say that with certainty when all you rely upon is low-frame-rate lossy-compression YouTube streaming Flash video.

Are you aware of the limitations of digital video, and how the video is compressed for streaming?

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 01:48 PM

Originally posted by mosey
and my all time favorite.....

Again -- the problem is related to the compression of digital video. Do you have access to a similar analysis that used the original source footage?

For anyone with a moderate amount of knowledge about digital imagery and digital video, it's relatively easy to see that, in the zoomed-out scene at the opening of the video, it's unlikely that the plane would take up enough pixels to be visible in the final compressed version being displayed.

I've noticed that none of the links in the YouTube description provide any access to higher-quality versions of the video, as is typical of all other "no plane" videos I've seen.

Could you provide any insight as to why we're not seeing HD-quality production values in these videos?

+11 more
posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 08:53 AM

Originally posted by mosey
and my all time favorite.....

The above video makes an exceptionally errant assumption -- that a small object will remain visible in multi-generational compressed digital videos.

To illustrate the point, I put together a simple but controlled test.

Here is my source video, at best-quality, which I've placed on the video site --
High Quality Source Video
As you can see, I created a simple scene where a 757 moves from left to right, flies into the distance, and slightly fades by 25% due to typical atmospheric haze (not even accounting for the smoke seen in the YouTube video linked above).

Now that I have a high quality source where we can easily distinguish every frame of the plane against a nice blue sky, it's time to simulate what happens through multiple generations of video.

First, I converted it to Flash video (FLV) at the apparent compression rate of long videos on YouTube. This created generation a generation one which would have been reasonably close to the quality picked up by the creators of the no-planes videos, but only if a high-quality original source was uploaded to YouTube.

Then I imported the generation one video, and up-scaled it to an HD resolution for editing in a video suite such as Adobe Premier.

Next, I saved it out as a medium-compressed QuickTime movie at a smaller frame-size which would be typical of preparing for uploading a long video to YouTube. This created generation two of the source video.

Finally, I converted the second generation video to Flash video format at a the same compression I used to create generation one. Now we have our third generation video below:

(click to open player in new window)

As you can see, the 757 that was visible at a distance in the high-quality source is no longer visible in the simulated third generation video.

Of course, this assumes that our No Plane videographers used videos of just one or two generations. We can never be certain of the provenance of their source material as high-quality originals are never provided or sourced.

This is but one example of the purposeful trickery used by these hucksters to convince people of their fraudulent theories.

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 10:26 AM
sigh.
you know what?
i simply dont care anymore.
plane or no plane. who gives a >SNIP< ? some tyrrant a-holes killed a bunch of americans to push a war to kill even more people, and all we can do is argue about how it was done?
i didnt want to push this theory, i just wanted to show you guys that just MAYBE the major news media is not a reliable source. believe what you want to believe but 9/11 has turned from a deceptive tragedy to a stupid consiracy theory over the span of 8 years. im done with it. you guys can have it.

for the record, y'all didnt debunk >SNIP

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 11:14 AM

Originally posted by mosey
i just wanted to show you guys that just MAYBE the major news media is not a reliable source.

We're seeing a significantly larger amount of purposeful deception from those who represent the "Truth" movement and the laughable "no plane" proponents.

And, I'm sorry, but I *DO* care about truth and deception.

YOU provided a deceptive and errant video as evidence of your "favorite" example of a no-plan theory. Are you not even going to comment on my examples of why it is based on false assumptions?

[edit on 1-4-2009 by mister.old.school]

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 01:40 PM

nope, im going to leave you believing that you know the absolute truth about the events of 9/11.

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 04:35 PM

Originally posted by mosey
for the record, y'all didnt debunk sh*t.

Oh really? Then how come not a single person has countered my post here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's because you can't debunk FACT. NPT/TVF is debunked. Has been and always will be.

Originally posted by mosey
im going to leave you believing that you know the absolute truth about the events of 9/11.

Nah, we just know that it's the absolute truth that two large jetliners struck both towers of the World Trade Center. We also know it's the absolute truth that there were no inserted images of a jetliner on tv, no holograms and no missiles. And there's not a single NPT/TVF cult member that can convince anyone otherwise besides the few followers of the disinfo cult.

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 07:41 PM
post removed because of personal attacks

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 09:31 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 04:36 AM
I can't believe people are really arguing about this. This is simple physics. OF COURSE the plane disappears into the building.

Look what happens when a plane hits a dense concrete wall with 500mph.

Plane vs concrete

As the lady in the video said, it just ATOMIZED. There's no sign of any parts that break before impact, it just disappears into the wall. In case of the wtc it was not a dense concrete wall, so the material is pushed through the building. It's like when someone threw a waterballoon into a coarse sieve, the water doesn't bounce of the sieve, it passes through it.

500 mph is an unbelievable speed for such a heavy mass. If it gets slowed down to 0 in under a second it simply turns into dust. There would be nothing left to bounce of or show deformation. Only the fact that the building acts more like a sieve instead of a dense material made it possible for some parts to survive. But there's is nothing more you can visually expect than what we've all seen on 9/11.

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 08:28 AM

There's no such thing as plane parts "disappearing" or "turning to dust". It doesn't matter what a plane hits, a concrete wall or steel wall, in the case of an A-4 that weighs 10,000 pounds, there will still be 10,000 pounds of wreckage after impact.

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 10:09 AM

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

There's no such thing as plane parts "disappearing" or "turning to dust". It doesn't matter what a plane hits, a concrete wall or steel wall, in the case of an A-4 that weighs 10,000 pounds, there will still be 10,000 pounds of wreckage after impact.

Just look at the footage. The plane got pulverized. There's nothing left that you could identify as the wing or the nose or anything, it's just dust. What do no planer expect the plane to do? Should it crease and fall to the ground like in a cartoon? Maybe if it was 100 - 150 mph, but not at speeds beyond 300 mph.

Of course, parts of the engine and other solid materials won't turn into dust. For this you'd need much more velocity than 500 mph. Also, the mass will stay the same (i have never doubt that). But it looks definatly similar to what we've seen on 9/11. The plane just melts into the wall and is gone. In case of the wtc the remaining wreckage and small particles got pushed further through the building, in this video they just spread into every direction.

Also, the argument that the plane was made out of a softer material than the facade, and therefore shouldn't pass through it, is complete nonsense. Even a single atom could rip through steel beams, if it's velocity is high enough. In case of a 100 ton airplane traveling at 500 mph, which means it has a force of 22000000N or a relative weight 2200 tons at impact, the facade is no real match. It's not necessarily the steel that is failing, or not only, but the clinch sealing definitely wouldn't stand a chance against such a brute force impacting from this angle.

I don't say 9/11 wasn't an inside job, i have also many doubts regarding the official story, but the reasoning why no planes have hit the wtc is absolutely not conclusive.

[edit on 4-4-2009 by hackbart]

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 11:03 AM

But you have to remember the design of the WTC's exterior columns. They were 10ftx30ft sections (column tree) bolted together with bolts. If an aircraft the size of a 767 impacts any section of the section in question, what is that going to do to the connections? Or the bolts? The nose will simply dislodge the section and plow right in. 7/8" bolts wont do squat agianst a 400+mph 767 with fuel on board. I do believe there is a picture of the column tree section that was actually impacted by the nose of the plane. Its in more or less one piece and it does show how it was punched out by the impact with its end bolts sheared. Once those go, the plane has clearance to enter the wide open interior and drywall and office supplies are not going to stop the aircraft.

new topics

top topics

7