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.

 

CONS: Exposing The Fraud of the "No Plane Theory" -- Conspiracy Fakery

page: 7
139
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Syrus Magistus
 


Short version:
The fires inside burned unabated for 7 hours causing the same kinds of structural failures witnessed in the other 2.
It may not have burned as hot but it burned a hell of a lot longer.
The truthers single biggest piece of evidence for controlled demo is how the building fell. Through my own examination of the various videos I have seen that the building did in fact progressively collapse and didn't freefall as the truthers claim. Bt the time the outside shell collapsed, the interior had already been falling for almost 2 seconds. This is in total opposition to the theory put forth by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. Probably the single biggest proponent of the Truther movement.
People keep refering to 660 arch and engs that support their theory when in fact they only signed a petition demanding an independent investigation. A reasonable request.

EDIT: Whew. Thought for sure someone else was going to reply before I got that out. I've never seen so many reasonable posts on one page before.

[edit on 27-4-2009 by Grimstad]




posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimstad
The truthers single biggest piece of evidence for controlled demo is how the building fell.

And debunkers' single piece of evidence for structural failure is denial:



I don't understand why it's so hard to comprehend that a building cannot fall like the way WTC7 fell unless every single support column was severed simultaneously at exactly the same time. The only thing in the entire world that has ever caused that or CAN cause that to happen is with explosives in a controlled demolition. Period.



Originally posted by Grimstad
People keep refering to 660 arch and engs that support their theory when in fact they only signed a petition demanding an independent investigation. A reasonable request.

Right now with the above statement, you're either spinning or trying to obfuscate the facts. The petition specifically mentions the collapses of the 3 WTC towers on 9/11 and what AE911T is trying to accomplish with the new investigation. If the petition signers didn't agree with AE911T's claims, they wouldn't have signed the petition, ergo, every single person that signs the petition supports AE911T and their theories. Totally opposite of the spin you try to do in your post, but it's a typical debunker tactic, so not too surprising.

[edit on 27-4-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   
man I wish you spent this amount of time and effort on the myrid of other unanswered questions. WTC 7 is still the one I haven't found a "reasonable" explanation for. The happy Israelie's that filmed it. The bad luck of O'neil, the Pentagon not releasing their footage, the coordinated military exercise for this type of event on that day, Rumsfeld's freudian slip about "shooting" it down, Silverman's Nostradomous like insurance moves, the guy who said the vacant floor below was not so vacant, the removal of dogs the weekend before for the first time to put in fiber optics or some sort the weekend before....
The point is.....I could care less if the planes were "phantom" "commercial" "military" or "holographic"....I want to know who the hell was responsible for the ATTACK!
The official story is bogus. Keep looking for the truth...I don't know what it is, but it must exist somewhere between the the whack job truthers and the official government's bs.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


BoneZ...in REAL CD 'every single column' is not detonated 'simultaneously'.

Consider:



And this one....listen very carefully at 1:40. Oh, and some nutcase screams loudly at the end, close to the microphone....



[edit on 4/27/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by thegreatobserver
 


greatobserver, please if you can locate that info, would be nice to know.

Perhaps the OP would also be interested.....


Alright, I got the camera position for the CNN video that clearly shows the second plain crash into the WTC from the video posted earlier.

This video was shot from the rooftop of the US Court House over the Woolworth Building.
Now, the Court House is not accessible for public nor media, which leads to the question who "invited" a camera team up there at a point in time where it was still believed to be an accident and nobody knew a second plain will crash into the second WTC building?



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Firstly, no two demolitions are the same. And secondly, it would depend on the type of structure. WTC7's 47 support columns were severed simultaneously at exactly the same moment for the building to come straight down without tipping over. In other words, if one or a few columns had failed, the building would've tipped to the side of the failure. But the building comes exactly straight down suggesting the every single support column was severed simultaneously.

Now, you can spin those facts anyway you want, but until someone comes up with an explanation how all 47 columns can fail at exactly the same time just as if they were all severed by explosives in a controlled demolition, then you really have nothing further to say on this subject.

And the excuse "fire caused structural failure" doesn't explain the simultaneous failure of every column at the same time. Good luck...

*edit to add* While I don't have the time at the moment to show you videos, there are demolitions where all columns are detonated at exactly the same time. You might want to do some REAL research on REAL demolitions before you type. While I'm thoroughly researched on just about everything 9/11, controlled demolitions are my main course of study for the past several years and you had better be researched before you attempt a debate with me on this subject. You will not win.

[edit on 27-4-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Well....far be it for me to 'argue'....I just see something else, like in THIS example that just is not seen either in the Towers or WTC7

I see this building, below falling FASTER than 'free-fall'...because of the demo.

hey, I'm just an idiot with two eyes....




Any expert interpretations would be helpful......


edit=OOPS...just realized we've done this in the wrong thread. Sorry.
Hope Mr Old School won't mind


[edit on 4/27/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Why is it so difficult to accept that Islamic radicals hijacked our own jetliners and crashed them into US targets??? We were not prepared, but that's what happened! No holograms. Ask those who were there...



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
just by posting clearer you havent really proved much. theres still compelling evidence of real-time/live (or very near real-time) tv manipulation in the live feeds.

One ABC affiliate actually broadcast what for all practical extents and purposes appears to be a CGI mask layer prior to the 2nd impact:

www.livevideo.com...

The mask layer is accidentally broadcast at the 4:23 [remaining] point of that video. You can tell its a mask layer because the smoke wasnt visible as it was a second ago, only the outline of the towers, in their correct position for the live broadcast of the 2nd impact.

I can point out several other problems I have with some of the live footage, but that is one of the most serious ones.

So, explain that.

(I dont advocate "no planes" theory, but I do see evidence of tv fakery.)

[edit on 27-4-2009 by The Dispatcherator]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Dispatcherator
The mask layer is accidentally broadcast at the 4:23 [remaining] point of that video. You can tell its a mask layer because the smoke wasnt visible as it was a second ago, only the outline of the towers, in their correct position for the live broadcast of the 2nd impact.

I've watched that poorly authored video several times in an attempt to see what you're describing.

First, as has been the case over and over, the video is of horrible quality. It appears to be multiple generations of video, compressed, reconstructed, compressed again, and again. There's no valid visual data.

I believe this is the point you feel is some type of "mask"?



First, you need to familiarize yourself with the chroma key (green screen) and how video composites are constructed in real time. Masks, as you seem to believe this may be, are not used in live video. Masking is a post-production process used in film to combined multiple shots into one negative.

What you're seeing, as is demonstrated elsewhere in the video, is some type of poor hardwire or RF connection to the helicopter camera, which is injecting noise into the video stream. Sometimes the noise contains incomplete video data, such as what we see here. Combine that with the horrible compression artifacts of a heavily compressed streaming digital video, and you have the visual pea soup represented by the production to which you linked.


[edit on 27-4-2009 by mister.old.school]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
i look at like this. nobody really knows what happened on 9/11. but the one thing we do know is that the government is being 100% truthful about that day. so as long as people keep asking questions regardless of what theory they believe i say good for them.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by infoliberator
 


Mr. Infoliberator,

I want to ask you a question...how could the United States government...no, ANYONE possibly pull off a hoax as big as this one? Do you realize that there were literally thousands of witnesses that would swear on their life that there was a plane that struck the tower? Are they all in on it too? And the CIA? And the FBI? And air traffic control? And the NTSB? There are far too many holes in your argument, sir.

As for the so-called extra explosions after the plane crashed...I am just that stupid, to think that perhaps jet fuel will explode? Perhaps it will not, if this is the case, please enlighten me, so that next time a see an extremely combustible materiel, I will not have the false impression that it will burn.

I enjoy a good conspiracy theory as much as anyone, and probably more than most. But when I see one that has next to no real evidence to back it up, it just makes me mad.

Finally, I invite you to please try to refute what I have said. If there are logical responses to anything I have written, please, I truly would love to see the error in my ways.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by thegreatobserver
 


Alright, I got the camera position for the CNN video that clearly shows the second plain crash into the WTC from the video posted earlier.
This video was shot from the rooftop of the US Court House over the Woolworth Building.

Maybe you are talking about a different video than I am.
Here is a picture I made with google earth that is from above where the camera was. This makes it easier to see what the general sorroundings are, close to the line of sight.

I pasted in the hand painted sign on the wall because I thought it would be easier than trying to describe where it is.


[edit on 27-4-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
There are a lot of convincing videos regarding tv fakery/npt (and a lot of rather unconvincing videos too). I can fully understand how someone could believe that there were no planes at WTC. However, the problem I have with the theory is this.

All it would take to blow the whole operation is one person with video footage of an explosion without a plane. Why would the orchestrators of an event like this run that risk???

They would have known after the first hit, a lot of people (and thier video cameras) would have been focused on the twin towers. I know if I was there with a camera, I'd probably have taken at least some footage of the first tower burning. There is no way anyone could gaurantee that they could hide or silence every video which had not been faked or edited.

There are a lot of anomolies in the footage which seem to be more than blurriness or optical illusions such as parralax. Whether this was intentionally done to create a red herring, or actual errors I don't know. But like all aspects of 9/11, I think it deserves investigation without being labelled a loony nutcase. My $0.02



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Brocky34
 


As for the so-called extra explosions after the plane crashed...I am just that stupid, to think that perhaps jet fuel will explode? Perhaps it will not, if this is the case, please enlighten me, so that next time a see an extremely combustible materiel, I will not have the false impression that it will burn.
Take a look at my post a ways up, where I post an enlarged and cropped capture of the OP's post from his video.
You can have a plane and a missile too. They do not have to be mutually exclusive. Mr.old.school gives the normal reaction to my suggestion, which is that I am imagining things. (shapes in clouds)


[edit on 27-4-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Ok, I'll give you that, I was expecting that response anyway and really have no argument. But what about the rest of my post? How many people are in on this? Again, not that I don't like conspiracy...but I just can't find this one logical. How could that many people (like I said before, thousands) all keep their mouths shut?

Finally, one last point that I forgot to make and I would love it if you would reply to this one...I will admit, I kind of stole the general idea from a website called maddox something or other, but the basic gist of it is this: if we are really living under a government with the capability to orchestrate a hoax as big as this, then why in the world would they be letting us talk about it? Why wouldn't they come to my house, maybe even kill me (because obviously if you're right they have no problem taking people's lives) and do the same to all of us out there trying to debunk this theory? If we were really on to something here, they would do everything that they could to keep it a secret. I'm sorry I'm not real good at explaining this clearly I don't think but hopefully you understand what I'm getting at.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by The Dispatcherator
The mask layer is accidentally broadcast at the 4:23 [remaining] point of that video. You can tell its a mask layer because the smoke wasnt visible as it was a second ago, only the outline of the towers, in their correct position for the live broadcast of the 2nd impact.

I've watched that poorly authored video several times in an attempt to see what you're describing.

First, as has been the case over and over, the video is of horrible quality. It appears to be multiple generations of video, compressed, reconstructed, compressed again, and again. There's no valid visual data.

I believe this is the point you feel is some type of "mask"?


www.livevideo.com...

First, you need to familiarize yourself with the chroma key (green screen) and how video composites are constructed in real time. Masks, as you seem to believe this may be, are not used in live video. Masking is a post-production process used in film to combined multiple shots into one negative.

What you're seeing, as is demonstrated elsewhere in the video, is some type of poor hardwire or RF connection to the helicopter camera, which is injecting noise into the video stream [........]


Yes, that image is what I was talking about, but no thats not "RF noise", unless the noise was somehow able to perfectly render the towers, but not the smoke that was billowing from them in the previous/next frames. LOL!

I am an expert in video (digital or non), and I know fully well what chroma key is, and I know full well it, and similar techniques, are in fact routinely used in video, live video (ie, weatherman+weathermap, 1st down lines on tv football, etc), as well as post-production.

[edit on 28-4-2009 by The Dispatcherator]

[edit on 28-4-2009 by The Dispatcherator]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Brocky34
 


. . . why in the world would they be letting us talk about it? . . .

They have think-tanks that figure this sort of thing out. It is difficult for a single ordinary person to understand it. (hence the dis-info to keep people divided) They would make a calculation about how long it would take for a large enough percentage of the population to wake up to what is happening around them. They could decide that just before we reach a tipping point, to where some people will decide to do something about it, the police state control grid will already be in place.
You can see from the current state of the economy that they are not above crushing the life out of us in order to get what they want. Getting even more current would be the swine flu outbreak. This shows that they are not concerned about human life. They think there are too many people anyway. So, if it is necessary to create a pandemic to put the final pieces of their plan into affect, no problem. If they can release bio-weapons on the earth, for their own selfish goals, why would it be hard to imagine them snuffing out three thousand people to get the ball rolling?
The simple answer is that soon enough, we will be all at their mercy, as they go house to house, rounding people up to get their "vaccinations". Each one will be designed for different persons, depending on what list they are on. So if you seem to be awake, you get a fast acting "vaccination" and if you are in the habit of waking up others, you get the really fast acting "vaccination". If there is any truth at all to what I just wrote, then what has been going on in the last few years is them giving us enough rope to hang ourselves.
Or you can believe there were Muslim extremists who hijacked planes. Obviously they could not be the real threat because Obama is releasing the Chinese Muslim terrorists who were training in Afghanistan. Not to China but into the US population, just to get them out of Guantanamo. I thought we were in a war on terrorism. Now if the Chinese were holding terrorists who were planning on blowing up the US, and just let them go, we would think that made China a terrorist state. Are we a terrorist state? According to our own definition, we are.
That is not my real point because I think the real threat is not so-called extremists, but the agents of those who want to bring back the social structure of the Dark Ages.


[edit on 28-4-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Brilliant job, Mr. Old School! It's about damned time someone came out and took this NPT nonsense by the horns, as it really hurts any sort of attempt to seek out truth for 9/11. People hear about "holograms" and government mind control waves and crap, and immediately think everyone who questions the Official story are kool-aid drinking loonies swathed in tin foil. Which really hampered more serious, scholarly, or rational attempts to demand answers and point out alot of inconsistencies, as well as get the public thinking.

Which is probably the point of it all. I believe strongly that the more ridiculous 9/11 theories are deliberate COINTELLIPRO-like plants of information to disrupt, marginalize, and break down any resistance and questioning, as well as sow a lot of dissent amongst doubters of the Official account. It has proven effective in the past, when being used against other movements, and it seems like it is still an effective tool. I find when I am discussing 9/11 with people, that I have to batter away the preconceptions that I am some sort of hallucinating lunatic who believes in the crazier crap before I can present the actual hard core facts for my own doubts.

Thanks again for doing a brilliant job, and I have starred/flagged this topic.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Dispatcherator
Yes, that image is what I was talking about, but no thats not "RF noise", unless the noise was somehow able to perfectly render the towers,


You state you're an "expert" in video, and I contest that you're either being disingenuous about your expertise, or are being purposefully deceptive in an effort to perpetuate this "conspiracy fakery".

If you were indeed an expert, you'd know that RF (radio frequency) noise can indeed interrupt the signal from a moving camera platform (helicopter) operating in a high-reflectivity environment (city) where line-of-sight to the receiving antenna my be briefly interrupted. Or, the signal may receive interference from the high-saturation signal environment of several remote camera platforms covering a single news-worthy event. The brief losses of sync are the most important clue for some type of signal interruption -- but since you're an "expert" you should know that, so in my estimation, you're attempting to deceive people in an effort to perpetuate fraud.

In your time as a video "expert", you've never witnessed a weak analog signal where the image has lost low-contrast detail and the sync is periodically interrupted?



I am an expert in video (digital or non), and I know fully well what chroma key is,


Then, as an "expert", you should know that chroma key interruption or interference does not appear, in any way, similar to what we're seeing in the video link you provided. Additionally, as a video "expert" you never should have used the term "mask" to describe the apparent effect of a live broadcast.

There are some applications of masking in video, all of which are a post-production process.




top topics



 
139
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join