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.

 

Flight 11 vs. 175 -- Impact Study & Fakery Anomalies

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 02:23 AM
link   
I've uploaded some images of the alleged impacts of flight 11 and 175 since without a doubt there's major differences at point of contact that have huge implications.

If one or both of these impacts are from real planes, not only should the initial contact or explosion be similar and share the same characteristics or features, but since the distance these shots were taken are similar, the outline or shapes (even with compression and pixelation issues) should still be SIMILAR and resemble a Boeing 767; and in no way does flight 11 look like one. The impacts are totally different and shouldn't be.

Flight 11 has an IMMEDIATE EXPLOSION upon intial contact of the tower versus flight 175 which shows no such INITIAL CONTACT explosion until its at least half way or completely inside the tower.

In the Naudet, the explosion seen is occurring the moment the object touches the tower.

So Imo, this is more evidence validating video fakery/cgi tampering, and the NRPT since these images illustrate two different types of impact explosions, two different types of planes and of course flight 175 clearly violates Newtons 3rd Law of Motion.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
italy.indymedia.org...






img401.imageshack.us...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...








[edit on 22-5-2009 by Orion7911]




posted on May, 22 2009 @ 06:50 AM
link   
The answer should be obvious.

This Boeing was made of magic talcum powder.

It functions exactly as a Boeing, (apart from being able to travel at impossible speeds,) until it hits a solid. Then it metamorphoses into puffs of talc, these little white clouds pass through sub atomic gaps in the exterior of the building, and reform into a jet propelled bulldozer which completely destroys the structural integrity of the building, causing its collapse.

Or perhaps explosives were preset on the interior walls of the towers to carve plane shapes out of the sides of the buildings to match the CGI images being added to the almost live-time videos being shown.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


Ah yes, the CGI theory yet again. Maybe YOU can explain how the "bad guys" managed to get the images of the second jet onto all of the privately owned cameras (still/video) that recorded it then? No one else has been able to explain that.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911
The impacts are totally different and shouldn't be.

The impacts are identical and only appear to be different due to the different quality of pictures/video and the different lighting.



Originally posted by Orion7911
Flight 11 has an IMMEDIATE EXPLOSION upon intial contact of the tower versus flight 175 which shows no such INITIAL CONTACT

A false statement. There is no "immediate explosion". You're seeing the dust/debris as FL.11 contacts the north tower. The dust/debris is also more clearly seen on the north side than the south side as the sun angle is shining more on the north side of the towers.




Originally posted by Orion7911
flight 175 which shows no such INITIAL CONTACT explosion until its at least half way or completely inside the tower

As I've said above, the south side of the towers didn't have the sun angle as the north side, so the dust/debris isn't as highlighted by the sun as it is on the north side.



Originally posted by Kailassa
Or perhaps explosives were preset on the interior walls of the towers to carve plane shapes out of the sides of the buildings to match the CGI images being added to the almost live-time videos being shown.

The only problem with that "theory" is that explosives blow out, not suck things in. Large pieces of building are pushed in as well as some of the steel columns are bent in:



Something large and heavy pushed those large chunks of building in. Something large and heavy like a 300,000 pound 767 jetliner?



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Well said BoneZ, well said...


See, we do agree at times...



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



Pushed in?

like a





The new penetrating cruise missile, called the AGM-86D, carries a warhead that doubles the penetrating capability of earlier munitions. It is also equipped with a new fuse capable of counting the number of concrete floors it has penetrated before detonating at a programmed depth.


Also you gotta remember that this was made available public in 2001.




In cloudy weather, Robbins said, GPS signals would guide the bomb through the clouds. Then a crew member in the back seat of the F-15E can use the bomb's camera to "steer it into the window of the target."


That could explain the white plane that people saw at the pentagon.

Anyway many possibilities, plenty of anomalies that brings this theories to life.

Do I support the NRPT, no, i dont have enough proof to suggest that, do i believe planes hit the towers? yes, although i pull more towards the theory of being Gov. planes and not passenger planes.




there is those two lines blue and red that some of the images should have shown, but maybe the quality is poor.

are there any images of the planes showing tose two color lines on the white planes?



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arsenis
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



Pushed in?

like a





The new penetrating cruise missile, called the AGM-86D, carries a warhead that doubles the penetrating capability of earlier munitions. It is also equipped with a new fuse capable of counting the number of concrete floors it has penetrated before detonating at a programmed depth.


Also you gotta remember that this was made available public in 2001.




In cloudy weather, Robbins said, GPS signals would guide the bomb through the clouds. Then a crew member in the back seat of the F-15E can use the bomb's camera to "steer it into the window of the target."


That could explain the white plane that people saw at the pentagon.

Anyway many possibilities, plenty of anomalies that brings this theories to life.

Do I support the NRPT, no, i dont have enough proof to suggest that, do i believe planes hit the towers? yes, although i pull more towards the theory of being Gov. planes and not passenger planes.




there is those two lines blue and red that some of the images should have shown, but maybe the quality is poor.

are there any images of the planes showing tose two color lines on the white planes?

what are you smoking? the AGM-86D is a cruise missile with a 3000 pound blast,the war head packed with high explosive it would have obliterated the building on impact. The middle section of the building would have vaporized and the building wouldnt have stood even 1 second after impact. So my suggestion to you is you might want to rethink your theory and there is all kinds of websites that can show you this cruise missile impacting hardened bunkers and the resulting fireball looks like a nuclear blast.



Ps I assure you people would have noticed a cruise missile long before impact and cruise missiles are almost useless in areas with large buildings they follow the terrain and dont do well dodging building.

[edit on 5/22/09 by dragonridr]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


You really take things way to serious or failed to read the whole post, while the example of a missile is there when did i stated that it was that missile anyway?

that was an example of missiles that can be guided through GPS, as for your dodging buildings crap, I guess you are suggesting that the planes could
ROFLMAO, the missile has a CAMERA and SOMEONE can guide it, as for the example thats all that was, but since you got all the facts and all the proof needed why dont you just show it.

would you care to answer my question too? read the bottom and stop assuming, thats how this # has gotten out of hand, people all of a sudden assume you belong to a religious kind of cult, "oh I am a truter, i am right" - "I am an NRPT i got proof" kinda thing, some of us are just looking at all possibilities then disrregarding what doesn't make sense.

besides theories are theories until proven.



[edit on 22-5-2009 by Arsenis]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Arsenis
 


But there are no twin engined 156ft wingspan cruise missiles in our inventory.
Nor do they paint cruise missiles like passenger planes.

And warheads on detonation inside the target eject large amounts of debris back out the entry hole too. But what do we see? The exterior walls forced inside. If the "powerful" blast of the "huge" warhead went off inside, it would have forced debris and the exterior columns back outside.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Dude are you serious too? you see the picture of the missile and assume i am talking about an atomic warhead being used? LMAO dude I said it was planes read the whole post before assuming.

Besides all the footage shows, white, gray or black planes, I still havent seen a video that show the airplanes were commercial airplanes, I posted the picture on the bottom, the blue and red line is not seen in any of the videos, so my assumption is gov. planes.

the example of the missile was because when people say there were preplanted charges that made the wingspan hole possible, their only answer for this so called debunkers is: " well, uh, some of those colums are bent towards the inside, the explotion would have push 'em out ", well theoreticly speaking if there was a missile those colums would be pushed in.

thats all I said, you're just assuming that by me choosing to see an explanation for both scenarios I am agreeing there were no planes.



[edit on 22-5-2009 by Arsenis]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arsenis
Besides all the footage shows, white, gray or black planes

That's because the second plane that hit the WTC was a United Airlines plane and the paint scheme of that airline is.......gray (and blue):





Whether the second plane was a military drone or an actual commercial aircraft, it was still painted in United Airlines colors.


*edit to add* second image for comparison.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Arsenis
Besides all the footage shows, white, gray or black planes

That's because the second plane that hit the WTC was a United Airlines plane and the paint scheme of that airline is.......gray:





Whether the second plane was a military drone or an actual commercial aircraft, it was still painted in United Airlines colors.


*edit to add* second image for comparison.



[edit on 22-5-2009 by _BoneZ_]


Ok cool, thanks for pointing that out (that it was United Airlines), although the second image you posted has been altered.

if you have the video link or the original would help, you can see the saturation of blue all over te picture and that is completely misleading.

and that wing shoud not be blue.




[edit on 22-5-2009 by Arsenis]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   


Ok i guess i found the original, either the videos are way too low quality of this photo is fake.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Arsenis
 


They're low quality and heavily zoomed in, which further lowers the quality significantly.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


The impacts are totally different and shouldn't be.
I have to agree here. They are completely different and I can not think of why that should be, if they were both the same sort of plane.
There might be a couple things I could say about it. The North tower was a surprise so they could do just about anything they wanted. There is a huge cloud that covers the north face. On the South tower there is nothing like that on the corresponding face. It is a comparatively small and almost non-existent cloud and you see an ejective type explosion. Just about all the explosiveness gets diverted to another side. The East wall activity overwhelms the south face fires and sucks them into the main fire-ball.
The South tower explosions do not behave at all like an ordinary fuel fire. There are obviously ignition materials in action that creates multiple mushrooming and high pressure flame ejections apparently going into unexpected directions. There are multiple missile trails through the smoke and inexplicable forces creating very powerful vacuums and vortices.
The plane I saw hit tower two and was looking almost straight up to see it, had no blue bottom paint. It was gray, over the whole thing. I could almost look right through the windows and almost imagined people looking back at me.
It was obvious to me it was military. I am former military and traveled the world in gray planes and I know what they look like.


[edit on 24-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
They are completely different and I can not think of why that should be, if they were both the same sort of plane.

They weren't even close to being different. Besides both planes hitting different parts of each tower, the impacts themselves were identical. Let's take a look...



Originally posted by jmdewey60
The North tower was a surprise so they could do just about anything they wanted. There is a huge cloud that covers the north face.

The plane hit almost dead-center of the north tower and hence slammed into the core allowing the fuel fireball to be contained to the north face.

The core of the north tower took the full brunt of the plane, but that wasn't the case in the south tower...



Originally posted by jmdewey60
On the South tower there is nothing like that on the corresponding face. It is a comparatively small and almost non-existent cloud and you see an ejective type explosion. Just about all the explosiveness gets diverted to another side. The East wall activity overwhelms the south face fires and sucks them into the main fire-ball.

This is because the second plane didn't hit dead center and the majority of the plane clipped or missed the core allowing that majority of the plane to go past the core and hence the fireball came out of the east side of the tower instead of the south side:



In otherwords, a majority of the south tower plane made it a little further into the south tower and past the core unlike the first plane that hit the north tower. The core of the north tower stopped and took the whole brunt of the first plane allowing the fireball to come out of the north face. The second plane hit off-center allowing a majority of the second plane to miss and go past the core and hence most of the fireball came out of the east side of the south tower.

I hope I was able to explain it well enough for you to understand what happened.




Originally posted by jmdewey60
There are multiple missile trails through the smoke

I think we would all love for you to back up this claim with some proof.



Originally posted by jmdewey60
and inexplicable forces creating very powerful vacuums and vortices.

The jet engines would have created vortices until they stopped turning.



Originally posted by jmdewey60
The plane I saw hit tower two and was looking almost straight up to see it, had no blue bottom paint. It was gray, over the whole thing.

If you were more on the west side of the plane, then you might not have seen the blue bottom as the plane was banked sharply enough to where you only would've seen gray. Either way, the pictures and videos don't lie.



Originally posted by jmdewey60
I could almost look right through the windows and almost imagined people looking back at me.

I'm calling BS on this statement. Take a look at this pic that I posted earlier:



The distance away from this plane is about 50 feet, maybe 75 at the most. You can barely see the windows. If you put that plane up at 700 feet, you will not see the windows, let alone any people. There's no way you would've seen windows or people on a stationary plane that high, let alone travelling at around 500mph.


*Edit to add* Then you said this:


Originally posted by jmdewey60
It was obvious to me it was military. I am former military and traveled the world in gray planes and I know what they look like.

You "saw" people and the windows (which isn't possible) but it was obvious it was military? You contradicted yourself. I think you're being purposely deceptive or your imagination is running a little wild and adding things in to what you really saw.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


You "saw" people and the windows (which isn't possible) but it was obvious it was military? You contradicted yourself. I think you're being purposely deceptive or your imagination is running a little wild and adding things in to what you really saw.

My imagination is not running wild right now. You have to understand the heightened sense of awareness at the time of the event. I could "feel" people looking at me, even if it was impossible to actually see them.
I see the contradiction. If it was a radio controlled dummy plane, there would be no one in it. Why not both? The Iranians did it in the Gulf, loaded up people in a plane and aimed it at US ships, forcing them to shoot it down. The dead people from the blown up plane gave them the cover to claim they shot down a peaceful civilian airliner.
The "videos" showing a blue bottom would be one video where everything looks blue, as in someone's post above.


[edit on 25-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
The Iranians did it in the Gulf, loaded up people in a plane and aimed it at US ships, forcing them to shoot it down.


If you are talking about the Airbus shootdown by USS Vincennes, boy do *you* have the story wrong.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
If you are talking about the Airbus shootdown by USS Vincennes, boy do *you* have the story wrong.

Care to enlighten everyone or are you just here to do a drive-by?



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



Originally posted by trebor451 (in response to a post by jmdewey)

If you are talking about the Airbus shootdown by USS Vincennes, boy do *you* have the story wrong.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Care to enlighten everyone or are you just here to do a drive-by?


Here, please allow me:

en.wikipedia.org...

Iran Air Flight 655, also known as IR655, was a civilian airliner shot down by US missiles on Sunday 3 July 1988, over the Strait of Hormuz, toward the end of the Iran-Iraq War.

The aircraft, an Airbus A300B2 operated by Iran Air as IR655, was flying from Bandar Abbas, Iran, to Dubai, UAE, when it was destroyed by the U.S. Navy's guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes, killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard, including 66 children, ranking it the seventh among the deadliest airliner fatalities. It was the highest death toll of any aviation incident in the Indian Ocean and the highest death toll of any incident involving an Airbus A300 anywhere in the world. Vincennes was traversing the Straits of Hormuz, inside Iranian territorial waters, at the time of the attack IR655 was within Iranian airspace.

According to the US government, the crew mistakenly identified the Iranian Airbus A300 as an attacking F-14 Tomcat fighter. The Iranian government maintained that the Vincennes knowingly shot down the civilian aircraft.


EDIT: tags



[edit on 6/23/0909 by weedwhacker]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join