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.

 

Any Pilots want to comment on this Video

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
This video shows the second plane from the farthest out I have seen of any video's. Focus on the part that is from 31:30 to impact.

www.archive.org... (Click video)

Here is the screen shot when it first comes into view see how far away it is.



The plane is in descent not cruise missile mode, and flew very steady not erratic at all.

Either the pilot was very good, or it was on a automated mode.
Since the supposed pilot had never flown a plane this large before and was about to die, what do you think?




posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Does the video watch the plane the entire way into the buildings? Because to me that looks like a helicopter.

No matter what you think about September Clues and it's conclusions they have a remarkable piece of footage that proves without a shadow of a doubt that TV trickery was involved on 911.

I captured the footage and the 3 pictures are below, all images are from part 5.








The second image is probably the most telling, although they have zoomed slightly, the distance that the camera is covering is massive.

The "timer" on the film says 10 seconds, but if you watch the impact it actually impacts approximately 8-9 seconds later, the 10 second count down is the film makers attempt to illustrate the time-delay on live TV footage. Personally, that's irrelevant here.

The images spell it out quite well, how does a plane travel that entire length in 10 seconds? Or even 17 seconds? There's no plane anywhere in the sky visible, then suddenly after PERFECT timing on zooming a plane appears and smashes the towers.

It's also worth noting that the FOX shot, is the one with the infamous fade-to-black, and the nose out fiasco.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by king9072
It's also worth noting that the FOX shot, is the one with the infamous fade-to-black, and the nose out fiasco.

The "fade-to-black" has been debunked. It was actually a camera switch and can be seen in the following video:



Google Video Link




The "nose-out fiasco" was a hoax, created by a disinfo artist and the debunking can be seen here:






Let's not do the no-plane disinfo thing anymore. It grows rather tiresome and nobody is buying it.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
I first coined the term "no planer" over at the letsroll forum.

I used to refer to it as a mental disorder, called WNPD - Webfarian No Planer Disorder, which should be included in the DSM-V manual for mental diseases. It just defies reason, while taking a variety of regular video anomalies and conflating them into one theory, who's purpose it appears to be to discredit the 9/11 truth movement.

Whenever I see it being peddled anywhere I find it most infuriating.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Whenever I see it being peddled anywhere I find it most infuriating.

Not only that, but when the no-planers purposely falsify or make up their "evidence", that's even more infuriating. That's why I call them disinfo artists. Because they make up their disinfo and try to peddle it as fact and true.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
I first coined the term "no planer" over at the letsroll forum.

I used to refer to it as a mental disorder, called WNPD - Webfarian No Planer Disorder, which should be included in the DSM-V manual for mental diseases. It just defies reason, while taking a variety of regular video anomalies and conflating them into one theory, who's purpose it appears to be to discredit the 9/11 truth movement.

Whenever I see it being peddled anywhere I find it most infuriating.

Aren't you also the one who believes in pods, the other theory BoneZ thinks is disinfo?



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Not only that, but when the no-planers purposely falsify or make up their "evidence", that's even more infuriating. That's why I call them disinfo artists. Because they make up their disinfo and try to peddle it as fact and true.

purposely falsify or make up their "evidence"

Can you prove this BoneZ?



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
purposely falsify or make up their "evidence"

Can you prove this BoneZ?

It's proven in both the videos I posted earlier in this thread. You can also visit the "HOAX" forum for a somewhat recent no-plane thread that was moved there.

This isn't a no-plane thread, so back on topic.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 

Seems like the real disinfo artist is you. You keep posting the nose out debunking video of the old nose out video. I showed you that a newer nose out video was made that debunked that debunk video you keep posting -- why hasn't that Anthony Lawson guy debunked that one? You are being dishonest when you keep posting old outdated things that have been debunked, especially when you bitch and moan about others bringing up old stuff that has been debunked.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Of course you can take two similar shapes, bump-map them, raise the contrast to discard "weak pixels", and add some anti-aliasing to smooth the images, all to make the two similar images nearly identical. But it's still disinformation because the images are not identical.

If you have to discard "weak pixels" and add so many filters to lower the quality of images and make simple, basic shapes out of them just to make them match, then you are, in essence, creating disinformation.

Again, this is NOT a no-plane thread. If you want to waste more bandwidth on NPT disinfo, there are plenty of other threads you can do that in, or you can make yet another one that will be debunked and pushed down into the dungeon with the rest of them.

Back on topic anyone?




[edit on 1-10-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Why is nobody commenting on the actual topic of this thread.

Instead they want to debate if that plane coming in is a hologram?


Go peddle that fantasy somewhere else.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Whenever a thread is started that deals with any of the planes at the WTC, the no-plane disinfo artists come out of the woodwork like cockroaches to peddle their disinfo. It never fails and should be expected in this part of the forum.

I'm not a licensed pilot, but I've been flying sims for years. You're only seeing about 10 or so seconds of flight in that video and I wouldn't really expect to see any erratic flying.

It's like you driving your car for so many years, but then you get into a large Mack truck or large passenger bus that you've never driven before. Initially, your driving would be erratic, but most people would get the hang of it after a few minutes and level out.

The only thing that bothers me about that flight is the last-second correcton just before impact. It's almost as if it's being remotely controlled and the controller made a last-minute adjustment. You would think that if there were a human behind the wheel, they wouldn't need to correct because they have full visual view, unlike a controller remotely flying the plane.

That all being said, the other option is that it was planned to have the plane hit more on the side instead of the middle so the tower could fall towards the side like it did. There's just so many variables.

Weedwhacker should be along shortly to tell me how wrong I am.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 

Seems like the real disinfo artist is you. You keep posting the nose out debunking video of the old nose out video. I showed you that a newer nose out video was made that debunked that debunk video you keep posting -- why hasn't that Anthony Lawson guy debunked that one? You are being dishonest when you keep posting old outdated things that have been debunked, especially when you bitch and moan about others bringing up old stuff that has been debunked.


Alright, time to stop pulling the punches. I've kept my mouth shut long enough.

You know what my main beef with you no planers and September Clues is? It's not the theory, because I can always entertain those. I'd consider no planes. No problem. I have.

What I am sick of however is you people peddling misinformation based on crappy videos full of all kinds of distortion artifacts from codec compression. And I'm about to show you what I mean.

I obtained the highest resolution possible video of your Good Day NY clip, for starters. Because if anything, it would seem even a semi serious researcher would want to start with the best quality available. Here is an 800% zoom screenshot of the plane in my clip:



Notice that there is very little compression artifacting- the very thing you try to use as an argument that this is video fakery- around the plane. In fact, there is more artifacting around the composited Good Day logo than there is the plane! Now why might this be? Because when you composite something over an existing shot, upon high zoom it becomes more evident. The pixelation becomes obvious.

Now in contrast, when something is real and genuinely part of the picture, as is this plane, in this picture- there is a certain smoothness of transition in pixelation that is evident even through slight codec compression artifacting. Imo, there is no question that this plane was genuinely in the shot. But of course, with the low res video source used in your "New" video there, as with much of September Clues, compression artifacting is so great that you conveniently try to use this as some kind of basis to make judgments upon.

Not good.

And your "alignment marks?" Not there at all in my hi res version. I checked every single frame. Crappy quality gets you again.

Your "right wing disattachment?" Total BS. It is there as well, and again you are either a victim of low resolution compression artifacting or a perpetuator of lies based upon low quality research.

The issue of progressive scan vs. lower and upper field first can also play a part to the uninitiated.

To make a long story short- after my own investigation based upon the highest res videos I have obtained (as part of a project I am doing), I would venture to say at this point that September Clues is more like September Clueless.

Sorry. But it had to be said.

Edit to add two things:
1) Sorry to OP this is not directly related to the video you posted. My comment on that video is that it is interesting how high that plane is coming in relative to other videos of 175 which can be very deceptive visually if timing and angles are not considered carefully.

2) Gotta love them png's. I wanted to post an original bmp of that screen but the ATS Media Portal wouldn't take it. "Forbidden." And the reason was to avoid as much compression as possible, seeing as that is in contention in this post. However, that png took a 900k file down to 29k! And I compared the two side by side, afraid that it would ruin the picture- and that sukka is near identical! So close I could not find any difference. Pretty amazing. It will be a PNG world soon, folks- get used to them.

[edit on Thu Oct 1st 2009 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
This video shows the second plane from the farthest out I have seen of any video's. Focus on the part that is from 31:30 to impact.

www.archive.org... (Click video)

Here is the screen shot when it first comes into view see how far away it is.



The plane is in descent not cruise missile mode, and flew very steady not erratic at all.

Either the pilot was very good, or it was on a automated mode.
Since the supposed pilot had never flown a plane this large before and was about to die, what do you think?






I am very interested in pilots responding to this as well. I hope this doesn't descend into a "no plane" thing, because this is not what this is.

The OP is asking a very, very good question in my book.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
The so-called planes must of been guided electronically at the very least. No way is a mentally deranged suicidal hijacker with below average piloting skills, in that kind of situation going to fly so smoothly and accurately into those buildings whilst overspeeding, let alone three times on the same day. If you believe they could then you are either naive or mentally deranged too imho.

[edit on 2-10-2009 by Insolubrious]



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Does the video watch the plane the entire way into the buildings? Because to me that looks like a helicopter.


What about it looks like a helicopter to you? Its traveling way to fast.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Whenever a thread is started that deals with any of the planes at the WTC, the no-plane disinfo artists come out of the woodwork like cockroaches to peddle their disinfo. It never fails and should be expected in this part of the forum.


And again bonez derails a thread doing what he/she does best, posting only to pore their disgust at no plane theories, on a conspiracy theory website no less. The very nerve of us eh!?

Is that all you're on here for?

Ironically though the above post regarding the September clues footage was only posted claiming that fox have used camera trickery, and not as you think, meant as a no plane theory.

So YOU have turned this thread into a NP one. Congratulations.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
This is a compilation of video's of the second plane hitting that I hadn't seen before all spliced together with commentary.

www.youtube.com...

And I tell you the panic on that one's girl voice that actually saw the plane go in that is not faked or an act, you can tell from the emotional heavy breathing, she is an eye witness. For those that say there was no plane this video defeats you once and for all. Even if for some bizarre reason you still believe that there was no plane. Focus on what brought the building down after the impacts then, you will be doing the truth movement a big favor.
To do otherwise is internal sabotage, irregardless of belief structure.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Sorry not a pilot, but I do have a question to all, This topic has been kicked around so much and yet there has been no resolve to anyones theories of what really has happened or didn't happen.If you thought you had the answer, what would you do with it, who would listen to you, who would you tell. If a pilot tells you it looks normal, will you still pursue your cause. I for one believe this was an inside job, however, I doubt anyone will ever really know the truth. good luck to you.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join