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.

 

No Planers Do Dig Up Some Interesting Stuff, Gotta Admit

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
So in today's no plane class we have a new video entitled:

SMOKING GUN FOUND! Source of CNN 9 11 Hoax Georeferencing Data Channel

Now keep in mind I am not a no planer, but in their never ending pursuit to either distort or expose the truth (I haven't exactly figured out which one yet), this video does bring up some interesting research.

It is about a building that appears to be missing, which should be there in the footage. So, in the evil spirit of discussion, the way these things often go here, and for no other reason, I promise- I am posting this to see if anyone can debunk it. Strap on the flame suits, prepare the battle axes, and have it. But in order to understand this, you will need to watch the whole thing, which isn't that long, happy to say.







posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
19 Rector Street. This is the first video that made me realize...WOKE ME UP to the fact that the Videos shown to us on 9-11 were CGI animation. This is extremely important information and people who deny it are OBVIOUSLY paid to be stupid, or just plain stupid. These people are called "Planehuggers". They are like the Magic Bullet proponents.

There are many though, who simply have not looked very deep into it, from this angle.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by nwodeath]

[edit on 17-10-2009 by nwodeath]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by nwodeath
 


Ahh, so this is not a new video, and you've seen it before? I hadn't, but yes, that's what it's about. 19 Rector Street. I know this was just posted recently, and that's how I found it. But it could be old, not sure. Fill us in.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by nwodeath
 


Ahh, so this is not a new video, and you've seen it before? I hadn't, but yes, that's what it's about. 19 Rector Street. I know this was just posted recently, and that's how I found it. But it could be old, not sure. Fill us in.


I never realized, for years, investigating 9-11 on my own, that there was a possibility that airplanes did not crash through the world trade center. To even think that would have been absurd. But, I watched this video, this exact same one about 1 year ago. Not sure how I found it, stumbles on it I think, searching through Utube 911 vids.

But, after watching this, I could not believe it at first, but watched it again and again. At first I thought they were trying to show me something and make me believe there was something there that was not. But then I saw the comparison of the two videos, one with the building and one without and thought to myself, maybe there is something to this.

Further research indicated that many, if not all, the 9-11 videos were faked, and that computer animation was used PRIOR to 9-11 to make the videos we saw on television.

Sometimes I think the words, "no-planers" can be misleading, since we are not all assuming there were no planes, but we are saying, the Videos are definitely faked with CGI, not real, shot on the spot.

Now, the logical assumption would be, that if you are faking the videos, why use real planes at all? The reason they made the videos are many:

No real planes, no real evidence to cover up. Without planes, you do not need hijackers at all. You do not need anything and NOBODY will be the wiser because there is NO EVIDENCE. That is the ultimate conspiracy. If they used real hijackers, and real planes, too many things could go wrong and the success of the operation would have too many variables that could go adrift. If anything happened out of sequence as planned the whole operation could be blown. Then let's just leave out the airplanes, leave out the hijackers and leave out the passengers aboard the plane. Then we have little to screw up with.

Instead, we'll just show a series of faked videos and people will believe, because they saw it live on television, that it really happened.

I recommend watching the video "September Clues". There will be people who will show up here and say it has been debunked. Poppycock! Do the research for yourself. Nobody has debunked it.

Watch the bridges float by in the background. Watch the police cars travel backwards. Watch the bridge not appear in some videos while it is clearly there in the other ones. Watch how the videos that surfaced after 9-11 that supposedly came from amateur videographers, came from people who actually worked in film and editing and multimedia. Watch how people who were supposed to be in NY on 9-11 and are known survivors, have turned out to be scripted actors. Watch how people who were not there were inserted in sequences that appeared "live on TV". Watch how the plane flies into the tower from several completely different angles as it approaches. Watch how people on the ground actually reported seeing a missile. Watch how some observers never saw any airplane and watched the building the whole time after the first strike. Watch how aluminum is proven and shown to not be able to penetrate steel at any speed or velocity. Watch how we were lied to by the media, the main progenitors of 9-11.

[The Media/Pentagon/Zionist Israeli Conspiracy] - I am Jewish, so do not attack me for being antisemitic and do not call me a self-hating Jew. I am a Jew against Zionism. We all know the media is controlled by mostly Zionist interests in America. We know Israel wanted to go to war in the Middle East and wipe out the Arabs, or at least a whole bunch of them, like the Palestinians. We know Israels fascist history and what the Patriot Act is now doing in this country as well fall to fascist totalitarianism. That is why I call it a Zionist Media Pentagon Conspiracy.



[edit on 17-10-2009 by nwodeath]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Eyewitnesses may have seen planes that were not airliners, but could be mistaken for them. No way to check, except for the videos.

Not surprisingly there are only two, not very clear, videos of the first hit.

Then, with all eyes and cameras on the North Tower, the second plane arrives from the south. Everybody sees the impact, but few see or photograph the approach.

But that's OK, we'll see it clearly on what video we have. What video do we have?

Some, but not as much as people generally think and that stuff has come under question as to CGI effects etc.

Maybe what hit the towers was planes, maybe they weren't airliners, maybe they weren't really planes but drones.

Very confusing situation. Even among eyewitnesses, there is a lot of disagreement about what kind of craft hit the towers.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   
I wish that whoever made that video would edit it for brevity.

It's far too long and the message is lost. At 10 minutes 52, it could be cut down to around 3 minutes to slam home the content that it's offering.

The general public need an info-mercial, not a dreary rant about debunkers and the red circle pitched with depressing background music.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
I wish that whoever made that video would edit it for brevity.

It's far too long and the message is lost. At 10 minutes 52, it could be cut down to around 3 minutes to slam home the content that it's offering.

The general public need an info-mercial, not a dreary rant about debunkers and the red circle pitched with depressing background music.


I agree. The video could have been made MUCH better. There are others that are.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Ponder this, go find some video of the south tower getting hit, don't matter whose video or what angle. Watch how the plane melts into the building like it was jello. Then find an old photo of the tower being built. Look at those walls, now ask yourself how did that plane go through the wall without:

A) there was no crumpling of the fuselage.

B) there was no reduction in speed.( documented I believe)

C) there was not one part of that aircraft that bounced off the side of the building.

Think about that, the very fragile wing tips you could damage with your fist sliced through one inch thick and better steel?

regardless of what you think there is something very wrong with the above events or lack of them.

Edit to add, If you want to see some bazaar stuff watch September Clues

[edit on 17-10-2009 by 22-250]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   
What the heck is this fruit loop trying to say exactly? He keeps pointing at some red building that isn't 19 Rector Street which is in the Michael Hezarkhani video. I cannot see 19 Rector Street from the YouTuber's final position in Battery Park either, which appear to be too far east anyway.

Nothing he's seems to be getting at makes spatial sense at all, that is, his message, not what I'm seeing here.

This clip seems to show things out better.

And yes, I can see the top of some structure behind the trees, just barely visible in the circle.

So, I guess a fruitloop completely without comprehension here.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Interesting replies.

Yeah, I hear ya Tezz, and really I agree. But you offered nothing in the way of what you think of the content of the central point of this video. Was the building there or not? Did the trees obscure it? Could the shot have possibly been taken the way it has been spoon fed to us, given what these guys are saying?

The building is still there. And should have been there during the famous footage shot. It is a simple point really.

Myself, I think that maybe due to the exact angle, the building may have just barely been obscured enough. But the problem with that of course is when they superimpose the two different still shots from the same angle. That goes by quick, so you might have to re watch it to get it.

That building SHOULD be there, but it isn't!

nwodeath, thanks for your insight. It seems honest. Now of course most 9/11 researchers are familiar with September Clues, including me. However, I found a lot of what they claimed was based upon really crappy video sources, and that kind of ruined it for me. Because there were a lot of compression artifacts. I know that still doesn't explain the bridges and other things. True. And really I don't have an answer as to those things.

But I will ask you this:
Is it possible that SOME of the videos were faked, and SOME of the footage was real?



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
That building SHOULD be there, but it isn't!


Look closer. Frankly I'd be surprise if you could see it clearly from that place. It barely makes it halfway up the nearer building from the right perspective.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Interesting replies.

nwodeath, thanks for your insight. It seems honest. Now of course most 9/11 researchers are familiar with September Clues, including me. However, I found a lot of what they claimed was based upon really crappy video sources, and that kind of ruined it for me. Because there were a lot of compression artifacts. I know that still doesn't explain the bridges and other things. True. And really I don't have an answer as to those things.

But I will ask you this:
Is it possible that SOME of the videos were faked, and SOME of the footage was real?


I seriously doubt it because then,

what would be the purpose of making the faked videos to begin with? Also, I have studied and analyzed all the vids I can find on Utube and all of them are doctored like this, from what I can see. Many not featured on September Clues, but they are still CGI as well.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Quote nwodeath
Watch the bridges float by in the background.



Believe it or not, on August 10 2009 Simon Shack posted this video



at the now dead website

9/11 Truth Movement Fourm


As simon sez

Simon Shack
Just to 'clean' your eyes : Here's a normal video filmed from a helicopter - with REAL colors, REAL camera movements and NO silly chopper skids/landing gear obstructing the view
www.youtube.com...


Take note at 1:10




YES, that is the Verrazano Bridge drifting gracefully across the background behind the Statue of Liberty.


So, once again, Simon Shack grabs a gun, points it at his foot, takes careful aim and pulls the trigger.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   
What I did, because September Clues does not use the greatest videos in quality, I did the same thing September Clues did, but on my own, stopping each video over and over and saving frames and references. Then I pulled them all up on one page to study them side by side. That's how I found the most significant stuff.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Red Herring!

I tried to follow your logic. I see no evidence that Simon posted that video. Furthermore, the video itself purports to be selling a media company or something and shows a flight angle, but it's CGI. Now if Simon posted this, i'm not sure even what he would be trying to say, since nowhere does Simon say anything about it. It's GERMAN!

WTF!

I call shenannigans.




posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   
The thing about CGI is that relative positioning of objects are easily made stable and the scene rendered with proper perspective. I know what it all is, it's fear. It's fear of not having a grip on reality. It's fear that we don't understand the world as well as we thought we did. We never really paid attention in the past and it's is getting to us, driving us insane. We don't know what things really look like. When we pay attention things defy the intuition we though we had mastered. We see our technology progress and we fear losing grip of what is real or not. We never noticed the world and already technology was at a point that it could fool us before we ever understood reality, before a reliable map was created in our minds.

Those that paid attention, took the time to look around before entering our current age, that observed, are not quite so frightened. Some never really got the chance.

9/11 is forcing people with inadequate schema as a result of their past apathy, to suddendly try to make sense of things for which they are ill equiped to deal. That to explains the CGI paranoia so rampant today. It's going to cause quite a wave of mental disorders.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   
C'mon people, the No Plane religion has been smashed to WTC pieces for at least a year on this site. It's sad that to this day the childish COINTELPRO antics of the founders of the No Planers still has the old "this forum is now under close scrutiny" status here at ATS.

For physical PROOF that planes hit the towers see here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And beyond that read that entire thread.

There is no longer any verifiable "9/11 Truth Movement" thanks to the damaged caused by the No Planes (COINTELPRO) 'movement' in particular.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
The thing about CGI is that relative positioning of objects are easily made stable and the scene rendered with proper perspective. I know what it all is, it's fear. It's fear of not having a grip on reality. It's fear that we don't understand the world as well as we thought we did. We never really paid attention in the past and it's is getting to us, driving us insane. We don't know what things really look like. When we pay attention things defy the intuition we though we had mastered. We see our technology progress and we fear losing grip of what is real or not. We never noticed the world and already technology was at a point that it could fool us before we ever understood reality, before a reliable map was created in our minds.

Those that paid attention, took the time to look around before entering our current age, that observed, are not quite so frightened. Some never really got the chance.

9/11 is forcing people with inadequate schema as a result of their past apathy, to suddendly try to make sense of things for which they are ill equiped to deal. That to explains the CGI paranoia so rampant today. It's going to cause quite a wave of mental disorders.


Yes, I agree with you 100%.

Also, I might add, I believe Alex Jones, and the whole 9-11 truth movement were created to/for the specific purpose of keeping this one important aspect of 9-11 a secret and well covered up. I know it sounds slightly outrageous to hear someone say that, maybe....but there is such serious rabid denial of these things by that segment of the conspiracy world, that it makes me question the possibility, at least. I am not saying that all 9-11 truthers are covering this up. What I am saying is that it appears that the movement was created for this purpose, to keep a gatekeeper type control over this select bit of information.

Imagine for a moment, if all you have to do, as a government operative, is to keep pumping out conspiracy information related to 9-11 that keeps people always a hair's length distance away from the real truth, just far enough away to make sure it never gets the proper mention it should.

I would accept that it was only what you are describing above, however, I am convinced there is another element at play as well, that of co-opting truth just enough to fill it with just enough lies, to keep anyone from figuring out the single most important feature of the entire conspiracy...WHO PULLED OFF 9-11??? -- Well, if the videos are faked and CGI, then we have an ACTUAL CRIMINAL DIRECTLY TIED TO THE CONSPIRACY...THE NEWS MEDIA!!!

Food for thought.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Now wait a minute here. Go to exactly 5:14 or 5:15, right where he does the superimposition of the two stills. Pause it, go back and forth many times, and compare the two building profiles very carefully.

I believe those are NOT the same two building profiles. They are close at first glance, but upon further review, I don't think they are the same at all. There are clear differences in the tops of the buildings there, watch close. I believe this to be misrepresented and false.

And frankly, I found a different but related issue with another video done by no planers, and posted exactly what I found when I obtained high res versions of the video. And this is what troubles me about a lot of this research. They tend to claim things based upon stuff that really is not what it seems. Here is the post I made regarding this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I got some stars and a mod applause for that post, and one staff U2U'd me about hi res photos- which really, all I did was just go back to the source and found the real video. It's on the net.

Now look, I don't mind at all entertaining theories, heck that's what we're here for. But PLEASE, you guys are going to HAVE to do better than this. Why go to these lengths based upon crappy videos? When really you should stick to solid guns.

Like for instance, did anyone ever try to contact Michael to find out the exact spot he was standing when he shot that video? I mean that would have saved a whole lot of people a whole lot of time here instead of giving us video footage roaming all over New York, trying to figure out the spot. And then on top of that guessing, and then giving us what I see now as false information.

One piece of wrong, and your credibility is shot.

[edit on Sun Oct 18th 2009 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
C'mon people, the No Plane religion has been smashed to WTC pieces for at least a year on this site. It's sad that to this day the childish COINTELPRO antics of the founders of the No Planers still has the old "this forum is now under close scrutiny" status here at ATS.

For physical PROOF that planes hit the towers see here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And beyond that read that entire thread.

There is no longer any verifiable "9/11 Truth Movement" thanks to the damaged caused by the No Planes (COINTELPRO) 'movement' in particular.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]


Just because you say it's so, does not make it so.
BTW, who is cointelpro? I thought it was people who cover up the no plane theories, like the planehuggers always do. I always thought these were the real cointelpro.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join