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: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by 22-250
 






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?



The old "aluminium cant penetrate steel" idiocy

One the exterior walls of WTC were made of lattice work of steel sections
BOLTED together. On impact the bolts were sheared - plane pushed its
way in

Two This picture from WWII

Kamikaze punched hole in Amphibious ship USS HINSDALE (APA 120)



Notice marks left by wings

Still clinging to your conspiracy fantasy?




posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
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.





this video is pathetic. You can plainly see that if the person in the "after" video changed their position by only a few feet the building in question would be below the treeline. And of course if the twin towers were still standing they would also be painfully visible in the shot.

TBH I really think the original September clues perp and this one both really believe there was no planes at the WTC. Its kind of painful to me as a serious researcher because there is so much evidence of planes hitting WTC1 and 2 and so little evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon, and NO evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon in the initial images. This makes it scream "disinformation" to me, but I honestly think these guys really beLIEve it.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   
This video is one of the funnier claims to surface from the 9/11 "Truth" Movement.

I can't wait to see it on 60 Minutes.




posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by nwodeath
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.

That's because there isn't a possibility. Not even in the slightest.



Originally posted by nwodeath
To even think that would have been absurd.

Oh, it is. Very.



Originally posted by nwodeath
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.

Sorry, but no amount of "research" can definitively determine that. The only thing that can conclusively determine CGI once and for all would be to obtain the original videos and have them professionally analyzed for fakery. Saying all videos are definitively CGI with no demonstrable proof is disinfo.

Then there's the home video aspect. There's no possible way that private citizens could have faked their home videos before 9/11. And you will never show any tangible proof to the contrary.



Originally posted by nwodeath
but we are saying, the Videos are definitely faked with CGI, not real, shot on the spot.

You can keep saying that all you want, but every time you do, you are peddling disinfo. You have no tangible, verifiable proof of CGI fakery in any video. CGI fakery in the 9/11 videos isn't factual just because disinfo artists like Simon Shack/socialservice and Killtown say the videos are fake.



Originally posted by nwodeath
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.

Except you're forgetting the countless thousands of people standing outside looking at the towers who saw the second plane with their own eyes and not some fake CGI bs on a tv screen.



Originally posted by nwodeath
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.

Actually, it has been debunked and there is more than one debunking:


"September Clues: Busted!"


Google Video Link




"Debunking September Clues - A Point-by-Point Analysis:"

truthaction.org...



Originally posted by nwodeath
Watch the bridges float by in the background.

Oh, you mean like this?





What that is is a helicopter flying around the Statue of Liberty with the camera focused on the statue. When a camera focuses on an object nearby, the background will appear to move faster than the foreground. On the opposite hand, if the camera were to focus on that bridge in the background, the bridge would be nearly stationary and the statue would be flying by very fast.

You can try the same test at home with a video camera. Walk slowly around a tree near you while focusing on the tree and watch the background move by quickly. Wow, that tree must be CGI!!!

This is simple camera 101 knowlege that I learned in middle school. Why didn't you? Why didn't you or any of the other no-plane disinfo artists try these camera tests before peddling disinfo?




Originally posted by nwodeath
Watch the bridge not appear in some videos while it is clearly there in the other ones.

Simple camera angles learned in middle school. And also another test you could've tried at home before peddling disinfo.



Originally posted by nwodeath
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.

Many, if not most professional photographers and videographers carry a camera around with them all the time. And it certainly isn't out of the ordinary for them to work in the field they love. What a concept!



Originally posted by nwodeath
Watch how the plane flies into the tower from several completely different angles as it approaches.

You already posted the answer, but twisted it and actually created disinfo. There are 40+ different angles of the second impact. So yes, different camera angles will cause different views of the plane or make the plane appear to be approaching from different angles. Again, simple camera knowledge from middle school.



Originally posted by nwodeath
Watch how people on the ground actually reported seeing a missile.

One or two people were reported as thinking they thought they saw a missle and it was relating to the first plane, not the second plane that was visible to countless thousands.



Originally posted by nwodeath
Watch how some observers never saw any airplane and watched the building the whole time after the first strike.

Yeah, every observer in "September Clues" was either in another building and had zero view of the plane, or were on the opposite side of the tower and had no possibility of seeing the plane because it was out of view. Or some were simply not looking up and just heard the explosion.



Originally posted by nwodeath
Watch how aluminum is proven and shown to not be able to penetrate steel at any speed or velocity.

This is one of the key pieces of evidence that makes the NPT disinfo cult fall flat on it's face. The plane did not penetrate or otherwise cut the outer steel columns. The only parts of the plane that could have cut or severely damaged the outer columns or even the core columns would have been the engines and landing gear. Let's take a look at how the columns were assembled:


The outer columns were assembled in sets at the factory. A set consisted of three columns wide by three storeys high welded together by three spandrel plates and then assembled onto the building in a staggered formation:




The columns were then bolted together on the building:





You can look at any photo of the holes and see that bolts and welds are broke and that no column was severed. If you honestly think that a 300,000 pound object traveling circa 500mph can't break some bolts and welds, then you've got serious issues to attend to.

Real research would've educated you on this fact so that we wouldn't have to constantly see the "no aluminum plane can penetrate steel" disinfo BS. The planes didn't penetrate the steel, they penetrated the bolts and welds.



Originally posted by nwodeath
September Clues does not use the greatest videos in quality

DING DING DING!!! That should've been your first clue that the Simon Shack/socialservice/Killtown disinfo team were spreading disinfo. You can't even come close to proving CGI fakery or any other type of fakery with poor-quality, compressed internet videos.

Just like UFO programs on TV obtain the original UFO footage from someone claiming to have filmed a real UFO. They obtain the originals and have them professionally analyzed with professional equipment by professional people to determine CGI or other fakery.

Until the no-plane disinfo cult starts obtaining copies of the originals and has them professionally analyzed for fakery, there is zero proof of fakery and only opinions or theories, period.



Originally posted by nwodeath
there is such serious rabid denial of these things by that segment of the conspiracy world, that it makes me question the possibility

Or maybe that there's been so many people including myself and even some with PhD's that have extensively researched the no-plane claims and have found that not only is there zero evidence of fakery, but that many of the very aspects of NPT are created by a few people. Hence the term "disinfo artists". The people like Simon Shack/socialservice who create the no-plane disinfo and peddle it as fact and truth with no evidence.



Originally posted by nwodeath
I am not saying that all 9-11 truthers are covering this up.

No, but all 9/11 truthers think the topic of no-planes at the WTC is disinfo. That's why not a single 9/11 truth research organization supports NPT, and some have went even further by banning the discussion on their forums. Why, you ask? Maybe because there's no evidence of fakery?

In fact, since the 9/11 movement disinfo forums are down or closed, besides ATS, Pilots is the only other forum you can peddle your disnfo on where you can talk to yourselves or get support from the few cult members left in the 9/11 no-plane disinfo movement.




Originally posted by nwodeath
CNN Rector Street Video Comparison
Building Vs. No Building - What do you see? Or what do you NOT see?

Look MA, No Building!!!

Several people in this thread have already shown that the two shots are from two locations/angles. The NPT disinfo cult has many problems understanding how photography and videography works, so naturally your conclusions aren't too surprising.

The NPT disinfo cult is all but gone. Only a few stragglers come and make a post about NPT now and then. But soon when NPT whithers away into nothingness, we won't have to see the NPT disinfo anymore.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
This makes it scream "disinformation" to me, but I honestly think these guys really beLIEve it.

That or they're creating the disinfo to purposely derail or otherwise discredit the 9/11 truth movement. No 9/11 truth research organization supports NPT anyway, so we're not that bad off.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Pretty silly video to be honest and in no way helps the cause for 9/11 truth not because i think he is a dis info guy or anthything just because there is much better info proving a false flag happenned that day.

Just because the basic solid information gets boring to discuss for some doesn't always mean that we need new info to keep it exciting we have all but proven 9/11 false a black op false flag and now because "everything has been discussed" we have people trying to come up with new scoops.

This guy isn't even a no planer to me he is just saying the CNN videos are faked he never says there were no planes.

I wouldn't put it past a complicit news agency run by the CIA like CNN who just gets given a tape by an random guy just might be given a doctored tape that has a nice sensational shot of the plane going into the building.

TPTB would almost have to set up something like this because a real amateur shot is usually shakey and useless so the news needs nice clear extravagant indie video so they create one.

It doesn't mean there were no planes just that the tapes were doctored and the real crash wasn't caught on camera to look "scary" enough.

I have no problem with people saying the tapes were doctored but its just kinda weak evidence and easily ignored compared to the smoking gun. Although it is boring to talk about because it isn't holograms, space beams or mini nukes it is the silver bullet.

Building 7



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jprophet420
This makes it scream "disinformation" to me, but I honestly think these guys really beLIEve it.

That or they're creating the disinfo to purposely derail or otherwise discredit the 9/11 truth movement. No 9/11 truth research organization supports NPT anyway, so we're not that bad off.


But don't forget that the so-called 9/11 "Truth" Movement discredited itself long ago even without all the crazies.

A "movement" which thinks it's made progress while standing still for the last 8 years hasn't moved anywhere. There is nothing to show for it.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Can I ask a question?

How is it a plane that has wings midway on the fuselage went thru the solid object of the building without any damage? Why isnt there a hole? A 'spatter', a plume of something- anything? No falling debris from the nose impacting the building, no flash, nada? The plane just kinda 'slides in' and then there's an explosion... And before someone reaches out and toasts me on one side... I'm not a 'no planer'. I watched the closeup of the video, and the initial impact just don't make no sense.

Can someone find some wrecking ball footage? I think just a plain dirty comparison of a wrecking ball vs a jet would be of some help. I am actually left scratching my .- and it really DOES look kinda CGI ish- but the quality... That's a LOT better than even what CNN would be able to play with. You're talking powerful hardware to get it looking that good in 2001- even allowing for 2-3 years beforehand to run it up.

I Have a theory... While researching what I could do to cobble up a really cooking CGI rig for myself, I came upon a Tesla GPU processor card. It mentioned all the uses for a supercomputer, including oil drilling research.

Now, that said (Teslas weren't out around then, just the information about what supercomputers can be used for is being referenced)- Who would have access to powerful supercomputers? HALLIBURTON. They'd probably have their own in house hardware, used usually for simulations for drilling oil. Who's buddy buddy with Halliburton? Ummm- Bush. A multi core processing system and an off the shelf rendering program like Lightwave- which uses multicores (even back then), even if the things are in separate motherboards, and a team of people reasonably good at 3d rendering- and even using stock objects... you can enhance, repaint, all sorts of good stuff- voila. CGI so good, it'd make Lucas do a double take. This is the simple version, you still have post processing, ect. Too bad there's not a trail to follow to find out anything.

Like I said, this is just me spouting an idea... tho you gotta admit... Wow...



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by wylekat
tho you gotta admit... Wow...

Someone only has to admit "wow" if they don't comprehend simple physics. I just explained how the planes easily melted into the buildings just a few posts above, which you obviously didn't read. Try again:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


I will be completely honest. I have strong hunches not everything is as it was made out to be. However, it this very sort of thing that keeps me at a distance from the the subject. The profusion of absurdities does more to obfuscate truth than to help find it.

Perhaps there is/was indeed some sort of government COINTELPRO operation. However, I think those involved are pleased that the citizens themselves are capable of waging a disinformation campaign all on their own, quite competently and free of charge.

Having had many such thoughts myself on that very day in the wake of the atrocity, embers still smoldering, of various ways the government might have perpretated 9/11, it was clear this would blossom into madness. If I was mulling it over, it was quite likely I wasn't the only one.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
The problem with the NO PLANE theory is that it would mean that all amateur footage would have to be accounted for and that is impossible. New York City is an enormous city and that day a lot of people were watching the events and filming it. Such a plan is not possible. Because there is always the chance that one person would get the "missile" or whatever else you feel hit the building.

Not to mention people from different embassies and foreign diplomats and their security who might be filming the events in question.

To think the Russians don't have documentation of such an event, one would actually have to be stupid.

If there was NO PLANES, the RUSSIANS WOULD STAND UP at that point or whomever else.

I might add that all the no plane theories have been debunked as well and the Sept Clues in particular is exposed as willfully and delibrately deceptive.

The motive of such theories by whomever is doing this, is to plant a seed of this sort hoping that the larger Truth Movement picks up on it and believes it.

The people who do this bank on people's gulliability and they think we are that gulliable becuase they don't believe in any of the evidence so they focus on such evidence.

I actually think that some of the people behind this are themselves debunkers and skeptics who are trying to seed the movement whilst others like David Shayler are still working for the Gov.

Notice David Shayler supported Holograms but then now thinks he is the Messiah.



[edit on 18-10-2009 by talisman]

[edit on 18-10-2009 by talisman]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


would anyone provide a formula with the plane speed + impact that would measure the energy? on impact.

I was there, i saw everything. PLANES HIT THE TOWERS!

[edit on 10/18/2009 by ugie1028]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
reply to post by thedman
 


would anyone provide a formula with the plane speed + impact that would measure the energy? on impact.

I was there, i saw everything. PLANES HIT THE TOWERS!

[edit on 10/18/2009 by ugie1028]


My friend was there and watched NO Planes go into the building. What do you say to that? That proves no planes went into the building.

Anyone can say anything, and disinfo agents do. Just because someone claims to have been there and watched it. Those are the people I distrust the most.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Anyone who takes the trouble to look at eyewitness testamonials on the tower hits will realize that there are substantial differences between the accounts given by eyewitnesses. I believe personally that, while only a handful of people actually saw the first hit, very few people actually saw the second aircraft in the sky prior to the South Tower hit.

People were watching the North Tower after it had been hit. Most of these people were to the north of that tower. The plane that hit the south tower came in from the south, behind the buildings relative to most observers. Most of the thousands watching the scene would only have seen the fireball after the second hit and would not have seen the aircraft.

I am not a no planer, but I have trouble believing that planes banking as they slam into a wall made of steel beams and concrete and steel floor pans can enter these buildings with no sign of stress fractures appearing on their thin skins or of buckling or damage cause by twisting or torsion in the tail sections. These planes did not strike perfectly on their axes of symmetry!

Then there are the pilots and aircraft engineering people who say that the planes can't fly as fast as quoted, at the altitude given. That's a whole other story.

Remember the lady in Brooklyn? "That is not an american airline. That is not an american airline!" There is a lot of doubt out there and a lot of certainty as well. But I have to admit, this particular part of the 9/11 story has been spinning its wheels for quite a while now.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by nwodeath
 


Do You Trust Simon Shack

If so. WHY????

I don't under stand how any one could trust him. The guy is one lie after another.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
What and interesting video. At first it is compelling, but then I realized that to get the CNN footage of the plane going in, one would have to he on top of something taller than ground level to be able to see over the trees like that. If indeed the footage if real, then you have to wonder just where and on what the camera man stood on.

Chrono



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
People were watching the North Tower after it had been hit. Most of these people were to the north of that tower.

I'd love to see the evidence you used to come to that conclusion. Manhattan is pretty big, as well as all of NYC. The smoke was traveling to the southeast. Are you trying to say that all the hundreds of thousands of people on the south side didn't see the smoke that was traveling in that direction and therefore didn't see the second plane? There are plenty of videos from the south side with plenty of witnesses in those videos.

But I believe you're just making that part up and that it's only your opinion and you have zero evidence to back it up. Please make clear next time that it is your opinion that you think there were only a few people on the south side that saw the second plane, despite the south side videos and smoke traveling southeast.



Originally posted by ipsedixit
I have trouble believing that planes banking as they slam into a wall made of steel beams and concrete and steel floor pans can enter these buildings with no sign of stress fractures appearing on their thin skins

I've already explained it above, but every time I post the info, people just ignore it. I'll post it again:

The plane did not penetrate or otherwise cut the outer steel columns. The only parts of the plane that could have cut or severely damaged the outer columns or even the core columns would have been the engines and landing gear. Let's take a look at how the columns were assembled:


The outer columns were assembled in sets at the factory. A set consisted of three columns wide by three storeys high welded together by three spandrel plates and then assembled onto the building in a staggered formation:




The columns were then bolted together on the building:





You can look at any photo of the holes and see that bolts and welds are broke and that no column was severed. If you honestly think that a 300,000 pound object traveling circa 500mph can't break some bolts and welds, then you've got serious issues to attend to.

Real research would've educated you on this fact so that we wouldn't have to constantly see the "no aluminum plane can penetrate steel" disinfo BS. The planes didn't penetrate the steel, they penetrated the bolts and welds.

Take a fishing pole, for instance. With a good, expensive fishing pole, you can reel in some pretty heavy fish. Take that same fishing pole, cut it into three pieces, then glue and tape it back together. Do you think that pole will have anywhere near the strength that it did before? No, it will break at the connectors just as the outer columns broke at the connectors at the WTC.

Had the columns been continuous from top to bottom, the planes likely would've bounced off and caused some bowing. But the columns were connected by mere bolts and welds. No match for a 300,000 pound object traveling at 500mph.

As far as the concrete goes, it was a light mix, also called an aggregate. You could take a 10-pound sledge hammer to it and break it up. Why do you think a 300,000 pound plane traveling at 500mph would have a problem?

As far as the floor trusses are concerned, they were very light and very thin. They would've crumpled like a soda can to a train:



Remember, 300,000 pound object traveling at 500mph. The floor trusses and the bolts/welds on the outer columns were no match for something that heavy and fast slamming into them. I don't understand why this is so hard to comprehend.



Originally posted by ipsedixit
Then there are the pilots and aircraft engineering people who say that the planes can't fly as fast as quoted, at the altitude given. That's a whole other story.

Nah, that's a BS story fed to gullible people. This is one of the reasons why the no-plane disinfo artists are called as such. They omit certain information and then feed it to people such as yourself and then you're gullible enough to accept that information because it's from "professional pilots and engineering people" without even questioning it.

Yes, it's true that a 767 cannot take off, ascend to 1000 feet and obtain 500mph. The engines are not strong enough to obtain that speed at that low of an altitude. Now this is where the no-plane disinfo artists omit the real information: The planes didn't take off and reach 1000 feet. They were coming down from a higher altitude. You don't even need engines to reach 400mph or 500mph when you're coming down from altitude because you have gravity accellerating the plane at this point.

If you've watched the videos of the second impact, the plane is coming down from altitude and only levels out in the last few seconds just before impact which was not enough time to considerably bleed off the high airspeed from descending:






Originally posted by ipsedixit
Remember the lady in Brooklyn? "That is not an american airline. That is not an american airline!"

She was right, it wasn't American Airlines, it was United Airlines. Here's the video you're referring to:

www.vidilife.com...



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I'm just popping in to ask: Has anyone figured anything out about the OP?

I've seen similar things before and could never really figure out what I was looking at.

I see the usual "skeptics" taking the opportunity to once again reinforce their beliefs with 10 pounds of fertilizer, which is why I don't even feel like reading through 3 pages of responses to see if anyone had an answer. I see pictures of structural members and all the usual signs of topic diversion.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Simple answer: different camera angles/heights.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 





I just explained how the planes easily melted into the buildings just a few posts above


Great. Now explain to me how they did it thru the glass covering the building with no shattering....



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join